Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Spearthrower · **#181** by **Spearthrower** » Nov 28, 2014 4:40 am

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Griz_ wrote:

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

This is problematic. Camel's nose and all that.

No, it's perfectly reasonable.

You can't seriously expect police officers to wait until a gun is trained on them before firing - the act of reaching for a weapon is more than adequate cause for response.

This isn't cowboy land. They're not facing off down a dusty street - fastest draw wins.

Spearthrower · **#182** by **Spearthrower** » Nov 28, 2014 4:42 am

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Griz_ wrote:The officer perceived a lethal threat and he responded.

I don't think we really want a society in which armed government agents have the right to kill based upon a perceived lethal threat.

Then you don't want to live in any society, ever.

Crackpot libertarian notions are always self-defeating, because you surely want the right to shoot someone if he's pointing a gun at you.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:We don't want our government agents soo afraid of an armed citizenry that they are shooting just because they see a gun.

Then, given the stupidity of an armed citizenry in the first place, citizens should learn how to conduct themselves in public without threatening people with their armaments.

Other people surely have the right to a) not be threatened in public by people with guns b) expect police officers to protect them from violent criminals.

Spearthrower · **#183** by **Spearthrower** » Nov 28, 2014 4:44 am

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Griz_ wrote:It has been reported that the officer shouted three times for him to raise his hands.

Maybe as and after he was shooting.

The guy jumps out of the car and is shooting all in one motion.

Because the kid was pulling his gun out of his trousers.

laklak · **#184** by **laklak** » Nov 28, 2014 6:06 am

In these United States, for good or ill, if you're wandering around pointing a gun at random people, and the cops roll up on you screeching brakes and leap out with drawn guns, and you do not lie right the fuck down with your hands over your head and stay REAL goddamned still then you're going to be shot dead. That's a fucking axiom.

If there are three cops yelling different commands at you then you better hope to hell whatever you decide to do will satisfy all three of them, because at that point you're a half a split second from dead. Maybe you shouldn't have been wandering around pointing a gun at people, maybe they shouldn't be trigger happy, or maybe God should send down a couple of angels to scoop you up and keep you safe, but none of that matters. Bottom line is you're in a life or death situation, and the only one that can make any difference is you. One wrong move, one bad decision, and somebody is bringing terrible news to your significant other.

I wouldn't find myself in this situation, because I'm not stupid or callow enough to think that that I could get away with what amounts to multiple counts of felony brandishing. Then again I'm not 12 years old. If I were 12 years old I'd hope to hell my parents had enough goddamned sense to keep me from committing multiple counts of felony brandishing. If they are too stupid or too busy or too uninvolved to do that then there's not much any outsider can do other than bemoan the situation.

No matter who's right or wrong or what happens in the future, a 12 year old kid is dead for perfectly avoidable reasons.

orpheus · **#185** by **orpheus** » Nov 28, 2014 6:35 am

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Griz_ wrote:It has been reported that the officer shouted three times for him to raise his hands.

Maybe as and after he was shooting.

The guy jumps out of the car and is shooting all in one motion.

This has been asked several times here, and as far as I can tell, nobody has actually answered it: When did the officer shout - three times - for him to raise his hands?

This is a crucial question, and as far as I can tell, nobody has actually answered it: the police say that the officer shouted three times for the kid to raise his hands. Essentially, that they warned the kid three times; that the kid didn't "follow their command" but instead reached for the gun, etc. But did they actually warn him? It sure as hell looks like Jerome is right: the cop jumps out of the car and commences fire all in one motion. So again, When did the officer shout - three times - for him to raise his hands?

Spearthrower · **#186** by **Spearthrower** » Nov 28, 2014 9:38 am

orpheus wrote:
Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Griz_ wrote:It has been reported that the officer shouted three times for him to raise his hands.

Maybe as and after he was shooting.

The guy jumps out of the car and is shooting all in one motion.

This has been asked several times here, and as far as I can tell, nobody has actually answered it: When did the officer shout - three times - for him to raise his hands?

This is a crucial question, and as far as I can tell, nobody has actually answered it: the police say that the officer shouted three times for the kid to raise his hands. Essentially, that they warned the kid three times; that the kid didn't "follow their command" but instead reached for the gun, etc. But did they actually warn him? It sure as hell looks like Jerome is right: the cop jumps out of the car and commences fire all in one motion. So again, When did the officer shout - three times - for him to raise his hands?

Huh?

Sorry, but how do you go from 'shout' to what it 'looks like'.

Presumably, you can't 'see' what they said.

If you look again at the video, you can see the kid reaches for his gun immediately prior to being shot. The sequence of events is right there on the video - perhaps try going frame by frame.

No one can say what was going through the kid's mind - perhaps he wanted to show them it wasn't a real gun. What can be reasonably determined that was going through the policeman's mind was 'the guy's reaching for his gun'. Given that the policeman had, for all he knew, mere moments to react: it's not complicated to appreciate that he shot the kid before he could be shot.

