Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

Griz_ wrote:Just a wild guess..... He made a threat assessment and determined that it was the proper response?

Do you think a third of a second is a proper amount of time to make such an assessment?

Sometimes it is more than enough. Sometimes it isn't. But nothing I said above suggests that the 1/3 of a second was related to assessment time - only reaction time.

NuclMan wrote:

Griz_ wrote:Very well stated Weaver. It's so very easy to sit at a computer with a beer and spend time second guessing a life and death decision that is made in the blink of an eye and with the adrenalin flowing. So easy to have all the facts laid out afterwards, and so easy to put ourselves in the place of the family members of that young boy. For some reason few are able to put themselves in the shoes of the officer that pulled the trigger. So much easier to see him as a monster.

I don't think anyone sees a monster, as much as professional incompetence.

Properly trained officers are expected to make sound decisions in the heat of the moment with the juices flowing. We hear this excuse from the responsible gun owner brigade too.

A higher standard is needed.

What higher standard is appropriate? It was an apparent gun, and the child was apparently disregarding instructions to raise his hands and instead attempting to draw the gun from partial concealment.

What do you expect those police officers to do?

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

Griz_ wrote:
I'm counting from the time he started to reach for the gun in his waistband. That's when the decision to fire was made. In a fraction of a second. During the time prior to that when he picked up the weapon and placed it in his waistband, the officer was able to determine that he possessed a lethal weapon. We now know it was a toy, but that's hindsight.

How long did the officers in the video you linked to have to make their risk assessment? I count about 20 seconds. You called that a clean shoot. (BTW, I agree with you) The incident with the 12 year old was a much more dynamic situation.

We simply don't know for a fact the aspects from which you are making your argument. Seeing the video will be helpful.

I agree with NuclMan that a higher standard is needed.

What do you base this upon? How have you made a determination that the police needed to act on a higher standard in this case?

A lot of this seems to hinge on the kid pulling the gun out of his waistband. Remember though, we only have the police statement that that's what happened.

The rookie then asked the boy to put his hands up, at which point the youngster reached into his waistband and pulled out the pistol, Police Patrolmen's Association President Jeffrey Follmer said.

(bold mine)

I'd like to think the police are honorable and honest, but I'm remaining skeptical on this point. Police have lied about such things in the past, and they certainly have a hell of a motive to lie here.



Then we have this:

Union officials claimed the officers - one of whom was later taken to hospital with an ankle injury - acted responsibly amid concerns the boy was in possession of a real gun.

countered by this:

However, Deputy Chief of Field Operations Ed Tomba described the incident as 'very, very tragic', saying that the child did not threaten the officer verbally or physically.

(again, bold mine)



Reason enough for me to take a "wait and see" attitude.



I have to say, I do think this is problematic:

'When an officer gives a command, we expect it to be followed,' Mr Tomba said. 'The way it looks like right now, it wasn't followed, but we're going to continue our investigation.'

First, it would be nice to know - explicitly - which police-issued commands citizens are "expected" to follow, and which ones we are within our rights not to. It's disturbing to hear police say (and this isn't the first time) that they expect citizens to follow orders — full stop.

Second, of the "commands" we're "expected to follow", it would also be nice if the police could let us know which ones, if disobeyed, they feel justified in attacking a citizen.

Related to the above is how and when such commands are issued. The point about "resisting arrest" made above comes to mind here.

Weaver wrote:
What higher standard is appropriate?

Idk, guess that is what we are talking about.

It was an apparent gun, and the child was apparently disregarding instructions to raise his hands and instead attempting to draw the gun from partial concealment.

The second part is not corroborated testimony, just the first report. We really don't know enough at this point to make a determination.

What do you expect those police officers to do?

I expect police to shoot center mass when they shoot. These officers in this case, idk, it depends upon how the facts work out.

With only two bullets fired, the presumption would be just one shooter out of the two police, yes? It was a rookie and an experienced officer. It will be interesting to see who was the shooter.

Weaver wrote:
What do you base this upon? How have you made a determination that the police needed to act on a higher standard in this case?

We all should be working towards a higher standard.

I have not, and you seem to be taking an adversarial position, that is not what this talk is about imho. It is about where the standards are, with where they should be.

orpheus wrote:
First, it would be nice to know - explicitly - which police-issued commands citizens are "expected" to follow, and which ones we are within our rights not to. It's disturbing to hear police say (and this isn't the first time) that they expect citizens to follow orders — full stop.

compliance officer vs peace officer

So, we don't have enough information to make any decision, but we know enough to know that a higher standard is needed, because we should always strive for a higher standard.

