Protesters Call For Islamic State In...
News3 mins ago
What A Tragic Ending.
66 Answers
http://
But what can the Police do, if someone reaches for a gun (and it certainly looks like one) they can't stand there and be shot first.
But what can the Police do, if someone reaches for a gun (and it certainly looks like one) they can't stand there and be shot first.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If police are so good at handling guns that they can 'shoot to kill', they should be able to 'shoot to not kill'.
However the report says that the gun was capable of firing only pellets, which makes it sound as though it is harmless.
My neighbour's son has, (or at least had - it's now been confiscated) a 'toy gun' which fires small hard-plastic balls about 5mm dia. Before it was discovered how 'harmless' it was, the little b*st*rd had killed 3 birds in my garden at a range of 50 metres and pierced a glass window pane.
No guns, toy or otherwise should be treated lightly
However the report says that the gun was capable of firing only pellets, which makes it sound as though it is harmless.
My neighbour's son has, (or at least had - it's now been confiscated) a 'toy gun' which fires small hard-plastic balls about 5mm dia. Before it was discovered how 'harmless' it was, the little b*st*rd had killed 3 birds in my garden at a range of 50 metres and pierced a glass window pane.
No guns, toy or otherwise should be treated lightly
I don't think the police are necessarily being damned. When I first heard of this story, there was a lot of support for the police involved despite the tragedy because, indeed, what else are you supposed to do with a potential gun waving in your direction?
That said, there is some doubt as to whether the police were actually being directly threatened or not. An early report seemed to suggest that the kid pointed the gun at the police; the BBC article seemed to suggest that he was playing with it but otherwise ignoring the policemen's warnings. If the second scenario is true then the police may indeed have been premature in shooting the boy.
Either way, I'd like to see an inquiry into this, but so far it looks more like a tragic mistake than anything sinister or worrying.
That said, there is some doubt as to whether the police were actually being directly threatened or not. An early report seemed to suggest that the kid pointed the gun at the police; the BBC article seemed to suggest that he was playing with it but otherwise ignoring the policemen's warnings. If the second scenario is true then the police may indeed have been premature in shooting the boy.
Either way, I'd like to see an inquiry into this, but so far it looks more like a tragic mistake than anything sinister or worrying.
http://
///When he allegedly took the replica gun from his waistband, an officer fired twice despite the fact the suspected weapon was not pointed at them and no threats were made///
-- answer removed --
Just wait. Next we'll learn that he was deaf, or autistic or something which inhibited him from responding to shouts coming from some distance away.
What I still want to know is, if someone is 'gesticulating' with a gun but no shots have been fired at anyone yet, how does that give the police the right to steam in and shoot first? (See NJ's hypothetical as well - '[getting] retaliation in first')
Reports said he was 'frightening' passers by with the gun. Not necessarily walking up to them, threatening them with it (for gain), just that they'd seen him and were frightened by his behaviour.
Fair enough, you can't approach such a person without some expectation of being fired upon, so action was required.
Why not try to get the armed person to fire one shot into the ground, to demonstrate it is real, before shooting them?
What I still want to know is, if someone is 'gesticulating' with a gun but no shots have been fired at anyone yet, how does that give the police the right to steam in and shoot first? (See NJ's hypothetical as well - '[getting] retaliation in first')
Reports said he was 'frightening' passers by with the gun. Not necessarily walking up to them, threatening them with it (for gain), just that they'd seen him and were frightened by his behaviour.
Fair enough, you can't approach such a person without some expectation of being fired upon, so action was required.
Why not try to get the armed person to fire one shot into the ground, to demonstrate it is real, before shooting them?
-- answer removed --
If police are so good at handling guns that they can 'shoot to kill', they should be able to 'shoot to not kill'.
However the report says that the gun was capable of firing only pellets, which makes it sound as though it is harmless.
--------------------
Sounds good in theory, almost impossible in practice. To even hit an arm, leg or shoulder at as close a range as 10 metres in that scenario would have been more luck than judgement.
Tragic story all round and the officers will no doubt need counselling, it's a terrible blight on their conscience and they'll feel guilty for the rest of their lives, blameless though they are.
Anyone seen the pics of the replica? It looked real enough to me.
However the report says that the gun was capable of firing only pellets, which makes it sound as though it is harmless.
--------------------
Sounds good in theory, almost impossible in practice. To even hit an arm, leg or shoulder at as close a range as 10 metres in that scenario would have been more luck than judgement.
Tragic story all round and the officers will no doubt need counselling, it's a terrible blight on their conscience and they'll feel guilty for the rest of their lives, blameless though they are.
Anyone seen the pics of the replica? It looked real enough to me.
Well, lets hope there aren't any little boys left in America playing cops and robbers or cowboys and indians anymore, like I did.
----------------
I did that too, but not in a country where the right to bear arms as in the constitution, where Police are routinely armed and certainly not with an (realistic to all intents and purposes) imitation firearm.
----------------
I did that too, but not in a country where the right to bear arms as in the constitution, where Police are routinely armed and certainly not with an (realistic to all intents and purposes) imitation firearm.
Yes a tragic ending indeed.
Good job this guy wasn't in the USA.
http://
Good job this guy wasn't in the USA.
http://
Context is everything in this unfortunate and tragic incident. Right now, everyone in the U.S. is holding their collective breath awaiting a verdict by a Grand Jury in Ferguson, Missouri (a suburb of St. Louis).
A policeman shot and killed another "youngster" there a few months ago (yes, he was black and the police officer was white and by himself). The protest groups have escalated the situation to the point that the National Guard and several outlying police units have moved into the small city to retain somekind of control if the Grand Jury finds the officer acted in self-defense, which a lot of the evidence points to.
The "boy" was 18 years old, but most news reports omitted the fact that he was 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighed nearly 300 pounds when he apparently attacked the officer.
Here, a Grand Jury (in some States) hears a case in secret, calls for evidence and witnesses and the determines if formal charges should be brought. The largely black populace demand the officer be charged with murder and have rioted, destroying business which were subsequently looted by hyped-up crowds. The fear is the same thing will reoccur if the officer is exonerated.
This incident will only add fire to the fire, especially after the professional agitators have arrived on the scene.
A policeman shot and killed another "youngster" there a few months ago (yes, he was black and the police officer was white and by himself). The protest groups have escalated the situation to the point that the National Guard and several outlying police units have moved into the small city to retain somekind of control if the Grand Jury finds the officer acted in self-defense, which a lot of the evidence points to.
The "boy" was 18 years old, but most news reports omitted the fact that he was 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighed nearly 300 pounds when he apparently attacked the officer.
Here, a Grand Jury (in some States) hears a case in secret, calls for evidence and witnesses and the determines if formal charges should be brought. The largely black populace demand the officer be charged with murder and have rioted, destroying business which were subsequently looted by hyped-up crowds. The fear is the same thing will reoccur if the officer is exonerated.
This incident will only add fire to the fire, especially after the professional agitators have arrived on the scene.
This, from any distance is to all intents and purposes a Colt .45 or Browning 9mm:
http://
The cops have my sympathy, as do the parents of the young kid.
No blame, just pure tragedy.
http://
The cops have my sympathy, as do the parents of the young kid.
No blame, just pure tragedy.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.