MacIver wrote:

Stupid, irrelevant, ignorant of reality - not surprised, but once again disappointed.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:It looks like they opened the car door and shot.

No, it doesn't. It looks like the cop on the right side of the car opened the car door and got out, the kid reached for his waistband, and the cop fired while retreating, falling backwards on his ass while trying to get around the back end of the car - fully supportive of the original narrative that they thought he was drawing a real gun, that appeared to be a move to cover anticipating incoming fire. This wasn't simply killing the kid for non-compliance, and wasn't a pointless reaction to innocuous actions.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Note that Ohio is an open carry state. It is legal to carry a gun openly.

Not for a 12 year old. Brandishing a weapon and pointing it at people in a menacing or threatening way I'm fairly certain would be illegal, even without looking at the law myself.

The police did not see him menacing anyone and they thought he was an adult. You are not presenting an understanding of law.

Just like the guy in the walmart, they rolled in and shoot at first sight. This is a problem.

The fuck they did. This is very different from the person at Wal-mart - to whom no verbal commands were issued and who made no physical movements of his own. This kid was ordered to raise his hands and responded by attempting to draw his (replica) gun.

Once again - or perhaps "as always" - your narrative is at odds with facts and reality.

Weaver wrote:And deadly force was not used simply because the kid had (what appeared to be) a gun - it was employed because he reached for it in a manner consistent with a draw stroke after being ordered to raise his hands.

When was that, because the guy was shooting as he was getting out of the car. Hell, he was soo desperate to shoot he didn't even get his feet under him and fell over.

Having seen both videos, I can now say definitively that the police acted properly.

If I was a concealed-carrying citizen who was confronted by that kid pointing the (replica) gun at me, I would have shot him.
If I was in that patrol car, I would have acted just as the officer did - ordered hands up, started out of the car, then on seeing the attempted draw stroke of a (a very realistic replica) gun I would have opened fire and moved to cover - hopefully not falling on my ass, but stuff happens.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

Weaver wrote:And deadly force was not used simply because the kid had (what appeared to be) a gun - it was employed because he reached for it in a manner consistent with a draw stroke after being ordered to raise his hands.

When was that, because the guy was shooting as he was getting out of the car. Hell, he was soo desperate to shoot he didn't even get his feet under him and fell over.

You really have a problem changing your incorrect narrative when it's contradicted by reality, don't you?

He fired after exiting, while starting to move back from a perceived lethal threat. He fell only after firing - at the rear end of the car, long after he'd exited and fired by the rear door.

Its funny (not really) how people who have military or police training almost universally justify the shootings (just my observation.) On the other hand, community outreach workers, therapists, youth workers, and many others interact with these kids without anyone being shot. There is something wrong in the training that causes an overreaction to a perceived threat. Other people who put themselves at more risk than the police are able to survive without being killed, yet the police think they are in a life and death situation more often than they should.

It is right there in the video, he is getting out of the car and shooting all in one motion.

Willie71 wrote:Its funny (not really) how people who have military or police training almost universally justify the shootings (just my observation.)

Except for all the ones who do not, such as me in this and many other threads.

On the other hand, community outreach workers, therapists, youth workers, and many others interact with these kids without anyone being shot.

Because when someone in the public sees someone with a gun, they call the police to deal with it, not a community outreach worker.

There is something wrong in the training that causes an overreaction to a perceived threat

That may be - but it is not at all evident in this case, where the perceived threat was justified use of deadly force - because there was simply no time to react otherwise.

Other people who put themselves at more risk than the police are able to survive without being killed,

At MORE risk? How is that? Simply being in the presence of these kids is supposedly a really high risk, higher than when they are actively shooting or pointing guns at people?

yet the police think they are in a life and death situation more often than they should.

Again, this is perhaps the case, but it is not evident from this case.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:It is right there in the video, he is getting out of the car and shooting all in one motion.

No. He exits the car, moves toward the rear, then the kid starts to fall, then the cop retreats further, tripping by the rear bumper. The shots were fired by the back of the rear door.

lol @ claiming he was shooting after the kid fell.

