Once again, a brave cop goes home tonight

[The Merg]

Far as I can tell no one raised the issue so it was rather of pointless but I guess it was one of those strategic comments.

A couple people had brought up about the info provided to the cops (or rather not provided). I was agreeing with your comment that the information could very well have been pertinent and adding some additional thoughts.

- Merg

 

[Mai72]

Some people here act like police were once good, and police brutality was uncommon. It always existed! The difference is when an incident happens we hear about it in a few seconds. We have internet. In the past if a cop did something that they shouldn't have done you didn't hear about it. Cops would beat the sh*t of of minorities and they probably even killed a few. They got away with so much more in the past.

Police brutality on people is increasing. I don't think it's as bad as what people make it to be. Then again I'm not a minority.

 

[The Merg]

Just heard that there is surveillance video that supposedly is very clear in the events leading up to and the shooting itself. Obviously, it is not available for us to see.

- Merg

 

[Victorian Gray]

A couple people had brought up about the info provided to the cops (or rather not provided). I was agreeing with your comment that the information could very well have been pertinent and adding some additional thoughts.

- Merg

"Possible armed suspect at playground."
"Suspect is black male"

Or

"black male, probable juvenile, at playground with a possible fake pistol being waved around"

Could have been pertinent?

Again, my question is, why was not all of the information passed on to the officers?

 

[Mai72]

Just heard that there is surveillance video that supposedly is very clear in the events leading up to and the shooting itself. Obviously, it is not available for us to see.

- Merg

I wonder if it's on Live Leak.

 

[The Merg]

"Possible armed suspect at playground."
"Suspect is black male"

Or

"black male, probable juvenile, at playground with a possible fake pistol being waved around"

Could have been pertinent?

Again, my question is, why was not all of the information passed on to the officers?

I agreeing with you that it could very well be pertinent. As for why that information wasn't passed on or what information wasn't passed on, I can't answer that one.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

I wonder if it's on Live Leak.

I'm guessing this one will be clamped down pretty tightly. It's a lot easier to secure a surveillance video from a business, etc. than it is to secure a cell phone video.

- Merg

 

[Blanky]

That is not how the police should work. They should not throw the first punch, EVER. Especially when that punch is fatal. If there is a clear and present danger, then use reasonable response to it, killing someone is NEVER a reasonable response to a POSSIBLE danger. It is only a reasonable response to a KNOWN danger.

Added bolding. It absolutely is, and many self-defense laws plainly recognize the fact. Getting shot for brandishing what looks like a gun has been and will continue to be a justifiable shooting.

So anyway if there is video of this and it is "clear" and supposedly backs up what the cop has said, that's that.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I can't answer that one.

or you won`t! Because you know that information was not passed on to the officers......your true colors are showing thru........

 

[The Merg]

or you won`t! Because you know that information was not passed on to the officers......your true colors are showing thru........

I can't answer that because I haven't listened to the dispatch or seen what was on their computer screen.

We don't know what information was passed on or what wasn't. There was one statement from a police union official that the officers weren't told it might be a fake gun, which I took with a grain of salt.

How is that showing my true colors?

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

That is not how the police should work. They should not throw the first punch, EVER. Especially when that punch is fatal. If there is a clear and present danger, then use reasonable response to it, killing someone is NEVER a reasonable response to a POSSIBLE danger. It is only a reasonable response to a KNOWN danger.

They absolutely can throw the first punch. If someone reels back to punch a cop, the cop can hit they person first. They do not have to wait for the person to actually swing at them.

And the goal is not to kill a person, but rather to stop the threat. Unfortunately, if stopping the threat means shooting someone, the end result can be that they end up dead.

- Merg

 

[Newell Steamer]

Let's add x-ray 3D scanning abilities to a cop's job requirements,... wait, or does that violate privacy??

Nonetheless, does the cop have to have their eye's augmented to run the scan?? Or, will they wear a visor? Or,.. mutation?? Or, some sort of mystic metaphysical spell that reveals what the suspect is carrying?

I'd like to go into mind reading, but again,.. there is that privacy issue.

 

[Iron Woode]

"Possible armed suspect at playground."
"Suspect is black male"

Or

"black male, probable juvenile, at playground with a possible fake pistol being waved around"

Could have been pertinent?

Again, my question is, why was not all of the information passed on to the officers?

that question has been answered numerous times in the thread.

the police don't care what you think is a real gun or a fake gun. They take all crimes involving a gun seriously and as if the gun is real. Their lives depend on it.

do you understand now?

 

[SMOGZINN]

They absolutely can throw the first punch. If someone reels back to punch a cop, the cop can hit they person first. They do not have to wait for the person to actually swing at them.

And the goal is not to kill a person, but rather to stop the threat. Unfortunately, if stopping the threat means shooting someone, the end result can be that they end up dead.

- Merg

I said they SHOULD never throw the first punch. Not that they CAN not. There is no way to ethically defend starting the violence, even if you FEEL that the other person would have if you didn't.

When you fire a gun at someone the goal is to kill them. That is what guns do. Dressing it up in nice language like 'stop the threat' does nothing to change the reality.

