Police shoot 13 year old carrying fake rifle.

dragonridr

Dav1d

Maverick7

Dav1d
It's informative to notice how this story is changing, originally reported as,

This afternoon at 3:00PM, two Sonoma County Deputies were patrolling in the area of Mooreland Ave. and West Robles Ave., Santa Rosa. At that time they observed a male subject walking with what appeared to be some type of a rifle. They immediately called for an emergency response from other deputies and officers that were in the area. The two deputies repeatedly ordered the subject to drop the rifle and at some point immediately thereafter, the deputies fired several rounds from their handguns at the subject striking him several times. The subject fell to the ground and landed on top of the rifle he was carrying.

Source: local.nixle.com...

Does anyone else wonder why an event that occour at 3:00pm has an image of a gun taken clearly many hours later.... Did it take time for the cops to find an AK-47?

And the latest is the cops now claim the child pointed the gun at them....

When a citizen is questioned and doesn't tell a consistent story what happens?

Oh-oh, they messed up.

He landed on top of the rifle? Guess he had it at port arms, parallel to his body, for that to happen. If he'd have been pointing it at them it would have landed in front of him.

Look at that picture again, if he landed on top of it as was claimed where o where is the blood? He was shot multiple times, and there is no sign of blood at all. The kid they claim landed on top of it while he died from their shots, while his life blood pumped out. Think about what 6-8 pints of blood would do.... He laid there the police claim while the called to him repeatedly to move the weapon before they dared to approach him, and the cuffed him, that takes time, and only then did the roll him off the gun... So no blood...

Funny things about cops, they wear body armor nowadays. Armor designed to protect them. Perhaps we should give body armor to our children now days? LEO's like to talk about our children who kill with guns. I strongly suspect that cops kill more people with guns than our children do each year. Should we act like cops and assume all cops are killers, and/or corrupt simply because a very small percentage of them have been found guilty of corruption, rape, assault, and murder?

Youve watched to many movies having seen people shot people dont instantly bleed out. In fact the human body attempts to stop that from happening. When shot the body will attempt to make the body circulate blood internally and start pulling it away from the skin. When shot unless its in the head there isnt a pool of blood people can be shot and not even realize it the only clue is a red spot on there clothes. But pints dont spill on to the floor. As for body army your standard police officer doesnt wear body armor and probably have it in a vehicle or at the precinct. Most likely be class 2 which would stop a round from a 9 mm but an ak 47 would punch right through it. So if you were an officer you have a 9 mm and you see someone with an ak 47 they have all the advantages. Your much more like to die then they are If you told them to drop it and they havnt then they raise it like there going to fire what do you do wait to see if they shoot you or do you shoot them. Thats the position they were in if it was real then no way to tell until your dead what would you do?

Do you actually want to compare George Zimmerman's little PF-9s gun to an officer's duty weapon? At point blank range it didn't have the power to penetrate his body....

Trayvon Martain was laying on his back, with his chest up in the air. Very different than the way this child was reported. And I noticed a sigificant amount of blood, on his sweatshirt. Trayvon Martin was shot only once, not multiple times like this child. Any attempt to compare these two cases is an unfounded comparison.

reply to post by Dav1d


PF9 is 9mm - or around .380 cal. The officers would have either used a 9mm or .40 cal weapon. The difference in bullet size being a whopping .02". But I suppose that two-hundredths of an inch could mean the difference between very little to no blood anywhere, and blood just gushing everywhere... But not very likely.

The bullet also very much penetrated his body, hit Martin's heart, and stopped near his spine. But I assume you weren't aware of that? Or that Martin was actually face-down until police arrived? Yet, no blood.

You keep stating that the child was shot seven times. Where is the autopsy report? Did you see the body? A witness claiming to have heard something like seven shots is not the same as the kid being shot seven times.

Right now, you're making outlandish claims that because there's not huge puddles of blood around the weapon, that it must all be staged. When we don't know how many times the 13-year old was shot, nor with what caliber weapon, nor where they were shot. It's entirely possible and plausible that the kid bled out into his pleural cavity or similar.

reply to post by Highground

Right now, you're making outlandish claims that because there's not huge puddles of blood around the weapon, that it must all be staged. When we don't know how many times the 13-year old was shot, nor with what caliber weapon, nor where they were shot.

they fired several rounds from their handguns at the boy, who was hit multiple times, O'Leary said.