What, was he shooting at a prone target?

No, the kid fell from being shot. The shot occurred *as* the guy was exiting the car. It was a shoot on sight. There was no time for instructions, much less time to comprehend and follow instructions.

Next time some kid with an AR starts shooting up a school we'll just call the community outreach youth worker. I'm sure that will work out better than fascist oppressor cops just looking for someone to shoot. Kill any kids today officer? Day ain't over yet.

/sarcasm, just in case it wasn't blindingly obvious.

All I see in the video is the police pulling up way too fucking close. The door opens and the cop shoots all in less than a couple of seconds. Why didn't they pull up further away and how tall is this "20 year old male" are they fucking stupid? Had this been in the UK or any other country, the kid would most likely be alive today. In the US, because of the problem with guns and what is seemingly more common, police who don't give a shit about black citizens (or white ones at that), plus I believe people in the US are trigger happy, so it all culminates to tragedies such as this but yes, we can all blame the child for getting killed - that gets us a long way.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Note that Ohio is an open carry state. It is legal to carry a gun openly.

Legal to carry =/= legal to point it at people.

Spearthrower wrote:

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Note that Ohio is an open carry state. It is legal to carry a gun openly.

Legal to carry =/= legal to point it at people.

Quite. Virginia is an open carry state as well, but if a man were to place his hand on his gun that single gesture can be constituted as a threat. In the line of duty for a police officer a man were to place his hand on his gun when discussing events with an officer that can also be seen as a threat. All it takes is less than a second of a draw and pulling of the trigger (as Weaver said correctly up thread). Treat every gun as loaded. Best bets if there is a cop around is to place your gun in its holster or on the ground.

Nevertheless you do wonder how this would have played out in the States?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/armed-police-storm-bus-after-claims-passenger-seen-holding-gun-9886268.html

What I see looking at the video is a kid without time to think what he is supposed to do being shot. I suppose the police wanted to get in close so that there was little danger of missing their target, and to ensure he did not run off and end up with a running gun battle. But when dealing with those who mean you no harm, this aggressive approach increases the likelihood of an inappropriate response that will 'justify' legal homocide.

I see nothing in the videos that changes my mind about this.

Also, a taser is not an appropriate use of force option when confronting a threat of death or grievous bodily harm, which is exactly what this.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

Griz_ wrote:
No, I think a lot of people see a monster.

I hope you are not referring to me.

I give great respect to police, it is an honorable profession.

The only concern is how as a society we want the relationship.

No, not at all. We disagree (see below) but I do not believe that you view law enforcement that way.

Griz_ wrote:If I'm out shooting or hunting or in a place where a firearm is normal, I do not fear it. If a stranger walks onto my property with a firearm, I'm watching his body language and I may or not fear him. If I'm walking down the street and a guy has a holstered pistol, I don't fear him. But if he's looking me in the eye and draws it as I approach him - yeah, I'm concerned. Is this any different than you? Really?

If you responded to this I missed it. These questions really get to the meat of where I think you and I disagree; the perception of a potential threat. The officer perceived a lethal threat and he responded. There really is no argument to be made that the officer did not use the proper option (his pistol) in responding to the threat. Where we (and some others) differ I think is that you believe that the officer's risk assessment was flawed or that he acted too quickly. I see no evidence of that and lacking evidence to the contrary I trust the judgement of a highly trained professional who was actually there and responding in real time.

I do not expect a police officer to wait until the firearm is actually pointed at him before he responds.

Spearthrower wrote:

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Note that Ohio is an open carry state. It is legal to carry a gun openly.

Legal to carry =/= legal to point it at people.

The police did not see him point his pellet gun at anyone, and even if they were able to make a case that he was, it is not an execution on sight offense.

You are ignoring our basic societal legal structure.

Griz_ wrote:[size=150]Which is the real gun? You have 5 seconds

Doesn't matter because he did not point the gun at the police.