 

[SMOGZINN]

that question has been answered numerous times in the thread.

the police don't care what you think is a real gun or a fake gun. They take all crimes involving a gun seriously and as if the gun is real. Their lives depend on it.

do you understand now?

And apparently childrens lives depend on the police having all the information and reacting to a POSSIBLE threat as POSSIBLE and not ACTUAL.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Children should be taught that the police will consider any life like weapon as being real/a threat and not to brandish it in public or act as if you're going to pull it on an officer.

Can you tell in a matter of seconds whether this gun is real or not? Do you think anyone that has seen it from a distance could tell if it was real or not?

 

[spacejamz]

or you won`t! Because you know that information was not passed on to the officers......your true colors are showing thru........

What difference what it have made if they passed that information along?

The officers instructed the kid to raise his hands. Instead the kid reaches for the weapon inside his waist band. At that point, the officers have no way to confirm if the gun is real or not.

They were not going to hope that the caller was right about the gun being fake at that point.

 

[The Merg]

I said they SHOULD never throw the first punch. Not that they CAN not. There is no way to ethically defend starting the violence, even if you FEEL that the other person would have if you didn't.



When you fire a gun at someone the goal is to kill them. That is what guns do. Dressing it up in nice language like 'stop the threat' does nothing to change the reality.

If they should not throw the first punch, then when can they? As for "starting the violence", a person can do that if they feel threatened. Technically, an assault is when you feel threatened that someone is going to hurt you (battery). So, if someone comes up to me and says "I'm going to F you up" and squares up on me, I can legally hit them first.

As for stopping the threat, when a police officer uses their firearm they are not trying to kill the person, they are using it to just stop the actions that the person is doing. Obviously, since they are shooting somebody, there is a high probability that the person might die. However, if the officer ends up shooting them in the leg and the person stops their action, the officer is not supposed to continue firing at the person until they are dead.

- Merg

 

[spacejamz]

And apparently childrens lives depend on the police having all the information and reacting to a POSSIBLE threat as POSSIBLE and not ACTUAL.

The kid reaching for a weapon in his waistband is an ACTUAL threat especially after he was instructed to put his hands up. There was no way to tell at that point the gun was a toy.

 

[The Merg]

Children should be taught that the police will consider any life like weapon as being real/a threat and not to brandish it in public or act as if you're going to pull it on an officer.

Can you tell in under a second whether this gun is real or not? Do you think anyone that has seen it from a distance could tell if it was real or not?

FTFY...

- Merg

 

[Jaskalas]

The kid reaching for a weapon in his waistband is an ACTUAL threat especially after he was instructed to put his hands up. There was no way to tell at that point the gun was a toy.

Yes it is... but I can see it from the kid's perspective. Maybe he wanted to place it on the ground. I understand an adult not making a smart move under pressure, let alone a kid.

 

[The Merg]

Yes it is... but I can see it from the kid's perspective. Maybe he wanted to place it on the ground. I understand an adult not making a smart move under pressure, let alone a kid.

So what point does the cop determine that he's not putting it on the ground but rather is going to point the gun at him? So now the cop has even less time to react since the gun is in the kid's hands and if the kid does have the intent on shooting at the officer it is that much easier for him to do so.

- Merg

 

[bshole]

So what point does the cop determine that he's not putting it on the ground but rather is going to point the gun at him? So now the cop has even less time to react since the gun is in the kid's hands and if the kid does have the intent on shooting at the officer it is that much easier for him to do so.

- Merg

The bigger question is when did it become normal for cops to shoot kids with toy guns. Kids have had toy guns since time immemorial, only in the past decade has it become fashionable for the cops to shoot them for it.

 

[The Merg]

The bigger question is when did it become normal for cops to shoot kids with toy guns. Kids have had toy guns since time immemorial, only in the past decade has it become fashionable for the cops to shoot them for it.

Fashionable? Really?

And yes, kids have had toy guns forever, but only more recently have these toys begun to look like exact replicas of the real thing. And with how crimes are becoming more violent and committed by those younger and younger, cops have no choice but to take seriously any call where someone says that a person is waving around a gun, although it might be fake.

- Merg

 

[JEDIYoda]

So lets get this right...we have a 12 year old black kid that was reported to 911 as possibly having a fake gun, but it could be real......so far correct?

Then we have the child in a park supposedly playing around other kids and pointing the "fake" gun at the other kids.....so far correct?

Several questions --
Why did the child NOT shoot dead the children that he was pointing the "fake" gun at?
Where did the child get weapons training or learn how to shoot that "fake" gun accurately?
Why did the child "supposedly" point the gun at the Police when the Police had their guns already drawn even before the child decided to point the "fake" gun at the cops?

Now if I was the person who called in that 911 call -- I would not be able to live with myself the rest of my life? Why? Because I could not mind my own damn business and an innocent child with a toy was shot and killed because I was an idiot and just had to call 911.......over what??

Nobody wins -- especially the child!!

Next question -- If I was the boys family I would want to know who called the 911 call and what their real motives were........and for Christ sake don`t say the children...after all none of the children were shot by the child with the "fake" gun.....