That shows in multiple news stories.

reply to post by Highground


This news story has a side by side picture of the toy and a real AK 47: LINK

Go to gallery to see larger pictures. LINK

From the looks of that picture it is about time the cops were TRAINED to tell the difference between toys and real weapons.

reply to post by crimvelvet

"Multiple" can mean two or three. That can mean once in the leg, once in the arm, once in the chest. That can mean multiple times center mass. That can mean three times in the head, once in the abdomen. None of this implies there would need to be blood around the weapon for the sequence of events to be true.

Does anyone know if cops get a bonus at the end of the year based on how many people they've shot? I know that might sound strange but you never know right?

reply to post by crimvelvet


What is the large difference, aside from the shortened barrel?

You realize they make AK-47 "pistols," (called Dracos) that if you put a stock on, would look incredibly similar, right? And that it's not necessarily prudent when a person is carrying around what appears to be an AK-47, that you just assume based on barrel length that it's a toy and no harm, no foul.

There are many times when police have messed up, shooting people with clearly toy guns, with just wallets or cell phones. This simply isn't one of those times. It's a tragedy, yes. But any reasonable person without an axe to grind against cops would likely agree that the "toy" looks incredibly similar to an AK-47, and when a person is brandishing something that looks incredibly similar to an AK-47, and then starts moving to possibly point it at you, you're not going to just give them the benefit of the doubt and laugh it off.

reply to post by crimvelvet

beleive me when i say it i dont like whats going on with the police these days and im the first to rip them a new one, but do you know how may manufactures and versions of the ak are out there..the replica in question looks plenty real and im sure there is a version of ak that looks just like it.
im not defending the police at all just clarifying that even a trained cop may not be able to tell the difference in some of these replicas from more than a few feet away

Funny, if this kid was shot by a Homeowner in his personal space...ie property, this thread would be full of..."he did the right thing, shoot first ask questions later...But it's them big bad cops again.


A cop hiding behind his Car door would have very little protection against a Real AK 47.

My opinion on America is "EVERYONE" Has a itchy trigger finger, I wouldn't let them loose with a Knotted Hankie.

reply to post by Dav1d


Class IV body armor is HEAVY and expensive.Its the ceramic inserts required to stop a high caliber bullet that do the job.

Vasa Croe
Looking at the pics of the AK styled gun in the article, there does not appear to be any orange colored tip if this were a toy. They suggest possibly a pellet or BB gun in the article as well and say that he had a toy pistol in his waistband as well.

That AK, even though not a real AK, does look very real and from a distance would imagine that in the hands of a 13 year old would seem fairly menacing. If he were truly told to drop it and did not then I am not sure I could fully blame the officers for firing. Had it been a real AK he would have easily outgunned the officers.

When I was a kid, I remember me and the neighbors kid would go around playing cops and robbers (yea I'm that old) with solid silver guns with the tape full of gun powder dots shooting at each other. A cop drove by one day and my friend aimed at him, and the cop aimed back with his trigger finger, smiling like he was holding his gun and shooting back.

What has happened to this country?

Vasa Croe
Had it been a real AK he would have easily outgunned the officers.

Not true. It all depends on environment. In close quarters (a living room, a front yard) I would prefer to have a pistol. Outside of forty feet I think the rifle would have the advantage.
You got to have the right tool for the job.

Soloprotocol
Funny, if this kid was shot by a Homeowner in his personal space...ie property, this thread would be full of..."he did the right thing, shoot first ask questions later...But it's them big bad cops again.

"IF"

If "if" was a fifth we'd all be drunk.

IsawWHATtheyDID
what ever happened to "do not fire until fired upon" ?

What a stupid comment - so according to you police are only allowed to shoot someone after they have been fired upon....

hellobruce

IsawWHATtheyDID
what ever happened to "do not fire until fired upon" ?

What a stupid comment - so according to you police are only allowed to shoot someone after they have been fired upon....

Wow that job would really suck wouldnt it? Officers use deadly force only when there is a possibility of injury to themselves or others. For every case you hear of a mistake being made like a toy gun being mistaken for a real one. There are hundreds were police officers are confronted with real guns the actions of the person wielding the gun determines the outcome all an officer can do is react. Had the child droped the toy as commanded he would have went home. For some reason he chose to ignore the officers requests this immediately jacks up the situation making it even more deadly.Because at that point that is exactly what a shooter would do like in the school shootings. Trust me when i tell you the officers will need help dealing with this shooting they didnt want to kill that boy.No officer goes out on patroll going man i hope i get to kill someone today. Officers have been known to be killed because they waited to long to realize they were in danger because they didnt want to kill anyone. Its a tough call and unless youve been in that situation you really cant judge the officer we have lots of military on here with combat experience and they know whats its like ask them.

reply to post by hellobruce


Nothing stupid about that policy it would save many many lives. Leo's wouldn't shoot as many innocent people and i doubt statistics wold increase much of murdered cops. There has to be some rules for engagement else inocent people will die.