Crap.

Agreed it's possible that things happened other than how they were described. However, based on the information out so far, there is no indication that a higher standard is needed - or indeed possible.

orpheus wrote:A lot of this seems to hinge on the kid pulling the gun out of his waistband. Remember though, we only have the police statement that that's what happened.

The rookie then asked the boy to put his hands up, at which point the youngster reached into his waistband and pulled out the pistol, Police Patrolmen's Association President Jeffrey Follmer said.

(bold mine)

I'd like to think the police are honorable and honest, but I'm remaining skeptical on this point. Police have lied about such things in the past, and they certainly have a hell of a motive to lie here.

That's actually not all that important. Whether the police are honest, that is.

There are all sorts of other people, including reporters, prosecuting and defense attorneys, and jurors. Even if the police are honest, there are all these other people. Even going by the responses of this newsgroup, there doesn't seem a lot of distinction-making between "he had an airsoft pistol" and "he was pointing it at the cops screaming, 'Die, pig!'"

Really, there doesn't seem to be an understanding of this concept. How many times has it been pointed out that there is no evidence that this involved pointing a weapon or "brandishing" it? It does not seem possible to get the concept across without a tire iron, a trepanation kit, and an MRI.

Even if the story be completely true, the plethora of myopia, preconception, and sheer widespread idiocy is enough to invoke a "wait and see." Which, by the way, is why we have these trial thingies.

Weaver wrote:

NuclMan wrote:

Griz_ wrote:Very well stated Weaver. It's so very easy to sit at a computer with a beer and spend time second guessing a life and death decision that is made in the blink of an eye and with the adrenalin flowing. So easy to have all the facts laid out afterwards, and so easy to put ourselves in the place of the family members of that young boy. For some reason few are able to put themselves in the shoes of the officer that pulled the trigger. So much easier to see him as a monster.

I don't think anyone sees a monster, as much as professional incompetence.

Properly trained officers are expected to make sound decisions in the heat of the moment with the juices flowing. We hear this excuse from the responsible gun owner brigade too.

A higher standard is needed.

What higher standard is appropriate? It was an apparent gun, and the child was apparently disregarding instructions to raise his hands and instead attempting to draw the gun from partial concealment.

What do you expect those police officers to do?

I expect them to respond appropriately to an actual threat of death or bodily harm, not an apparent failure to comply with instructions.

You sort of explained what I was thinking in post #19, that is, to hesitate and ensure:

Weaver wrote:I have had such toy guns pointed at me - with no safety indications - in places where real guns abound - the middle of Iraq. Only because we'd been warned that the kids play with toy AKs did we hesitate enough to ensure they were toys and that we weren't going to be shot - but there were other places where similar-sized kids (teenagers mostly) were using real guns to shoot at US Soldiers.

As with the other instances where I considered shooting people, I did hesitate, and am very glad I did - but even these kids' parents knew their kids were fucking up, and smacked the shit out of them pretty quickly when they realized they were pointing their fake guns at us. Still at fault for allowing them on the streets, things could have been much worse. Then again, this was a place where I saw a college-educated Army officer teaching his three-year-old son how to light a cigarette lighter ...

I realize that the circumstance in the OP doesn't compare with your experience, but with the popularity of airsoft pistols and toy guns in general in the US, I would hope police officers would not require the same warnings in their daily operations, that you received in Iraq. The article in the OP twice mentions that it was suspected that the boy was handling a fake pistol, yet it seems they approached and responded with the mindset that the boy was packing lethal heat.

The cops were not told of the report of a possible fake gun - unknown why, but they did not have that information.

In the US there are requirements for toys or replicas to have safety markings - this did not.

He didn't simply fail to follow instructions, he reached for what appeared to be a real gun. There is a big difference - one shows disregard, the other demonstrates possible intent.

Hesitation is lovely - when there's reason to think it's appropriate - but that isn't always the case. I had much, much more information than these cops did when I made the decision not to shoot kids. I also took a pretty severe risk - something only possible because of information.

No one knows yet what actually happened, and it's possible we never will. I have a concealed carry permit, though I don't carry often. However, if I were in a situation where someone I believed was armed reached for their gun I would likely fire on him. The reason a gun is the "great equalizer" is a 12 year old kid is just as deadly as a 300 pound man. A couple of pounds of trigger pressure and it makes no difference how big and strong YOU are, you aren't stronger or tougher than a clip of 9mm.

