Miami Police shoot, kill man carrying toy gun

reply to post by Magnum007


I agree with you, and I have cases for all of my guns also.

But, as Devil's advocate, what about a young man that inherits his fathers guns, and lives in the city, and does not have a case, or a car?

I don't think it is asking too much to have the law require them to be secured in a case. There is a safety issue from heat, or from dropping, and there is the unfortunate perception of danger to the community. I think it would be a fair law, but I can see someone making a very good case that it is unfairly restrictive according to class. Someone could make a good case that the government is trying to disarm the poor and only allow the elite to have weapons.

Originally posted by Qwenn

Originally posted by Terrion

Originally posted by parkwoods21
reply to post by Flyer

 

People need to stop being such babies to these kinda things...if a guy had anything that looked like a gun and he broke into your house would you ask if hes mentally retarded also or would you shoot first to save your own ass and your families if you have one...i dont see a problem with this maybe whoever takes care of this "special person" should make sure he doesnt have something like this

edit on 2-9-2011 by parkwoods21 because: (no reason given)

I agree 100% if anyone should be attacking anyone it should be the person suppose to be supervising this mentally challenged person.

However, in most cases, this is their own family, in their own home, 24/7/12 and still being on duty when asleep, in Britain the level of support is far from what is needed, I dont know what it is like elsewhere, but I assume that it will be similar. In most cases they are on medication and have a very reduced mental age, hell, I even have a 40 year old that says that he wants to join the police when he grows up. When you are never off of duty, get woken up 3 or 4 times in the night, work all day and night, have meetings and paperwork to fill in and records to keep up to date, attend reviews and financial and medical assesments to attend.

The only time you see the outside world is when you are shopping for groceries, are not allowed to have friends visit, unless they have an up to date police check, well then you are blamed when one of your clients walks out into the road with a toy gun, with a child, you would be able to secure the doors, with adults, you are breaking the law if you do. Just spare a thought to the humble carers working 24/7/12 when you next blame them for something like this. As for allowing him to have this sort of toy, well the authorities would be down on you like a ton of bricks if you tried to STOP him having something. It is called empowering and can be a straight jacket for carers, even when common sense tells them that sometimes ideas are just BAD !

If this family didn't have the capability to watch this person 24/7 then they should have relinquished care to someone who could. The point is whoever had custody of him is suppose to be monitoring this person, so they are 100% responsible for what happened to this person.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by deadeyedick

 

Even if it had been an umbrella, ignoring the police, and acting aggressively by pointing it at them is enough to warrant the shooting.

This is an outrageous statement, especially fom a moderator from ATS, saying that pointing an umberella at a policeman, warrents being shot !

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


There's a big difference between the gun pointed at you, and theoretical situations. At least in my opinion.

How would you like to be in the officer's shoes? Think about it. This guy has a gun, a rifle pointed at you. From your point of view, you can't see it's a toy. You have a family to thing about. Bullet proof vests are only bullet resistant. What if he has teflon bullets? That vest went from friend to enemy. What if he hits you in the head, or the femoral artery? Don't have any armor there. You'd be dead in an instant or less than a minute.

They aren't overminds which will magically know that he is mentally challenged and that he thinks they want to play. They can only assume he is someone with a real gun, a real threat until he disarms.

Originally posted by Terrion

Originally posted by Qwenn

Originally posted by Terrion

Originally posted by parkwoods21
reply to post by Flyer

 

People need to stop being such babies to these kinda things...if a guy had anything that looked like a gun and he broke into your house would you ask if hes mentally retarded also or would you shoot first to save your own ass and your families if you have one...i dont see a problem with this maybe whoever takes care of this "special person" should make sure he doesnt have something like this

edit on 2-9-2011 by parkwoods21 because: (no reason given)

I agree 100% if anyone should be attacking anyone it should be the person suppose to be supervising this mentally challenged person.

However, in most cases, this is their own family, in their own home, 24/7/12 and still being on duty when asleep, in Britain the level of support is far from what is needed, I dont know what it is like elsewhere, but I assume that it will be similar. In most cases they are on medication and have a very reduced mental age, hell, I even have a 40 year old that says that he wants to join the police when he grows up. When you are never off of duty, get woken up 3 or 4 times in the night, work all day and night, have meetings and paperwork to fill in and records to keep up to date, attend reviews and financial and medical assesments to attend.

