Police shoot 13 year old carrying fake rifle.

an update on this. he was struck seven times. and people are marching to demand answers. they only gave him 10 seconds? the kid was most likely confused and scared! "what! why are they yelling at me? i am not doing anything wrong!"

www.pressdemocrat.com...

sheriff promises an open and transparent investigation.

www.pressdemocrat.com...

I'd suggest that case law applies here, it is also very interesting that thoes who claim LEO status don't link to this...

However, the mere fact alone that a person possesses a deadly weapons does not justify the used of deadly force. (Harris v. Roderick (9th Cir. 1997) 126 F.3rd 1189, 1202.)

See also Curnow v. Ridgecrest Police (9th Cir. 1991) 952 F.2nd 321, 324-325; holding that deadly force was unreasonable where the suspect possessed a gun but was not pointing it at the officers and was not facing the officers when they shot.
Source: www.legalupdateonline.com...

So Harris v. Roderick establishes that "possession" of an actual (real) deadly weapon does NOT JUSTIFY the use of deadly force.

And Curnow v. Ridgecrest would seem to establish that BOTH POINTING AND FACING the officers are required. Here the officers acknowledge that the child was only bringing the gun up, and was turning in their direction, and the fact that the child was shot in the right buttocks suggest the child was NOT facing the officers... That he was shot from behind.

reply to post by elysiumfire


Unless WMDs are used we have them .run the numbers.
I'm happy to finally speak with some one who may indeed know what "UFO" was,I loved that show .
I am in no way deluded regarding our 2nd amendment and I try not to stick my guns in peoples faces because they will not intrude into mine.

I grew up with firearms,I know them well.Being in the army taught me how the army fights. Rules regs and political ROEs.If the govt sends such a group into detroit they will have a whole lot of quiet and missing equipment then relatives of the offending politicians will no doubt begin to disappear.Obama would have to rule from a bunker.
Progressives only embarrass themselves when they run a fight by their rules .Witness the epic OBAMACARE and you surely see what I mean.
The reason he hasn't been shot is because essentially a professional wouldn't do it to the POTUS without a DAMN good reason,BUT THEY CAN DO IT. The secret service cannot protect him from an expert with a .50 cal. It would certainly mean captured or killed.
I would hate that extremely.Unlike my opposites who call for death commonly I wouldn't like it.
You see I am happy doing my art and living my life.Some people just aren't happy with leaving what is alone so they push with policies scary stories and now we have a little boy's body to show for it.
This act has zip to do with enforcement or me.It's nothing but a PSYOP to manipulate FEAR. I learned about that in the army as well. Do you have buddies in the SAS,I have a few in special forces.Of course to all my ex army bros I am indeed weird but they sure as hell don't lie(lying would emply fear) I trust my own over the news and the man on the street,definately BBC included.
My psychiatrist also has clearly confirmed I show no dimensia. And if to you what I have said seems off that would be because you hail from a caste system of control. We are rebels at heart,complacent by the false beliefs we had in the 50s through the 90s now we see them for what they have done and they are sweating it out.

reply to post by OneManArmy

Can you show me in that law where it states that punishment for the crime of openly carrying a toy is an offence that carries the punishment of summary execution on the spot, with bullets in the back.

I wait patiently.

And also show me a law that states openly carrying a real firearm is punishable by summary execution by bullets to the back.
The last I knew, cops being judge, jury and executioner existed only in the realms of Judge Dread.

I would love to continue debating this...but you're pulling things from thin air in profound examples of hyperbole to stoke emotions. That's just not workable and leaves nowhere to go with it.

Can I show you a law where ..what? Cops can shoot someone in the back for ..well, anything? Not really.... We can get into the technical engagement guidelines departments have for firing on a fleeing felon, depending on the felony witnessed by the Officer making the call ...but that doesn't apply here.

It doesn't apply any more than suggesting anything was a summary execution, murder or deliberate killing of a child with disregard to law or circumstance.

