Anonymous Wants Justice For 13 Year Old. Demands Release of Identities of the Cops

boymonkey74
Do toy guns in the states have a big orange painted bit at the front to show it is a toy? we have these in the uk.

No the pellet guns do not have that orange tip. The cheap cap guns do.

This incident has haunted me and today I saw photos of the family at the boy's funeral.
His Mother could barely stand.

Here's the thing: he was a kid...they were grown adult men who supposedly have pro-level "training."
I fail to understand why they couldn't have found another/better way of dealing with the alleged situation under any circumstances.

I refuse to believe all possible verbal and physical means to avert a crisis were used from the information available.

This sets an important precedent as I see it as to "assumption" and "reality" and what the procedures might be.

It "looked like a weapon/gun" yet it was not.Do they have the right to kill now as a result only of what is "seen" and "assumed?"

Do they get to gun down a kid with a sharp stick next "assuming" it's a weapon?

This needs to be addressed and not shoved under a rug by whatever means necessary.

I think it's a turning point as to how we all might all be potentially at risk.

reply to post by blackthorne

we had a case out here a few years ago, (sonoma county) where a teen from analy high school was waving a knife. police shot him dead. where was the taser?

Tazers are not always available at the time.

why couldn't the cops have used the baton to knock it out of his hand?

Because it is unreasonable to ask a police officer, or anyone else, to try to knock a knife out of a person's hand in a situation like that.

Too many things can go wrong and when they do, the police officer gets stabbed.

The life of a police officer is valued more than some idiot who decided to wave a knife around in a threatening manner. The person decided to go down that path, not the police officer.

Now, I will agree that the person should obviously be given a chance to drop the knife. The police should hold off on shooting until the person makes an aggressive move towards them or someone else. But taking a baton into a knife fight is the wrong answer.

a basic fencing parry would have done the trick.

You cannot be serious. Fencing has no comparison to this situation.

I guarantee no one would take part in a fencing match if they were told their opponent gets a real sword and it is a fight to the death.

I guarantee no one would take part in a fencing match if they were told they couldn't wear one of those masks they always wear. They would tell you "it's too dangerous, someone could lose an eye."

Having read the entire conversation carefully I concluded that the side that's in favor of police state tactics against such as the 13 year old boy has failed to convince me, nor have they presented even one iota of evidence that would support any such conclusion that allows them to logically, or morally prevail by coming down on the side of the government's Fascist methods.

On the contrary there has been a wealth of evidence presented here in this thread that would be very convincing to an impartial and reasonably thinking person (or group, such as a jury) that the government (Holder et al) needs to drastically revise their untenable position with respect to coveting the police by means of aiding and abetting their unjustifiably violent behavior against the citizenry of this nation. The "people" must demand that the Justice Department do a full and impartial review of their policies that allow for the protection (and complicity in a general cover-up) of the local police forces throughout this nation in this regard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A side question for one of our users or a mod - is there a reason why I am not able to respond to posts in this thread using the general REPLY function rather than to have to reply to a particular post? There are many times when I would like to respond to the "thread" itself rather than to an individual. Oftentimes I seek to avoid a perception of calling someone out - ya know? .........Just askin Thank you.

And - is the issue peculiar to this Forum?

XionZap

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A side question for one of our users or a mod - is there a reason why I am not able to respond to posts in this thread using the general REPLY function rather than to have to reply to a particular post? There are many times when I would like to respond to the "thread" itself rather than to an individual. Oftentimes I seek to avoid a perception of calling someone out - ya know? .........Just askin Thank you.

And - is the issue peculiar to this Forum?

edit on 31-10-2013 by XionZap because: (no reason given)

At any time you can delete all in the text in the input box and it will be as if you hit the general reply button. On my device at the bottom of the screen is the general reply icon that gives you a blank screen. Hope that helps.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Take your own advice; don't make assumptions about the mindset or motives of police. That is a dead end for either side of the debate.

The facts speak for themselves, as David pointed out.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


AreYOUserious???

If you think a private citizen with a carry permit would be given the benefit of the doubt, as police always are, then you have no credibility in this thread.

reply to post by Dav1d


I was asking why there is no option for a general reply.

I'm already aware of the things you mentioned - the 'how' of erasing text from the reply option to someones post wasn't my question...............thanks anyhow for the attempt.

reply to post by OpenMindedRealist

If you think a private citizen with a carry permit would be given the benefit of the doubt, as police always are, then you have no credibility in this thread.

Are YOU serious?
Concealed Carry Success Story with No Charges Against Citizen
Concealed Carry Success Story with No Charges Against Citizen
Concealed Carry Success Story with No Charges Against Citizen

People with concealed carry permits do use their weapons from time to time. And as long as the initial investigation reveals they were justified, based on the facts know to the person at the time of the shooting, they are not charged with a crime. This is the same standard the police are afforded.

Its not giving someone the "benefit of the doubt." It is investigating the circumstances that lead up to the shooting and applying the law to them.

Also, concealed carry permit citizens are not charged with the responsibility to confront individuals they believe to be armed.. Police are.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


so, you are saying that basically, cops have no other options. so why carry any thing else then, just a gun. a baton can knock a knife out of some ones hand. and not all people are sane when things like this happen. the kid with the knife was having emotional and mental problems. so, he should be executed? the police are supposed to defend and protect ALL people. they are supposed to be putting THEIR lives on the line to protect ALL people. when they join the force, it doesn't make them above the average citizen. they have even MORE responsibility that lethal force should be the LAST option used.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


Thanks for helping make my point.