The only time you see the outside world is when you are shopping for groceries, are not allowed to have friends visit, unless they have an up to date police check, well then you are blamed when one of your clients walks out into the road with a toy gun, with a child, you would be able to secure the doors, with adults, you are breaking the law if you do. Just spare a thought to the humble carers working 24/7/12 when you next blame them for something like this. As for allowing him to have this sort of toy, well the authorities would be down on you like a ton of bricks if you tried to STOP him having something. It is called empowering and can be a straight jacket for carers, even when common sense tells them that sometimes ideas are just BAD !

If this family didn't have the capability to watch this person 24/7 then they should have relinquished care to someone who could. The point is whoever had custody of him is suppose to be monitoring this person, so they are 100% responsible for what happened to this person.

edit on 2-9-2011 by Terrion because: (no reason given)

I am a full time professional carer, and I live in the real world, so I know how these things work, anyway, I thought the police were paid to keep us safe from being shot by people ( wearing uniforms or not ). No-one can watch someone else 24 hours a day, without fail, would you expect to take them to the bathroom with you !

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by deadeyedick

 

If a policeman cant distinguish between a toy or a real gun between a threat or a or non threat then that is the problem.This precrime mentality is gonna come back to haunt america.

Really?

I punish my two children even if they point a toy gun at one another. It is never appropriate to point a gun, real or toy, loaded or unloaded.

And, you expect a policeman, responding to a call for a dangerous man pointing a gun at things in a neighborhood, with a heightened sense of awareness for violence, with constant exposure to how often things turn out badly....... you expect that policeman to be able to ascertain from a distance, whether or not a gun is real, as it is being pointed at him, knowing that he may only have a 1/10th of a second between going home to see his own family or not?

Come on, police do make mistakes, but let's be realistic in our expectations for them. This was a toy gun, not an umbrella. Even if it had been an umbrella, ignoring the police, and acting aggressively by pointing it at them is enough to warrant the shooting.

OK it looks like your doing a good job with your kids in that respect!
In the senerio you provide there were no shots fired.Several things short of firing a lethal shot could have been done.The very first thing would be to keep your cool.DONT THINK IRRATIONAL in that situation.It seems likely that they assumed he had a rifle.thats a long range weapon vrs a pistol witch the cops would more that likely use to kill him.Now if i come up on a suspect close enough to kill him with my pistol i would be aware of the fact that he could have taken me out already and he didn't.I would build off.So im on scene and no shots fired yet that tells me there is hope for the situation.At that time i would be getting a closer look at the plastic he is packing.At the very worse i would wound him but would do my best to wait for back up.Now keep in mind that the only time a cop should go in guns blazing is if shots have been fired.

I'm all for pointing out police that have gone way above and beyond in the abuse of power, and have done so on many occasions. If they're wrong, then they're wrong and need to be held accountable like any other citizen. Now, with that being said, if the guy was pointing what the police perceived to be a gun, then they took appropriate action.
If the victim here, (the guy with the toy gun), had walked up to your door, and had pointed it your face, are you really going to take the time to determine if it's real or not? Or are you going to take action by running away, returning fire or take the gun away from him?
If he pointed his "toy" at the cops, then as sad as the situation is, the police aren't left with much of a choice.

I'm not pro cop by any means. Too many of them are making all cops look bad by their own criminal actions. But just trying to be fair and objective here. Bad and tragic situation no matter how you look at it.

reply to post by Qwenn


I think his point was that police are under alot of stress and face danger everyday. they are normal people who have families and friends. if you where called to arrest a person suspected of having a deadly weapon and they pointed this object at you would you fear for your life? and the lives of your friends and fellow officers around you? how would it feel if your best buddy was shot because you hesitated.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I can agree with you on the fact that it may be hard to afford a case for some people, especially right now. Also playing the devil's advocate, , owning a gun is a right not an obligation and it carries many responsibilities for the owner towards him/herself, and society in general.

For the example you gave about the person who lives in the city and who receives his father's guns. I think they should keep them in their house or at least wrap them to conceal their appearance when traveling with them, whether it be garbage bags, or a hockey bag (for the smaller, shorter .22) or something that will keep them from being seen...

The issue is not the carrying of the firearm, the issue is the carrying in plain view causing panic and hassles for the person who simply wants to go somewhere with their gun(s).

Originally posted by Terrion
reply to post by Qwenn

 

I think his point was that police are under alot of stress and face danger everyday. they are normal people who have families and friends. if you where called to arrest a person suspected of having a deadly weapon and they pointed this object at you would you fear for your life? and the lives of your friends and fellow officers around you? how would it feel if your best buddy was shot because you hesitated.

Good police dont arrest people just because someone suspects something.they find proof of a crime first.