If it comes out that these cops screwed up, I'll be as vocal against as I am currently about waiting to see all the information, while leaning in support of them. I am just as hard AGAINST cops at times as I can be supporting them, as my thread and posting history stands clear on. It is a case by case thing though, and in this case, I don't think I have near enough information to what happened to make a call either way.

I'm shocked by how many, through assumption of facts no one has, can make such a call with such absolute terms.

blackthorne
sheriff promises an open and transparent investigation.

Well, there's only one way you're going to come close to that. The first step is to send IA home. Second, don't let the local guy do an autopsy. Third, put the sheriff's office and local PD out of the loop. Send in the feds to take any evidence away from them. Put the cops in the state slam as material witnesses - don't let them talk to each other or their buddies. And let the feds do the investigation. Bump the thing past the local prosecution so they can't handwave it and refuse to prosecute.

THEN you at least MIGHT get an answer. Give them enough time, though, and the police union guys will run in and intimidate the prosecutor, the witnesses and the coroner, and any evidence you've got will vamoose just before the local prosecutor refuses to bring the thing to a grand jury.

Xcathdra

JayinAR
No, but they are responsible for their own.

As is the kid,

JayinAR
In my story, if the cop had pointed his weapon at me, I would have shot him. Simple as that.

Speaking of trigger happy... You do see the double standard you just made right?

JayinAR
In this story, the cops fired APPARENTLY without any threat of bodily harm to themselves.

Wrong.. You nor I get to decide if an officer perceives a threat or not. That falls to the officer and the subsequent inquiries.

Again you are ignoring the fact the kid had a weapon. While we can go back and forth, people have to accept the fact that we dont know what the weapons look like. To base your argument off of the no threat opinion does not hold up.

JayinAR
They skipped a couple of steps in the "use of force continuum".

And? Contrarty to popular belief and officer is not required to start at the bottom and work their way up. Confronting a person who is holding what looked like a real gun allows law enforcement to jump steps. We do not have to start at any particular "level".

Steps (in general)
* - Physical presence
* - Verbal Commands
* - Empty Hand
* - Intermediate weapons
* - Lethal force

Lets compare now -
Physical presence - Officers in a marked patrol unit while wearing offical uniforms - check

Verbal Commands - They gave multiple commands to drop the weapon - check.

Empty hand - Not applicable due to the weapon.
Intermediate - Not applicable due to the weapon.
Lethal force - Failure to drop the weapon = threat.

JayinAR
You don't go around shooting people like freakin' John Wayne simply because they aren't listening to you. Jesus!

Actually when a person is armed and refuses to put a weapon down, they are the ones responsible for the situation and aftermath.

I guess we could make the counter argument that the kid was john wayne'ing it when he failed to comply.

So yes the police used their force continuum correctly.

REsearch info for those who want to learn -

Reasonableness Standard[edit]The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, (1989), held that when engaged in situations where the use of force is necessary to effect an arrest, or to protect an officer's life or that of another, a law enforcement officer must act as other reasonable officers would have acted in a similar, tense, rapidly evolving situation.

These deputies did not have the luxery of reading a news story, nor the luxery of knowing if the guns are real or not. When its not discerable, its considered a weapon.

Is this a horrific siuation? Absolutely
Could it have been prevented? Absolutely

All that was needed was for the kid to put the weapon down.

I agree 100% with you state. We as a society need to step it up and be held accountable for our actions regardless of age. Instead all I hear are excuses for the victim. He was only 13 years old, it was a pellet gun, blah blah blah. Put yourself in the shoes off a police officer just one day and your opinion will change. Like the above stated this could've been handled differently and I wish a young kid did not lose his life.

HawkeyeNation Put yourself in the shoes off a police officer just one day and your opinion will change. Like the above stated this could've been handled differently and I wish a young kid did not lose his life.

You can pretty much guarantee if you drive up behind someone and shout at them, they'll turn around. And it doesn't matter so much what you shout. It's a socially conditioned response. You are going to look first and think about what was said second. ESPECIALLY if you aren't "up to something" to begin with.