However, Lak's post above spells it out. If you're going to wander round in public brandishing a weapon, you're asking for trouble. It's just a damn shame that it happened to a kid who probably didn't appreciate the kind of shit he was asking for.

Teague · **#187** by **Teague** » Nov 28, 2014 10:30 am

Pebble wrote: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.

British police officers aren't trigger happy, don't live in a culture of guns, don't have to think that every person around them can be carrying guns, are more restrained and professional in their conduct, don't live in a country where the mere mention of restricting guns after 20 school kids are murdered is to run out and make a record sales of gun purchases.

Teague · **#188** by **Teague** » Nov 28, 2014 10:37 am

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Pebble wrote:Nevertheless you do wonder how this would have played out in the States?

A major problem is people are being denied becoming a police officer based upon scoring too highly on intelligence tests. This is asinine.

Errrr source please?

Teague · **#189** by **Teague** » Nov 28, 2014 10:42 am

purplerat wrote:
Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Griz_ wrote:The officer perceived a lethal threat and he responded.

I don't think we really want a society in which armed government agents have the right to kill based upon a perceived lethal threat.

We don't want our government agents soo afraid of an armed citizenry that they are shooting just because they see a gun.

It seems you're mostly just bothered that it's a government official that shot him.

Let's say it's the same situation. A kid is walking around in public playing with a gun at people and this is reported to another armed citizen who decides to approach that person to see what's going on. As he's approaching this kid who is acting like a kid with a gun in public that person makes a movement towards his gun which can't be reasonably justified as a lethal threat. Does the armed citizen have a right to return with lethal force to protect him self?

FIFY

Teague · **#190** by **Teague** » Nov 28, 2014 10:49 am

orpheus wrote:
Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Griz_ wrote:It has been reported that the officer shouted three times for him to raise his hands.

Maybe as and after he was shooting.

The guy jumps out of the car and is shooting all in one motion.

This has been asked several times here, and as far as I can tell, nobody has actually answered it: When did the officer shout - three times - for him to raise his hands?

This is a crucial question, and as far as I can tell, nobody has actually answered it: the police say that the officer shouted three times for the kid to raise his hands. Essentially, that they warned the kid three times; that the kid didn't "follow their command" but instead reached for the gun, etc. But did they actually warn him? It sure as hell looks like Jerome is right: the cop jumps out of the car and commences fire all in one motion. So again, When did the officer shout - three times - for him to raise his hands?

Well test it out. Play the video and shout clearly, three times (after the door has opened) and then see if there's any time to shoot after. Of course, screeching up next to a child and screaming at him is obviously going to get the exact reaction you want. We also don't know what the officers screamed - was it "show me your hands?" Maybe he slipped up and said "Show me the gun!" Did they actually say ANYTHING at all because I can't see time for any talking since he shot immediately.

If I was that kids dad, that officer would be found dead sooner or later.

Griz_ · **#191** by **Griz_** » Nov 28, 2014 11:57 am

orpheus wrote:
This is a crucial question, and as far as I can tell, nobody has actually answered it: the police say that the officer shouted three times for the kid to raise his hands. Essentially, that they warned the kid three times; that the kid didn't "follow their command" but instead reached for the gun, etc. But did they actually warn him? It sure as hell looks like Jerome is right: the cop jumps out of the car and commences fire all in one motion. So again, When did the officer shout - three times - for him to raise his hands?

Why is it so difficult to imagine that the officer began shouting at him as the car approached and before it stopped?

Teague wrote:
Well test it out. Play the video and shout clearly, three times (after the door has opened) and then see if there's any time to shoot after. Of course, screeching up next to a child and screaming at him is obviously going to get the exact reaction you want. We also don't know what the officers screamed - was it "show me your hands?" Maybe he slipped up and said "Show me the gun!" Did they actually say ANYTHING at all because I can't see time for any talking since he shot immediately.

Why must we wait until the car door opens before performing this experiment? Are you aware the modern automobiles are equipped with a "window" that can be opened allowing sound waves to pass through to the outside?

babel · **#192** by **babel** » Nov 28, 2014 12:02 pm

Griz_ wrote:
orpheus wrote:
This is a crucial question, and as far as I can tell, nobody has actually answered it: the police say that the officer shouted three times for the kid to raise his hands. Essentially, that they warned the kid three times; that the kid didn't "follow their command" but instead reached for the gun, etc. But did they actually warn him? It sure as hell looks like Jerome is right: the cop jumps out of the car and commences fire all in one motion. So again, When did the officer shout - three times - for him to raise his hands?

Why is it so difficult to imagine that the officer began shouting at him as the car approached and before it stopped?

I haven't followed this case at all, but concerning this last part: it could be you didn't quite catch what a person is yelling when that person is in a car approaching you. Sound of engine and wheels grinding to a halt aren't exactly helping to getting the message. No?

Griz_ · **#193** by **Griz_** » Nov 28, 2014 12:11 pm

Tires don't make a lot of noise "grinding to a halt" on grass.

