Teague wrote:

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

I'm not sure what you think you fixed. A 12 year old playing with a gun in public is a recipe for a corpse. And making a movement towards a gun carried in public is reasonably presumed to be a lethal threat. That's a big part of why I'm not in favor of guns being carried in such a manner. Certainly not by 12 year olds. You seem to have a pretty cavaliers attitude towards guns in public, more so than even the most ardent gun rights/anti-gun control proponents on this site.

purplerat wrote:

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.

Agreed, but I think you're missing the point here. It's the police themselves who are insisting on the importance of their supposed thrice-shouted command and the kid's disobedience. The police are the ones citing this as a major part of the justification for shooting the kid.

orpheus wrote:

purplerat wrote:

babel wrote:

Griz_ wrote:

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.

Agreed, but I think you're missing the point here. It's the police themselves who are insisting on the importance of their supposed thrice-shouted command and the kid's disobedience. The police are the ones citing this as a major part of the justification for shooting the kid.

I guess their point is they didn't catch him by surprise or anything like that. He knew where he was and what he was doing and he must have been aware of the cops as they showed up. It's almost like he went out that day looking to get shot dead one way or another.

There are two themes here, which are interrelated. First it was extremely poor judgement to play with a gun in public. Secondly, the police parked too close, didn't assess the situation properly, and put themselves in a risky position. This could have been handled way better.

Willie71 wrote:There are two themes here, which are interrelated. First it was extremely poor judgement to play with a gun in public. Secondly, the police parked too close, didn't assess the situation properly, and put themselves in a risky position. This could have been handled way better.

It is a good point, but we don't know (obviously) what was happening off the viewpoint of the camera - there might have been lots of people around and they may have been seeking to block the guy off. There's always a major bias in looking at footage taken from one camera as it doesn't tell the whole story.

Willie71 wrote:There are two themes here, which are interrelated. First it was extremely poor judgement to play with a gun in public. Secondly, the police parked too close, didn't assess the situation properly, and put themselves in a risky position. This could have been handled way better.

The first is obviously true. There may be room for debate on the place of guns in public but even then nobody would really argue that playing with a gun like a toy, by a 12 year old no less, is a terrible idea and a tragedy waiting to happen.

The second point however is largely based on speculation and assumption, unless by some chance you were actually there and witnessed this first hand while also somehow knowing exactly what was going through the mind of the cops as well as the kid. But I doubt that is the case. My guess would be that the cops parked so close because this was a public area and this kid was making a point of getting up very close to bystanders and point the gun at them. The cops probably wanted to get in-between the potential shooter and any other civilians to prevent anybody else from getting hurt. That may have unavoidably meant driving up as close as possible before getting out to stop him. The last thing they would want to do is confront him from a distance in an open public area where some innocent bystander could easily walk into the crossfire of a potential shootout.

purplerat wrote:
I guess their point is they didn't catch him by surprise or anything like that. He knew where he was and what he was doing and he must have been aware of the cops as they showed up. It's almost like he went out that day looking to get shot dead one way or another.

When I was a teenager I played with toy guns in the street and you can believe me I was not out to get shot.

When dealing with children or teenagers one should be aware that they have a limited experience with how the world works and you cannot expect the same reactions from an adult. Hell, I'd say the police should also expect unreasonable behaviour from an adult without using deadly force at the first possible moment.

When I was stopped by police for the first time for driving a bit too fast (at age 22 or so), I reached towards the glove box to get the car papers while the police officers were still approaching the car from behind. When they saw that they put their hands at their holsters but nothing more and then later calmly told me why that was a bad idea. But they reacted calmly and reasonably.

When a police officer you have to be aware that most people you meet have very little experience with police and how to behave correctly and why certain actions may be inappropriate. After all, it is the police officer who had several years of training and then several years of work experience not the civilian they meet.

I saw a German documentary on police officer training where the trainees had exactly that lesson: They were told that most people they meet will not see the situation from a police officer point of view but from a civilian point of view, often doing things the police could see as threatening. Additionally, people are often nervous when dealing with the police for the fist time and then also often nervous because of what had happened for the police to show up in the first place.