If the cops were so stupid they didn't see that would happen as a result, they don't deserve to be cops. And they ought to face a manslaughter charge.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

Can you show me in that law where it states that punishment for the crime of openly carrying a toy is an offence that carries the punishment of summary execution on the spot, with bullets in the back.

I wait patiently.

And also show me a law that states openly carrying a real firearm is punishable by summary execution by bullets to the back.
The last I knew, cops being judge, jury and executioner existed only in the realms of Judge Dread.

I would love to continue debating this...but you're pulling things from thin air in profound examples of hyperbole to stoke emotions. That's just not workable and leaves nowhere to go with it.

Can I show you a law where ..what? Cops can shoot someone in the back for ..well, anything? Not really.... We can get into the technical engagement guidelines departments have for firing on a fleeing felon, depending on the felony witnessed by the Officer making the call ...but that doesn't apply here.

It doesn't apply any more than suggesting anything was a summary execution, murder or deliberate killing of a child with disregard to law or circumstance.

If it comes out that these cops screwed up, I'll be as vocal against as I am currently about waiting to see all the information, while leaning in support of them. I am just as hard AGAINST cops at times as I can be supporting them, as my thread and posting history stands clear on. It is a case by case thing though, and in this case, I don't think I have near enough information to what happened to make a call either way.

I'm shocked by how many, through assumption of facts no one has, can make such a call with such absolute terms.

I already got the impression you were playing a sort of devils advocate role in regards to this.
But some of the people(not yourself) saying the facts are not clear and we should wait for the facts are also quick to say that the boy refused to put the weapon down, when the only source of that comes from the guy guilty of killing him and his partner. I detect more double standards. This is not aimed at you.

I directed my last post at you fully knowing that summary execution has no place in any US law with regards to a police officers duty. It is the role of judges and juries to commit a person for execution. I may have been mistaken with regards to the legality of playing with a toy gun and thank you for clearing that up. But he still didnt deserve to die. But I still think the boys killing is indefensible, and any attempt at defending it is pretty deplorable given the evidence that has come to light. Just my opinion, Im not even american, but from the outside looking in, I feel your countries pain in an altruistic fashion. And I know that although my own countries gun laws are a completely different thing, the attitude of police officers towards the public gets more and more contemptuous as each day passes. Frankly we arent too far behind.

Bedlam


You can pretty much guarantee if you drive up behind someone and shout at them, they'll turn around. And it doesn't matter so much what you shout. It's a socially conditioned response. You are going to look first and think about what was said second. ESPECIALLY if you aren't "up to something" to begin with.

Even if you are wearing headphones and listening to music?

Or maybe if they are deaf?

I recall a case from a couple years ago that a deaf guy was shot and killed because he failed to respond to police authority. I will see if I can dig up a link to the story.

Deaf man shot by police

Heres another with video...



Oh look another one...

Deaf man tasered and killed by police

I say there is a problem with their operating procedure.

A man I know recently was approved for a Concealed Weapon Permit. He was showing it to me (since I hadn't seen one before) and I asked him why he felt the need to carry a concealed weapon. He answered " So I can defend myself when the Police start shooting at me for no reason."

LEO's need to listen up. The populace is getting terrorized by the actions of these "few bad apples". If it continues to get worse the populace will eventually resort to "neutralizing the threat" whenever an leo shows up. Police in this country are in danger of being seen as just another gang by those they are supposedly protecting. That never ends well when looking at history.

p.s. I am not saying the officers in this story are bad apples. I will wait till more evidence comes out to make any judgments about that. I find the speed at which shots were fired disturbing, though.

why would any "kid" be carrying around at 3:15 pm, an exact replica of an AK in the first place???...to parents, demand that your kid never carry a gun out in public openly displayed, you WILL BE STOPPED, and you WILL BE IN DANGER OF BEING SHOT by police...friggin' morons, no common sense, this is 100% the fault of the parents...hey, maybe next time some parent will let their "kid" wear a fake suicide vest out in public, with fake satchels of explosives and wires coming out of it...that would be fun right??...again, friggin morons

jimmyx
why would any "kid" be carrying around at 3:15 pm, an exact replica of an AK in the first place???...to parents, demand that your kid never carry a gun out in public openly displayed, you WILL BE STOPPED, and you WILL BE IN DANGER OF BEING SHOT by police...friggin' morons, no common sense, this is 100% the fault of the parents...hey, maybe next time some parent will let their "kid" wear a fake suicide vest out in public, with fake satchels of explosives and wires coming out of it...that would be fun right??...again, friggin morons

Ive heard it all now, now its the parents fault. SMH.