NuclMan · **#194** by **NuclMan** » Nov 28, 2014 12:18 pm

Griz_ wrote:
orpheus wrote:
This is a crucial question, and as far as I can tell, nobody has actually answered it: the police say that the officer shouted three times for the kid to raise his hands. Essentially, that they warned the kid three times; that the kid didn't "follow their command" but instead reached for the gun, etc. But did they actually warn him? It sure as hell looks like Jerome is right: the cop jumps out of the car and commences fire all in one motion. So again, When did the officer shout - three times - for him to raise his hands?

Why is it so difficult to imagine that the officer began shouting at him as the car approached and before it stopped?

Teague wrote:
Well test it out. Play the video and shout clearly, three times (after the door has opened) and then see if there's any time to shoot after. Of course, screeching up next to a child and screaming at him is obviously going to get the exact reaction you want. We also don't know what the officers screamed - was it "show me your hands?" Maybe he slipped up and said "Show me the gun!" Did they actually say ANYTHING at all because I can't see time for any talking since he shot immediately.

Why must we wait until the car door opens before performing this experiment? Are you aware the modern automobiles are equipped with a "window" that can be opened allowing sound waves to pass through to the outside?

It's not difficult to imagine shouting from the car. It's difficult to imagine that it's an effective way to communicate an instruction that could result in death in not complied with.

I'm pretty sure modern police cars are equipped with loudspeakers. So maybe that's how it went down.

babel · **#195** by **babel** » Nov 28, 2014 12:20 pm

Leaves the engine of course, unless it's electrical.
Let's just leave it at: it's easy for the message to be lost or at least hard to understand when shouted from a moving vehicle, window down or not.

Teague · **#196** by **Teague** » Nov 28, 2014 1:55 pm

babel wrote:Leaves the engine of course, unless it's electrical.
Let's just leave it at: it's easy for the message to be lost or at least hard to understand when shouted from a moving vehicle, window down or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L97aihRvZtQ#t=61 (Forum Guys is there a way to make it recognise the YT link with the timestamp added on the end? If "link" contains "youtube" then showvideo)

The cop car comes into frame at 1:03 and at 1:07 the boy is shot. I don't think there's much of an argument to be had that the situation was handled in completely the wrong way and 4 seconds is a ridiculously short amount of time to expect someone you surprise to react the way you want them too, especially a child.

Jerome Da Gnome · **#197** by **Jerome Da Gnome** » Nov 28, 2014 2:31 pm

Teague wrote:
Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Pebble wrote:Nevertheless you do wonder how this would have played out in the States?

A major problem is people are being denied becoming a police officer based upon scoring too highly on intelligence tests. This is asinine.

Errrr source please?

A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.

In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.

Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/09/nyreg ... cores.html

ElDiablo · **#198** by **ElDiablo** » Nov 28, 2014 3:24 pm

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Teague wrote:
Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Pebble wrote:Nevertheless you do wonder how this would have played out in the States?

A major problem is people are being denied becoming a police officer based upon scoring too highly on intelligence tests. This is asinine.

Errrr source please?

A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.

In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.

Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/09/nyreg ... cores.html

And we know that whatever the criteria is in New London, it is also the criteria for every department across the US.

I can understand the discrimination on the part of the police department, people with Bachelor degrees in literature will turn a traffic stop into an epic adventure in their report. "Really Bob?! Just write the facts, no need to create an Illiad from stopping a soccer mom with her tail light out."

Teague · **#199** by **Teague** » Nov 28, 2014 4:31 pm

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Teague wrote:
Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Pebble wrote:Nevertheless you do wonder how this would have played out in the States?

A major problem is people are being denied becoming a police officer based upon scoring too highly on intelligence tests. This is asinine.

Errrr source please?

A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.

In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.

Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/09/nyreg ... cores.html

Oh come on! This is ONE report this isn't a widespread issue and how intelligent are we talking here? Without knowing his IQ at least it's a little hard to say that all police officers are morons who can't think, which is what I think you're inferring.

purplerat · **#200** by **purplerat** » Nov 28, 2014 10:36 pm

babel wrote:
Griz_ wrote:
orpheus wrote:
This is a crucial question, and as far as I can tell, nobody has actually answered it: the police say that the officer shouted three times for the kid to raise his hands. Essentially, that they warned the kid three times; that the kid didn't "follow their command" but instead reached for the gun, etc. But did they actually warn him? It sure as hell looks like Jerome is right: the cop jumps out of the car and commences fire all in one motion. So again, When did the officer shout - three times - for him to raise his hands?

Why is it so difficult to imagine that the officer began shouting at him as the car approached and before it stopped?
I haven't followed this case at all, but concerning this last part: it could be you didn't quite catch what a person is yelling when that person is in a car approaching you. Sound of engine and wheels grinding to a halt aren't exactly helping to getting the message. No?

When that car coming at you making all that noise and commotion is a police vehicle, even if you can't make out the instructions, reaching for your gun is the absolute last thing you should do.

Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Re: Boy, 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops

Who is online