We'll just have to wait and see what comes out of all this.

Weaver wrote:The cops were not told of the report of a possible fake gun - unknown why, but they did not have that information.

In the US there are requirements for toys or replicas to have safety markings - this did not.

He didn't simply fail to follow instructions, he reached for what appeared to be a real gun. There is a big difference - one shows disregard, the other demonstrates possible intent.

Hesitation is lovely - when there's reason to think it's appropriate - but that isn't always the case. I had much, much more information than these cops did when I made the decision not to shoot kids. I also took a pretty severe risk - something only possible because of information.

You're correct. I misread the part about the officers being told about the fake.

So tragic.

I think it's clear that the police at the scene believed it was a real gun, and probably didn't notice that the kid was so young... but at the same time, as soon as you hear the title 'Boy 12, dies after being shot in the stomach by cops' you know it's going to be a black kid.

However, it also raises another question about why parents buy toy guns for their kids in the first place. I think the message from all sides (pro and anti-gun) should be that guns are never toys.

The thing about "failing to comply with police orders" has always bothered me. When there's more than one cop at the scene, I can almost guarantee they are all giving "orders." And not in any kind of orderly manner either. One is probably shouting "get on the ground!" while another is shouting "put your hands up!" If there's a third he's likely shouting too. And if it's dark they're going to be shining lights in your eyes. If you're not a seasoned criminal who should know the drill, this can all be very confusing. Not everyone can react immediately under stress like this.

Years ago I watched a jury trial where a man was arrested for . . . wait for it . . . "resisting arrest" because he failed to either get on the ground, or put his hands up, or drop what he was holding (a gas can). This man had never been arrested and had called the police himself to report a man beating a woman nearby and when the police arrived they immediately started trying to arrest him. He was trying to tell them he was the one who called but they just continued to shout and shine lights in his eyes, then the next thing he knew he was in cuffs in the back of a squad car. His only charge was 'resisting arrest.' Meanwhile, the wife beater was able to just walk away. Fortunately, the jury found this man not guilty. I can't even believe the prosecutor pursued that case, but the police were mad because the guy didn't "follow their orders."

But back to this kid. I haven't seen anything to indicate the kid was actually pointing his "weapon" at the police. We really need to see the video to know what really happened, but from what I've read it really sounds like the officer overreacted. I just grieve for this family. What a tragic, senseless waste.

Once again - and I'd like to hope for the final time, but experience says this is highly unlikely - the cops do not need to wait until the gun is pointed at them, and SHOULD not wait until the gun is pointed at them, before taking protective actions including employing deadly force. The threat is present and intent has been signaled when someone reaches to their waistband where a gun is stowed - from the point of laying a hand on the butt of the gun until firing accurate shots may be as low as a half of a second - precious little time to react. Waiting until the gun is pointe at you reduces your reaction time to the amount of time it takes to bend a fingertip and for the bullet to travel at somewhere around 1000fps between you and them - so, ballpark total, maybe 0.1 seconds? Yet you have a 0.3 second minimum reaction time ...

If you wait for the gun to actually be pointed at you on the two-way shooting range, you will die.

There is nothing at all to indicate conflicting orders were at play here. And while failure to comply is a factor in resisting arrest charges, that isn't a factor here either - he wasn't shot for failure to follow police instructions, he was shot because when he was ordered to raise his hands, he went for a gun - according to everything known and seen by the police at the time.

Fox is reporting the video will be released this afternoon.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/26/cleveland-to-release-video-12-year-old-boy-shot-by-officer/

I"m with Spearthrower here, giving kids realistic toy guns is a bad idea. If the kid had one of those supersoaker water guns this wouldn't have happened.

Am I the only one who's bothered that people keep on saying he had a "toy gun" or a "fake gun"? Unless what's being reported is false, the gun this kid had was very much real and very much not a toy. It may not have been a full powered fire arm but it was still a real gun and it's troubling to me that some consider it a toy. Apparently that's what this kid thought too or maybe he was just acting with complete disregard for the safety of the people around him. Either way that's rather troubling and leads me to think he might just have well done the same with a "real" gun had he managed to get his hands on one.

laklak wrote:I"m with Spearthrower here, giving kids realistic toy guns is a bad idea. If the kid had one of those supersoaker water guns this wouldn't have happened.

Agreed, but it wasn't actually a toy. Still, giving kids real guns without supervising them is an even worse idea.