OneManArmy

jimmyx
why would any "kid" be carrying around at 3:15 pm, an exact replica of an AK in the first place???...to parents, demand that your kid never carry a gun out in public openly displayed, you WILL BE STOPPED, and you WILL BE IN DANGER OF BEING SHOT by police...friggin' morons, no common sense, this is 100% the fault of the parents...hey, maybe next time some parent will let their "kid" wear a fake suicide vest out in public, with fake satchels of explosives and wires coming out of it...that would be fun right??...again, friggin morons

Ive heard it all now, now its the parents fault. SMH.

did you see the picture of the gun?...looks real to me...exact same color of the barrel and the stock, same shape, same size...have you heard about any school shootings recently?? tell me...how did they end? how many boys his age have you seen, openly carrying in the middle of the afternoon, an exact replica of an AK down the street? what would you think if you saw this guy walking right past your house with one of these, as your own kids were out front...would you just smile at him and say howdy?

reply to post by Bedlam

You can pretty much guarantee if you drive up behind someone and shout at them, they'll turn around. And it doesn't matter so much what you shout. It's a socially conditioned response. You are going to look first and think about what was said second. ESPECIALLY if you aren't "up to something" to begin with.

I've tried to point out the same idea. I don't think many people are catching on to the fact that it is the natural reaction. I really believe that played a big part in it if he did turn toward the officers.

As far as the investigation, you can bet there is a major thinking session going on. How are we going to fix this one...

jimmyx
why would any "kid" be carrying around at 3:15 pm, an exact replica of an AK in the first place???...

To begin with it is clearly NOT an exact replica, I can see that and I'm not in Law enforcement. The officer in question we are informed is very familiar with these weapons. The issue here is he saw what he thought might have been a weapon from behind. And apparently he shot the child from behind as well at least once, as the child was shot in the right buttocks once. He shot before he even knew what he was shooting at, cause we are also told that he assume he was shooting at an adult an not a child.

The office certainly appears to have made some significant assumptions, and those assumptions proved to be wrong. Those assumptions directly lead to the killing of a child. The actions of law enforcement officers must be reasonable, in this case I suggest they are far from reasonable. I suggest that if it had been George Zimmerman he would be back in jail, not home in bed. Being a member of law enforcement doesn't make one above the law! As much as some in law enforcement would like to pretend that it does! Being an officer doesn't yet invest in you the powers of judge and jury. You don't have an Inherent right to summarily execute anyone you fear.

jimmyx

OneManArmy

jimmyx
why would any "kid" be carrying around at 3:15 pm, an exact replica of an AK in the first place???...to parents, demand that your kid never carry a gun out in public openly displayed, you WILL BE STOPPED, and you WILL BE IN DANGER OF BEING SHOT by police...friggin' morons, no common sense, this is 100% the fault of the parents...hey, maybe next time some parent will let their "kid" wear a fake suicide vest out in public, with fake satchels of explosives and wires coming out of it...that would be fun right??...again, friggin morons

Ive heard it all now, now its the parents fault. SMH.

did you see the picture of the gun?...looks real to me...exact same color of the barrel and the stock, same shape, same size...have you heard about any school shootings recently?? tell me...how did they end? how many boys his age have you seen, openly carrying in the middle of the afternoon, an exact replica of an AK down the street? what would you think if you saw this guy walking right past your house with one of these, as your own kids were out front...would you just smile at him and say howdy?

edit on 25-10-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

It wouldnt be a replica if it didnt look like the real thing.
I would have challenged him on what the hell he thought he was doing with what looked like an assault rifle?
Sure I would have had my guns sights trained on him, I would have at least given him a chance to respond, and if he responded aggressively(turning around does not constitute aggression) I would have shot to maim, I wouldnt have unleashed my clip into his back.
But hey its the parents fault right?