In the case of the 13 year old, there was no act of aggression or threat on behalf of the victim, whereas in all three cases you cite, there was an act of violence perpetrated by the victim before the shooting.

Any time a gun owner takes a life in self defense, they are not considered innocent until proven guilty. Have you forgotten Trayvon Martin already?

I am guessing you have never taken a carry permit course, and maybe never even owned a gun. They drill it into your head that you had better not even pull the weapon out unless lives are in imminent danger, and you had better have your defense ready when the police arrive. This is likely part of the reason that permit holders commit such a minute percentage of gun crime.

reply to post by blackthorne


He may not realize it, but that's pretty much what he is saying.

The police officers who deserve admiration are the ones who approach the unstable guy holding a knife with a mix of caution and compassion; the ones who would rather be cut and hospitalized than shoot the guy and send him to the morgue. They are few and far between, and I think men like that have always been a rare breed.

With such large police forces today, it is no wonder the good cops are outnumbered. They can't even reach supervisory positions anymore, because they refuse to be a part of the blue wall and so are black-balled by the rest.

reply to post by blackthorne

so, you are saying that basically, cops have no other options.

Police have a use of force continuum. It involves using a one-step-above approach to the resistance that they are confronted with. Obviously, this comes with the premise of using the least amount of force necessary.

It doesn't take a police officer with training to research the use of force continuum. And when you read about it, it makes sense.

Use of Force Continuum from DOJ

a baton can knock a knife out of some ones hand.

Yes, it COULD be used to knock a knife out of someone's hand. But the chances of the police officer being stabbed go up exponentially. A reasonable person would understand that would be asking a police officer to take an unreasonable risk when someone is confronting them with deadly force.

Police Officers do not have to go through the entire use of force continuum based on the situation. If someone presents a knife, a Police Officer does not have to try each level before using deadly force. If someone presents deadly force, the officer's use of force can jump to deadly force immediately.

Police Officers are not paid to get stabbed or "take a bullet," like others have claimed, or take UNREASONABLE risks while doing their jobs.

and not all people are sane when things like this happen.

Does that make the person any less dangerous? No.

If someone has lost their sanity and it has gotten to the point they are wielding a deadly weapon, the appropriate time to deal with their mental health issue has long passed. It is the fault of that person or their friends and family that their condition has degraded to the point they have now become dangerous.

the kid with the knife was having emotional and mental problems. so, he should be executed?

No one said he should. He should be confronted by people equipped to deal with the threat he poses to everyone else (i.e. the Police). That person's actions during that confrontation are usually what leads to one of the many different outcomes.

the police are supposed to defend and protect ALL people.

While this is true, in the situation you presented the police have to prioritize the safety of the crazy person wielding a deadly weapon, their own safety and the safety of any innocent bystanders. The safety of innocent bystanders comes first, then Officer safety and finally the person wielding the deadly weapon aggressively.

they are supposed to be putting THEIR lives on the line to protect ALL people.

No, they are supposed to take a reasonable amount of risk, which involves putting their lives on the line, to protect people. See above when it comes to the "ALL" part.

reply to post by OpenMindedRealist

In the case of the 13 year old, there was no act of aggression or threat on behalf of the victim, whereas in all three cases you cite, there was an act of violence perpetrated by the victim before the shooting.

The officer challenged him and he did not immediately drop the weapon. This is considered an act of aggression.

The officer stated the boy was turning while raising the barrel of the weapon towards him. This is considered an act of aggression.

Any time a gun owner takes a life in self defense, they are not considered innocent until proven guilty. Have you forgotten Trayvon Martin already?

Have you forgotten that the police declined to charge Zimmerman and it was the State's Attorney that made that decision, mostly due to political pressure?

I am guessing you have never taken a carry permit course, and maybe never even owned a gun.

I am guessing you have no idea who I am, so get real.

They drill it into your head that you had better not even pull the weapon out unless lives are in imminent danger, and you had better have your defense ready when the police arrive. This is likely part of the reason that permit holders commit such a minute percentage of gun crime.

There is a difference between concealed carry and a police officer.

Police Officers are paid to investigate suspicious activity and confront people who they believe are armed.

Concealed carry is for defense only.

If a concealed carry were in this situation, they would have no reason to attempt to confront the person and investigate if the weapon is real. If the person is walking away from them and not threatening them directly, they would be expected to call the police.

The police are expected to confront the person and investigate because they pose a potential threat to public safety.

reply to post by OpenMindedRealist

The police officers who deserve admiration are the ones who approach the unstable guy holding a knife with a mix of caution and compassion; the ones who would rather be cut and hospitalized than shoot the guy and send him to the morgue.

This is completely unreasonable and no reasonable person would expect any police officer to think like this.

Where exactly have you seen a Police Officer articulate this short of thinking? I don't think you have. I think you might just be making things up.

UnifiedSerenity

MikhailBakunin

GrantedBail
reply to post by boncho

 

You are correct. I misspoke. I could have sworn I read that the gun did a couple of days ago. The gun did not have an orange tip:

Regardless if the gun had a orange tip or not, one does not shoot unless fired upon. Is that not the rules of engagement?

He should be imprisoned for firing said weapon AND charged with first degree manslaughter. He must be made an example of for the rest of those that "protect and serve".

No, that is not the rules of engagement.