purplerat wrote:

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

purplerat wrote:

The one detail we do have however is that the kid did have a weapon.

So what, it is not proper to shoot someone because they have a weapon.

I didn't say that. In fact the sentence which immediately preceded the one you cropped out directly contradicts that assumption. I'm not sure if you are intentionally trying to misrepresent what I said or if it's just a failure to read what I actually said, but please give it up.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Is that really the kind of world you want to live in?

I want to live in a world where 12 year olds don't play with weapons as toys. Not that I wish any such child dead, but the threat of very serious penalties for doing so should certainly be there. Somebody ending up dead would be at the extreme end of that but is very real.

Wait a minute, I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. Death is at the extreme end of "very serious penalties"? You think death should be a penalty for a child playing with a weapon as a toy?

Purplerat, maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say, but it seems like the 'had a weapon' is the crux of your arguments. It seems like you are excusing the shooting because the person that was shot had a weapon.

Do you really want a world in which only government agents have weapons?

I am not sure you are thinking this through, just a visceral reaction to 'weapon'.

Varangian wrote:

purplerat wrote: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.

Seems like some people think police should have as sharp eyes as Vinnie jones...

But how does he know they didn't etch "Replica" into real guns in order to lure him into a false sense of security?

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Purplerat, maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say, but it seems like the 'had a weapon' is the crux of your arguments. It seems like you are excusing the shooting because the person that was shot had a weapon.

Do you really want a world in which only government agents have weapons?

I am not sure you are thinking this through, just a visceral reaction to 'weapon'.

My argument is that he did in fact have a weapon. Others seem to be in denial about that, calling it a "toy" or a "fake".

You're jumping to all kinds of wild conclusions about what I think when I've said nothing of the sort.

Now what I will state is that 12 year olds should not have weapons. At least not without strict supervision. 12 year olds, nor anybody else for that matter, should be treating weapons as toys. If any of those things do happen then it is my assumption that whoever was involved with letting that happen was acting wildly irresponsible. If somebody ends up dead as a result of those wildly irresponsible actions then that person(s) shoulders a large portion, if not all, of the blame regardless of what other fault there may be to go around.

Specific to this case, while I don't know enough details to say whether the police acted appropriately or not I do feel secure in saying that if the details as reported are accurate the person who let this kid have the gun and the kid who was playing with a weapon as a toy are largely if not fully to blame for this kid being dead.

orpheus wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

purplerat wrote:

The one detail we do have however is that the kid did have a weapon.

So what, it is not proper to shoot someone because they have a weapon.

I didn't say that. In fact the sentence which immediately preceded the one you cropped out directly contradicts that assumption. I'm not sure if you are intentionally trying to misrepresent what I said or if it's just a failure to read what I actually said, but please give it up.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Is that really the kind of world you want to live in?

I want to live in a world where 12 year olds don't play with weapons as toys. Not that I wish any such child dead, but the threat of very serious penalties for doing so should certainly be there. Somebody ending up dead would be at the extreme end of that but is very real.

Wait a minute, I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. Death is at the extreme end of "very serious penalties"? You think death should be a penalty for a child playing with a weapon as a toy?

When I say "penalty" I mean consequences, not limited to legal punishments. Admittedly I should have chosen a better word. Certainly death can be an extreme consequence for playing with guns and unfortunately it happens all too often. Anybody who is going to be around firearms should know that. Even when it comes to low powered weapons.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Do you really want a world in which only government agents have weapons?

Depending on what's meant by the word 'weapon': yes.

First video release, but prior to cops arriving. Kid is clearly seen brandishing the gun and pointing it at passers by.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-cuyahoga/tamir-rice-video-reveal-press-conference-in-tweets

Police to dispatch: "Shots fired, male down. Black male - maybe 20". Appears they didn't know he was only 12, they saw what they thought to be a black male in a hoodie brandishing a handgun.

This is precisely the sort of behavior that will get you shot dead.

It looks like they opened the car door and shot.

Note that Ohio is an open carry state. It is legal to carry a gun openly.

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.

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.

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 video above does not conclusively show everything the police saw or thought about the situation. The may have acted in appropriately or maybe there is more to it than that.

On the other hand the earlier video of him walking around pointing his gun at people is exactly the type of behavior that gets people shot dead. I don't think there's much debating that.

Again, you are not presenting an understanding of law.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Again, you are not presenting an understanding of law.

I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about the reality that if you put a gun in somebodies face there's a good chance somebody is going to end up dead.

As you pointed out Ohio is an open carry state. So it's reasonable to assume other people might be carrying a weapon as well. Even if it wasn't legal to carry some might still be carrying a gun. Anywhere in the US that's pretty much the case. If you go around playing with a gun like it's a toy and pointing it at random people you are dramatically increasing your chances of getting yourself shot. Whether that shooting is deemed legally justified or not is another question.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

Weaver wrote: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.

Like when those two innocent women that were shot because their truck sort of matched the description of that cop killer they were looking for?

Or when the police shot a man reaching for his wallet?

Or when the police shot a hostage mistaking his cell phone for a gun?

The higher standard means these types of things don't happen.

None of these cases are relevant to this one where the police actually did see the butt of a very realistic looking gun replica.

Nice try. Fail again.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:This is a shot on sight.

The guy was shopping and picked up the toy gun that was for sale in the store.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/s ... ord-police

And that is an example of both a complete liar calling into the police and an absolutely inappropriate police response.

Again, not relevant to this case.

NamelessFaceless wrote:

purplerat wrote:The higher standard would presumably be actually identifying that the suspect really does have a gun, which they did in this case.

Just "having a gun" does not require the use of deadly force.

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.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

purplerat wrote:

NamelessFaceless wrote:

purplerat wrote:The higher standard would presumably be actually identifying that the suspect really does have a gun, which they did in this case.

Just "having a gun" does not require the use of deadly force.

Of course not. But Jerome was citing cases where the officers mistakenly thought there was a gun but there was not and asking for a higher standard. In this case the police did accurately identify that the suspect had a firearm. A higher standard was achieved. At some point it's unrealistic to expect police to identify much more or apply a higher standard such as "is the gun loaded" or "is it a fake gun made to look real".

The point is the thought of a gun seems to have police shooting immediately.

Except it doesn't - and it certainly didn't in this case, along with many others that don't fit your cherry-picked narrative.

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:It's a little weird reading the replies here because they makes total sense if the boy was an adult, not a 12 year old.

That's the thing about guns; who fires them tends not to matter in terms of the end result.

Well the point I'm trying to make is that around kids, you show a little more care and consideration however, I don't know the details.

Isn't it funny how tasers aren't used in these situations.

You do know that whenever tasers are deployed they're supposed to be backed up with someone with a lethal weapon, who is responsible to protect the less-lethal force users (taser-armed police) and to use deadly force precisely in situations such as this - the imminent use of deadly force on the part of the suspect?

Even if the police had a taser out and aimed, the police should have fired with lethal force once the kid reached for the (replica) gun - it is quite simply the only safe response.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

purplerat wrote:

The one detail we do have however is that the kid did have a weapon.

So what, it is not proper to shoot someone because they have a weapon.

Is that really the kind of world you want to live in?

No, I'd prefer to live in a world where people didn't try to employ stupid "gotcha" arguments ignoring the intent of a poster.

For example, purplerat didn't simply mean that the kid was shot simply because he had a weapon - he was shot, as has been said over and over and over again in this thread, because he reached for the (replica) weapon instead of following instructions to raise his hands.