Originally posted by Qwenn

Originally posted by Terrion

Originally posted by Qwenn

Originally posted by Terrion

Originally posted by parkwoods21
reply to post by Flyer

 

People need to stop being such babies to these kinda things...if a guy had anything that looked like a gun and he broke into your house would you ask if hes mentally retarded also or would you shoot first to save your own ass and your families if you have one...i dont see a problem with this maybe whoever takes care of this "special person" should make sure he doesnt have something like this

edit on 2-9-2011 by parkwoods21 because: (no reason given)

I agree 100% if anyone should be attacking anyone it should be the person suppose to be supervising this mentally challenged person.

However, in most cases, this is their own family, in their own home, 24/7/12 and still being on duty when asleep, in Britain the level of support is far from what is needed, I dont know what it is like elsewhere, but I assume that it will be similar. In most cases they are on medication and have a very reduced mental age, hell, I even have a 40 year old that says that he wants to join the police when he grows up. When you are never off of duty, get woken up 3 or 4 times in the night, work all day and night, have meetings and paperwork to fill in and records to keep up to date, attend reviews and financial and medical assesments to attend.

The only time you see the outside world is when you are shopping for groceries, are not allowed to have friends visit, unless they have an up to date police check, well then you are blamed when one of your clients walks out into the road with a toy gun, with a child, you would be able to secure the doors, with adults, you are breaking the law if you do. Just spare a thought to the humble carers working 24/7/12 when you next blame them for something like this. As for allowing him to have this sort of toy, well the authorities would be down on you like a ton of bricks if you tried to STOP him having something. It is called empowering and can be a straight jacket for carers, even when common sense tells them that sometimes ideas are just BAD !

If this family didn't have the capability to watch this person 24/7 then they should have relinquished care to someone who could. The point is whoever had custody of him is suppose to be monitoring this person, so they are 100% responsible for what happened to this person.

edit on 2-9-2011 by Terrion because: (no reason given)

I am a full time professional carer, and I live in the real world, so I know how these things work, anyway, I thought the police were paid to keep us safe from being shot by people ( wearing uniforms or not ). No-one can watch someone else 24 hours a day, without fail, would you expect to take them to the bathroom with you !

of course not but there should be someone else watching them when you are unable too. or this disabled person be secured somewhere that they could not hurt themselves while u where away. I agree that someone can not watch someone 24/7 without fail. the proof is this poor soul lost.

Originally posted by deadeyedick

Originally posted by Terrion
reply to post by Qwenn

 

I think his point was that police are under alot of stress and face danger everyday. they are normal people who have families and friends. if you where called to arrest a person suspected of having a deadly weapon and they pointed this object at you would you fear for your life? and the lives of your friends and fellow officers around you? how would it feel if your best buddy was shot because you hesitated.

Good police dont arrest people just because someone suspects something.they find proof of a crime first.

And how are they to start an investigation in the middle of a conflict? Should they let someone run away because it hasn't been proved in court yet that they are responsible? That sounds ludicrous.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


this is one of the dumbest responses I have heard to date, and people actually flagged you...I served in Iraq and they have many many real guns and fake ones. You see that gun, your heart races, you think about your family and friends and innocents around...if they start to aim the weapon at you, they die.

These things happen in seconds or less...decisions are made quickly and sometimes it goes wrong, its part of being a human, yes even cops are human.

Last I checked officer involved shootings accounted for less than 1% of a percent of all cops in the US per year...so I dont see cops murdering for fun, sorry...

reply to post by deadeyedick


We don't need proof right away... We need reasonable grounds to believe that an indictable offense has, is or will occur...

In the US you may know it as probable cause.

No proof needed... just reasonable grounds to believe (50% +1 in easier terms)... that could be someone saying they were attacked and another saying they witnessed it... it's not actual physical proof, but it's enough to arrest someone...

In court however, to obtain a conviction, you must have 99.9% certainty... I saw this because there are some exceptions to the "reasonable doubt" concept in law.

Geez, by the time this gets to page 10, you'll understand the law a little better don't you think?

Originally posted by Terrion

Originally posted by deadeyedick

Originally posted by Terrion
reply to post by Qwenn

 

I think his point was that police are under alot of stress and face danger everyday. they are normal people who have families and friends. if you where called to arrest a person suspected of having a deadly weapon and they pointed this object at you would you fear for your life? and the lives of your friends and fellow officers around you? how would it feel if your best buddy was shot because you hesitated.

Good police dont arrest people just because someone suspects something.they find proof of a crime first.

And how are they to start an investigation in the middle of a conflict? Should they let someone run away because it hasn't been proved in court yet that they are responsible? That sounds ludicrous.