The police should be trained to handle such situations in a way to certainly look out to protect themselves but also (considering they are the ones with the training) to consider the other persons' point of view.

In the video you see that there are no other people in direct vicinity of the boy and so in immediate danger. Why couldn't the police have halted some distance away from the boy, taken cover behind their car and first communicated with the boy from a safe distance? After all, they certainly have (if necessary) a better aim from a distance with regular shooting practising than a boy in the video holding the gun as the gangsters do on TV.

When I was a kid a 12 year old could walk down the street carrying a .22 and nobody would look twice. Everybody had a .22. There were shooting ranges in many schools. It was certainly a different world.

laklak wrote:When I was a kid a 12 year old could walk down the street carrying a .22 and nobody would look twice. Everybody had a .22. There were shooting ranges in many schools. It was certainly a different world.

Well, a bit different here. Nobody would have thought of carrying a gun. So everyone had to assume it to be a toy in the first place

NineBerry wrote:In the video you see that there are no other people in direct vicinity of the boy and so in immediate danger.

No, you really, really cannot.

There could be thousands of people within a few hundred metres of him to the sides and behind camera and you would not be able to tell from the camera angle.

I am not saying there were, but the old adage of 'the camera never lies' is completely wrong - it should be that the camera always lies because it only represents a tiny field of view.

NineBerry wrote:Why couldn't the police have halted some distance away from the boy, taken cover behind their car and first communicated with the boy from a safe distance?

My guess - and it is a guess just as much as other people are guessing - is that there are more people in the immediate vicinity than you can see on the camera. They got a report about a guy brandishing a gun and they sought to put themselves between the potential threat and the potential victims.

Also, we do not know from the video what happened prior to them pulling up in view. Perhaps they did already call out as they were driving towards him - there's no sound on the video, so no one can say.

NineBerry wrote:After all, they certainly have (if necessary) a better aim from a distance with regular shooting practising than a boy in the video holding the gun as the gangsters do on TV.

As far as the report goes: they didn't know he was a child.

If they couldn't identify him as a boy then they couldn't possibly identify he had a weapon. Either the police in this case is completely incompetent or (what is my guess) follows a completely wrong strategy . I want a police that uses weapons only at the very last possibility and will use any other means first even if that means putting themselves at some risk.

So, this is what the police says:

[0:25]

"The officers ordered the young man to drop the weapon. The young man had a weapon in his waistband. He pulled the weapon out. One of our officers fired two shots. "

So, they told the boy to drop the weapon. The weapon was in the waistband. So the boy followed the orders and grabbed for the weapon in order to drop it. ....

NineBerry wrote:So, this is what the police says:

"The officers ordered the young man to drop the weapon. The young man had a weapon in his waistband. He pulled the weapon out. One of our officers fired two shots. "

So, they told the boy to drop the weapon. The weapon was in the waistband. So the boy followed the orders and grabbed for the weapon in order to drop it. ....

"When an officer gives a command, we expect it to be followed".

That is usually how it goes. The police are the enforcers of law.

Briton wrote:

"When an officer gives a command, we expect it to be followed".

The difference between a compliance officer and a community peace officer.

I would really like to see the dashcam video.

NineBerry wrote:So, this is what the police says:

[0:25]

"The officers ordered the young man to drop the weapon. The young man had a weapon in his waistband. He pulled the weapon out. One of our officers fired two shots. "

So, they told the boy to drop the weapon. The weapon was in the waistband. So the boy followed the orders and grabbed for the weapon in order to drop it. ....

They told the boy to raise his hands AND drop the gun, which was in his waistband. As the officer said, they expect compliance, but for which command? I think they made up the story before they knew there was video footage.

Expecting compliance when in a stressful situation, such as being confronted by police isn't very realistic, from a psychology perspective, and could result in a lot of unneeded shootings. Wait, it does!

Willie71 wrote:

They told the boy to raise his hands AND drop the gun, which was in his waistband.

Bingo!

It is impossible to comply with both of those orders, particularly in the span of 2 seconds.

So, according to the account, the kid was shot for reaching for the gun that he was ordered to reach for.