Cleveland cop kills child

a reply to: OrphanApology

So your solution is that LEOs should walk up to somebody, regardless of age, who they just observed putting a weapon in their pants and "Sup?" them. Seems reasonable. Definitely won't lead to any more unnecessary deaths.

a reply to: Shamrock6

People have guns for many reasons and it's not always illegal. There are BB guns, there are toy guns, there are personal firearms(laws vary by state)...so yes. If someone isn't drawing a weapon and pointing it at you then as a police officer your job is to police not to act like a violent Rambo.

Your job is not to pull a gun on someone who is not threatening you in any manner. Now if he saw that the kid already had the gun out and was pointing it people or whatever the case may be, then at that point it is discretionary but that's not what happened here.

Seems to me that kids getting shoot for having play guns is a recent development. Quite a rare occurrence 20 or 30 years ago. The fear build up has worked.

The cops are rightfully worried because what goes around tends to come around.

a reply to: OrphanApology

Ah. So an officer should remain holstered when an individual is reaching for a firearm (toy gun, BB gun, real, doesn't matter here as the officer had no knowledge that it even COULD be a toy gun, let alone was), until the individual has a chance to get their firearm in their hand and start pointing it at people, because then and only then is there a threat. So in a nutshell, once a person has put themselves into a position of being able to start putting rounds into people, THAT is when an officer is justified in finally drawing his weapon, and if the subject manages to get off a few rounds before the officer can draw his firearm and engage, well that's just too bad but at least we're really, really sure the person was going to shoot somebody.

Again, totally reasonable.

a reply to: Shamrock6

According to the story the cop had his weapon drawn and told the kid to put his hands up, then according to him that's when the kid reached for waistband and he shot him dead.

If he hadn't of already had his gun out and pointing at the kid then it wouldn't have happened in the order stated.

The cop saw a kid put a gun in his pants, decided to walk up like Rambo and pull on a gun on the kid instead of approaching the situation calmly like police are supposed to do. Cops pull weapons far too much and for too little reason. There was no direct threat except coming from the cop. This is the fact of the matter. People are not used to having #ing guns pulled on them and having orders barked suddenly. That's why unless there is a obvious and direct threat police are not supposed to do that. It's common sense.

That is if the kid even reached for the gun at all. Until the testimony from the other witnesses comes out, all I see from this point is an overreacting idiot who murdered a 12 year old who wasn't doing anything.

a reply to: Shamrock6

shamrock, some people are never going to get it or they get it and they will intentionally act obtuse about it.

Im normaly the first to bash US cops.......

But the toy gun looked real and the sad fact is young kids do join gangs.

I cant blame the cop on this if he honnestly thought thebkid was drawing a gun.

Its why in the UK toy guns have colour markings to stop accidents like that as no one can tell otherwise until theguns fired.

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: Shamrock6

Or the cop is a dumb ass and can't tell the difference between a child and a person that is dangerous, I mean a kid that's been there for hours while bothering no one looks like a blood thirsty thug with a crazed look in his eyes. I hardly doubt that the child was so detached and full blown sociopath to look like he was absolutely calm before he intended to pull a pistol and crack off a shot. The cop murdered a child because the cop is a mental midget. He is going to be charged I am sure.

I dont know were you live but in london kids as young as 6 have been noted as parts of gangs and the UK not really a "gang" place compred to some places in the UK.

Fact is a 12 year old with a gun is jyst a dangrous as a 20 year old with a gun.

Cant belelive im defending a US cop on this but I am,

a reply to: OrphanApology

Again, we're back to totally reasonable. You find me a police department that teaches its people to respond to calls for service about somebody wielding a gun and pointing it at people (you seem to have left that part of your re-telling of events) and then, once they arrive on scene they physically observe a person putting a gun in their pants, that the appropriate course of action is to stroll on up to the person and ask how their day is going.

As much as you may wish it otherwise, the law is the law, and policies are policies. If you legitimately feel that LEOs should stay holstered until a weapon is pointed at them or others around them, that's your prerogative. Just like it's your perogative to believe whatever you care to about "the official story." But the level of restriction you propose is preposterous at best. Hate cops all you like, but please don't couch it on "common sense" when your best idea is to require officers to stay holstered until somebody they're dealing with can start shooting people.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: network dude

He was a child. Kids aren't even held accountable for their actions by law, but are we to expect a kid this young to have perfect decision making to avoid getting shot? Why do we expect better decision making from a child than from a paid police officer?

The officer was surely wearing a vest, and obviously had his gun drawn since he shot the kid before the kid ever could have pointed the gun at the officer.

Since we are just relying on the police version of events, suppose one of the officers said to drop the gun? In order to do that, the child would have had to reach for the gun, no? They can give conflicting orders, and picking the right one is apparently the only way not to get shot and killed.

Some very excellent points. And here is a related idea:

Was the officer CLEAR in his commands?

Was he speaking, or yelling?

How far away was he, when he gave the command?

Does he have any kind of accent which might make a hastily shouted command harder to understand?