The investigation begins when a call is received.Yes if they cant catch a suspect then i dont think he should be shot in the back.

Originally posted by deadeyedick

Originally posted by Terrion

Originally posted by deadeyedick

Originally posted by Terrion
reply to post by Qwenn

 

I think his point was that police are under alot of stress and face danger everyday. they are normal people who have families and friends. if you where called to arrest a person suspected of having a deadly weapon and they pointed this object at you would you fear for your life? and the lives of your friends and fellow officers around you? how would it feel if your best buddy was shot because you hesitated.

Good police dont arrest people just because someone suspects something.they find proof of a crime first.

And how are they to start an investigation in the middle of a conflict? Should they let someone run away because it hasn't been proved in court yet that they are responsible? That sounds ludicrous.

The investigation begins when a call is received.Yes if they cant catch a suspect then i dont think he should be shot in the back.

He wasn't shot in the back he pointed the toy gun at officers. They didn't shoot this person for fun or target practice they had reason to fear for there lives so they acted.

reply to post by deadeyedick


Well it sounds like you use a lot of restraint in your practice as a police officer, and I commend you for that. But on the other hand, I know a couple of officers killed in the line of duty this year alone, so be careful that your own safety is always ensured.

I can agree that no shots were fired, and they must have been close enough to fire a well-placed round with a pistol, so they probably had a good view, but in the OP scenario, there were already calls from residents, he had already pointed the gun at a dog, he was mentally handicapped, so he may have been acting irrationally, and that could have been perceived as drugs, or impairment. He not only refused the order to drop the weapon, but he actually responded by pointing it at the officers.

It is a tragic story, but I just can't find a lot of fault in what the officers did. You know as well as anybody that they are living with a lot of regret right now, and they don't need us second-guessing it in hindsight and calling it "murder" which implies the officer did this on purpose, or with some pre-conceived notion to kill.

reply to post by deadeyedick

The investigation begins when a call is received.Yes if they cant catch a suspect then i dont think he should be shot in the back.

What if he says "I'm going to shoot the people in the house" turns around and heads for the front door? Should we ask him to turn around so we can shoot him in the front?

Perhaps I should chase him and run around him to shoot him? Perhaps I should chase him and tap him on the shoulder before talking sense into him?

Are you for real?

Originally posted by Magnum007
reply to post by deadeyedick

 

We don't need proof right away... We need reasonable grounds to believe that an indictable offense has, is or will occur...

In the US you may know it as probable cause.

No proof needed... just reasonable grounds to believe (50% +1 in easier terms)... that could be someone saying they were attacked and another saying they witnessed it... it's not actual physical proof, but it's enough to arrest someone...

In court however, to obtain a conviction, you must have 99.9% certainty... I saw this because there are some exceptions to the "reasonable doubt" concept in law.

Geez, by the time this gets to page 10, you'll understand the law a little better don't you think?

Yes thats correct however thats also a major problem he said she said bullchit.Just because someone says something doesnt make it true.
More to the point we dont need cops that shoot so freely.Sometimes you have to slow down and gain your composure.Honestly i have almost pulled the trigger in these situations and looking back i think goodness i didn't .People have bad days.Cooler heads will always prevail.
Even if this was a real gun and he had fired shots that doesnt mean that there is not a way for me to go home and him go to jail.That should be the goal.

Originally posted by deadeyedick

Originally posted by Magnum007
reply to post by deadeyedick

 

We don't need proof right away... We need reasonable grounds to believe that an indictable offense has, is or will occur...

In the US you may know it as probable cause.

No proof needed... just reasonable grounds to believe (50% +1 in easier terms)... that could be someone saying they were attacked and another saying they witnessed it... it's not actual physical proof, but it's enough to arrest someone...

In court however, to obtain a conviction, you must have 99.9% certainty... I saw this because there are some exceptions to the "reasonable doubt" concept in law.

Geez, by the time this gets to page 10, you'll understand the law a little better don't you think?

Yes thats correct however thats also a major problem he said she said bullchit.Just because someone says something doesnt make it true.
More to the point we dont need cops that shoot so freely.Sometimes you have to slow down and gain your composure.Honestly i have almost pulled the trigger in these situations and looking back i think goodness i didn't .People have bad days.Cooler heads will always prevail.
Even if this was a real gun and he had fired shots that doesnt mean that there is not a way for me to go home and him go to jail.That should be the goal.

Im glad im not serving next to you. in my opinion you are a liberal naive child who has yet to see the world for what it is. A evil place with evil people and evil intentions. I agree in some cases officers should have held there ground and not fired but in this instance it was completely warranted.