Dav1d


The office certainly appears to have made some significant assumptions, and those assumptions proved to be wrong. Those assumptions directly lead to the killing of a child. The actions of law enforcement officers must be reasonable, in this case I suggest they are far from reasonable. I suggest that if it had been George Zimmerman he would be back in jail, not home in bed. Being a member of law enforcement doesn't make one above the law! As much as some in law enforcement would like to pretend that it does! Being an officer doesn't yet invest in you the powers of judge and jury. You don't have an Inherent right to summarily execute anyone you fear.

Sums it up right about exactly, I dont need to have been there to see this fact.
The boys death is all the proof I need.

reply to post by jimmyx


maybe the kid was just going to a friend's, or coming back from a friend's house where they were going to shoot at targets? you, know, having fun like normal boys that age usually do?

ten seconds? "drop the weapon! drop the weapon!"

kid is thinking- "huh? what? is that me they are yelling at? i am not doing anything wrong at all! this is a pellet gun!" kid turns to see who is yelling at him and see what is going on. that is ten seconds. while i see and understand the cops position, the cop who fired was way to trigger happy.

OneManArmy

jimmyx

OneManArmy

jimmyx
why would any "kid" be carrying around at 3:15 pm, an exact replica of an AK in the first place???...to parents, demand that your kid never carry a gun out in public openly displayed, you WILL BE STOPPED, and you WILL BE IN DANGER OF BEING SHOT by police...friggin' morons, no common sense, this is 100% the fault of the parents...hey, maybe next time some parent will let their "kid" wear a fake suicide vest out in public, with fake satchels of explosives and wires coming out of it...that would be fun right??...again, friggin morons

Ive heard it all now, now its the parents fault. SMH.

did you see the picture of the gun?...looks real to me...exact same color of the barrel and the stock, same shape, same size...have you heard about any school shootings recently?? tell me...how did they end? how many boys his age have you seen, openly carrying in the middle of the afternoon, an exact replica of an AK down the street? what would you think if you saw this guy walking right past your house with one of these, as your own kids were out front...would you just smile at him and say howdy?

edit on 25-10-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

It wouldnt be a replica if it didnt look like the real thing.

I would have challenged him on what the hell he thought he was doing with what looked like an assault rifle?
Sure I would have had my guns sights trained on him, I would have at least given him a chance to respond, and if he responded aggressively I would have shot to maim, I wouldnt have unleashed my clip into his back.
But hey its the parents fault right?

he was ordered to drop the rifle, he didn't, that WAS his chance to respond. this isn't no TV cop show, there is no running dialog scripted out, to carry on some type of conversation, this is real life, crap happens in milliseconds. a cop that sees someone carrying a rife in public, has to assume his own life is in danger, and maybe other people in this area. the kid got one chance...."DROP THE RIFLE"... he didn't, now he's dead

OneManArmy

Dav1d


The office certainly appears to have made some significant assumptions, and those assumptions proved to be wrong. Those assumptions directly lead to the killing of a child. The actions of law enforcement officers must be reasonable, in this case I suggest they are far from reasonable. I suggest that if it had been George Zimmerman he would be back in jail, not home in bed. Being a member of law enforcement doesn't make one above the law! As much as some in law enforcement would like to pretend that it does! Being an officer doesn't yet invest in you the powers of judge and jury. You don't have an Inherent right to summarily execute anyone you fear.

Sums it up right about exactly, I dont need to have been there to see this fact.
The boys death is all the proof I need.

Once you reach this point the next question becomes as an officer, is he responsible for his assumptions? Or as an officer and as a society do we give our officers a get out of jail free card? Do we make those with power over us responsible for their actions?