If the boy had his back to the officers as indicated in one of the earlier links then he clearly was not an immediate threat to the officers and they had no reason to fire upon him imho

its a disgrace and should never have happened

America, you've got a 'gun' problem, and all the excuses in the world, all the post-analysis of shooting events like this tragedy, whether by cop or by citizen rampage, are not going to bring about a cure until you accept that you have a problem. Events like this are symptoms of your gun disease and they are going to keep occurring until you accept some form of severe gun control.

I really don't care that you are constitutionally able to 'bear arms'. I really don't care that you have lawful rights to open carry or conceal a gun, there is something wrong with your mindset if you accept gun deaths like this as the 'collateral damage' of having that right.

Of course, the gun itself is nothing without the hand and mind holding it, so the cure (if one is allowed to be applied?) has to attend to both the metal and the mind....reduce the metal and change the mind. If you are genuinely appalled by these continuous tragedies, if you genuinely want to see a vast reduction in them, then something has to give, there has to be a loss in both the manufacture and ownership of the gun.

You can't say how sad you feel at these tragic deaths whilst in the next breath declare your support for gun ownership...it is all very hollow, dispassionate, and disingenuous. You're mindset is part of the problem, and you are refusing to acknowledge it, refusing to even view it that way. You will simply lay cause and blame squarely on the kid, squarely on the cop, next death/s please...ad nauseam. Are these events really worth the cost? Do you actually think that re-training is going to bring about some miraculous cure?

The truth is, America is divided on the issue of gun rights and gun ownership. One half wants to tackle the problem, the other half wants to keep it out of fear (as pre-emptive defence) and addiction (sense of empowerment). There are so many guns in circulation, so many hands and minds on them that the cops themselves are taking no chances at all. The public is an unpredictable animal, and the cop cannot know if he will be allowed to pet it or get bitten by it, so it's been a gradual shift in policing to be both strongly forthright and objectively determined when dealing with not just the professional or career criminal, but the public in general.

The public view this policy as police brutality. To witnesses it is distressing to see, and over time it has brought about a public suspicion and antagonism on the police profession, and has actually ingrained even deeper the belief in the need to have a gun, and this is where the real problem lies, in the mind behind the metal.

If, as an American, you think it galling for people from other countries to say a few words in criticism towards your gun culture, tough! No amount of analysing statistics of other cultures crime scores or gun deaths will solve your problem, that argument is simply to allow America to feel it has some strange kind of parity with other countries when it comes to gun issues and to suggest that the argument supports gun ownership...it doesn't, not by any stretch of the imagination. It rebuts the argument in very stark terms that gun deaths are caused by guns, irregardless of the health of the mind holding the gun.

If a deranged mind didn't have a gun then he/she would use whatever weapon is at hand, but this does not shift the argument from the gun, nor make the gun problem argument null and void.

Why would you want to own and be able to carry a loaded gun? When you answer that question you get to the heart of the problem. It's not simply because you want to exercise a constitutional right. No! You own a gun because you are fearful. It is fear that grips the mind that grips the gun. Fear of what might happen to you and your family, and you want to be able to put up some kind of defence. That, and that alone is the reason for America's gun culture. Of course, in this context, I am only talking about gun owners living in cities. As far as I am aware, there are no bears and no deer, etc., walking the streets of Chicago or New York or any other major American metropolis.

No. In the cities, the gun is owned to defend against people. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that city gun owners believe their city to be a violent one? How strange then that other dwellers in the same cities do not feel the need to own a gun. Perhaps, the former is paranoid, the latter too trusting?

Whatever side of the argument you take up the gun is and does remain an integral problem at the heart of American culture.

Highground
reply to post by Dav1d

 

You keep stating that the child was shot seven times. [/B]Where is the autopsy report? Did you see the body? A witness claiming to have heard something like seven shots is not the same as the kid being shot seven times.

Right now, you're making outlandish claims that because there's not huge puddles of blood around the weapon, that it must all be staged. When we don't know how many times the 13-year old was shot, nor with what caliber weapon, nor where they were shot. It's entirely possible and plausible that the kid bled out into his pleural cavity or similar.

edit on 23-10-2013 by Highground because: (no reason given)

Please provide a link where I claim the child was shot seven times!

If anyone here is intentionally making outlandish claims it is you.

reply to post by elysiumfire


So murder and other crimes are caused by paranoid people with guns? Weird if thats the case why do murders happen in the United Kingdom odd isnt it?