From a lot of the stuff I've seen, cops seem to have a tendency to raise their voices in these situations. Not sure if that's part of their training, or just all the adrenaline. However, sometimes it can be more difficult to discern someone's words, when they are yelling them.

Here's another point: I sometimes have difficulty with quickly processing a comment directed at me. (Maybe its the ADD I'm not medicated for, or maybe that's just how I am.) This becomes even more true if I'm busy, mentally distracted, or stressed out. If I were standing there minding my own business, and then I notice that a cop is moving toward me, gun drawn, and that cop yells something at me... it is not inconceivable to me, that my body might react before my brain had time to process what was said.

And I am in my thirties-- not an adolescent boy.

originally posted by: iwilliam


From a lot of the stuff I've seen, cops seem to have a tendency to raise their voices in these situations.

probably cause if the voice is louder there is a greater chance it will be heard...you think?

people are gonna complain the decible level of the voice was too low/high now??

maybe the cop whispered it in aramaic and the almost deaf kid didnt hear it?

maybe, it went down exactly as reported.....

originally posted by: Grovit
A rookie officer and a 10-15 year veteran pulled into the parking lot and saw a few people sitting underneath a pavilion next to the center. The rookie officer saw a black gun sitting on the table, and he saw the boy pick up the gun and put it in his waistband,
----------------

people sitting at a table with a gun on the table.....far cry from the boys running around playing army.....

That doesn't sound like kids playing, to you? Perhaps not actively. But here's the thing:

1- Real criminals, with real guns don't tend to just sit with them out in the open, on park tables. Sure, there is no shortage of dumb criminals, but 99.9% of criminals are not dumb or bold enough to do this. An illegal gun is a very serious charge. Doubly so for someone who already has a record. Everyone knows this. Especially the gang bangers.

2- Real criminals, with real guns, do not pick them up off the public table (thus taking legal possession) and put them into their waistband, when they see the police arrive. Nothing about that makes sense.

3- IF (and this is a pretty big "if") a real criminal with a real gun did in fact do something so stupid, their only next logical move would be to run, not stick around to confront the police and be caught with an illegal weapon which they just picked up from a public table.


Almost all of this suggests a person who doesn't have anything to hide (or run from.)

a reply to: iwilliam

blah blah blah...
if this...if that...maybe this...maybe that

it should be assumed that all people are smart and logical right?

a reply to: iwilliam

Are you seriously suggesting that a "criminal" isn't going to do anything stupid with a gun because it's a "serious charge?" If it's a criminal, what on earth makes you think he or she cares? These are the same people who post on social media about their guns and drugs, to include posting pictures of same.

They don't care about catching a gun charge, otherwise they wouldn't have the gun in the first place. The only reason they try to avoid jail or prison is because it freaking sucks. It's not remotely out of fear.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

Are you seriously suggesting that a "criminal" isn't going to do anything stupid with a gun because it's a "serious charge?"

of course they wont....
nobody ever gets busted on a weapons charge, does time, and gets busted again...
that ever happens in the real world.....

its not logical to post pics on facebook of them with guns/money/drugs either(like you mention) but it happens all the time...

criminals are nothing if not logical

a reply to: Shamrock6

LEOs aren't trained to shoot to kill. They're trained to shoot to stop. As in stop the threat. Aim for the middle of the biggest target presented. Anybody who suggests shooting the gun out of somebody's hand, shooting an arm, or shooting a leg, or whatever else, simply has no concept of armed conflict.

Most people who believe this crap think that firefights happen just like in the movies.

They have no clue what it is like to actually be in a firefight and they don't care to hear the facts of real life situations.

I don't personally trust cops one iota, with that said if this plays out as it happened I have to go with the cop being correct in his actions.
Sad story for all involved for sure and just imagine the "what if's" after the fact. Nobody involved wanted or was looking for a killing its a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I also question the boys hearing abilities but that has not been mentioned officially at this point. Myself I am legally deaf but I understand body language because I must to get by in life. Perhaps the officer was doing the waving thing .....Palm down to get on the ground and the kid thought he meant put the gun on the ground?
Just a supposition as all posts are on this thread.

On a side note just think about a bad guy .....really bad who would put an orange dot on the end of a real gun? If you were a cop and hesitated your dead.

It was posted already in this thread that yes indeed 12 year olds join gangs, I believe that is correct and all you have to do is Google that and say....Chicago and Bob's your uncle.
Either way everyone involved in this disaster is a loser and many lives have been ruined because of it.

S&F for a sad to read thread.

Regards, Iwinder

The majority of 12 year olds haven't been trained in procedures when confronted by cops in the 21st century police state. Not sure if it applies here but I can see how yelling to a kid and him reacting in a way an older person would not. He most likely didn't realize the danger he was in.

a reply to: projectvxn

Spot on. Were the majority of officers to be disarmed, and had to resort to going hands on with people who were not disarmed, people would still find ways to claim the police were acting improperly.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist


I do know this. This happened on the East side of town which is violence ridden and it is not uncommon for kids to be arrested in connection to armed robberies and other shootings. That's the culture on that side of town.

Actually it happened on the lower west side of town. A rough neighborhood? Yes. East side? No.