California cops shoot kid with toy gun aka Replica Assault Weapon

[Artema]

There is plenty of evidence. We are just not privy to it at this time. This is a fact that you don't seem to care about, you are willing to come to a conclusion and call for punishment of someone knowing that you don't have all the facts. That alone speaks volumes.

Where have I said I don't care to know additional evidence? Your lies speak volumes about you. I am always open to more information.

[TRICKSTER]

Where have I said I don't care to know additional evidence? Your lies speak volumes about you. I am always open to more information.

I did not say you don't care about, I said you don't seem to care about. That is not a lie but an observation based on your post and admissions. Your lack of reading comprehension does not equate to a lie on my part.

[Artema]

I did not say you don't care about, I said you don't seem to care about. That is not a lie but an observation based on your post and admissions. Your lack of reading comprehension does not equate to a lie on my part.

But it indicates a lack of reading comprehension on your part to have it seem as such.

[inbox485]

No, I don't believe they acted reasonably. I think they approached the situation incorrectly. If they had acted appropriately they would have not pissed themselves over a child with a toy. I think that after they approached it incorrectly they made a justifiable decision. But it should have been clear that he wasn't holding a HEAVY object. The way a lightweight plastic rifle sits in the hands of a child is not even remotely similar to the way a 10 pound rifle would hang in his arms.

Have you ever seen a 13 year old hold an AK? Unless they are a tea cup little *****, it isn't particularly encumbering...

[Artema]

Have you ever seen a 13 year old hold an AK? Unless they are a tea cup little *****, it isn't particularly encumbering...

I have seen adults hold an AK and other heavy rifles, and you can see a significant difference in their arms. If it is pronounced in an adult it will be more so in a child.

[ifilef]

What about use of rubber bullets or some other kind of non-lethal force. I don't think that we can hold a 13-year old to the same standards as an adult.

In any event, I wouldn't have wanted to be one of those cops. I'd find it difficult to deal with the tragedy of killing this boy. How about having that on one's conscience (assuming the officers have a conscience). This will likely haunt them the rest of their lives. I would not be surprised if some of them get out of police work (voluntarily or involuntarily) and find another livelihood, or face much worse professional and personal consequences.

[IrishJoe3]

I have seen adults hold an AK and other heavy rifles, and you can see a significant difference in their arms. If it is pronounced in an adult it will be more so in a child.

Dude...my 6 year old can haul around my Garand with ease. When I was 14 I was shooting and hunting with 12 lb, 5 foot long civil war muskets easily. You are totally grasping at straws here.

[Artema]

Dude...my 6 year old can haul around my Garand with ease. When I was 14 I was shooting and hunting with 12 lb, 5 foot long civil war muskets easily. You are totally grasping at straws here.

It's not about ease. I'm talking about active duty military members. They're a bit more muscular than the examples you are using.

[IrishJoe3]

What about use of rubber bullets or some other kind of non-lethal force. I don't think that we can hold a 13-year old to the same standards as an adult.

The problem is.

The criteria where it is permissable to use lethal force against another person (ie 'justifiable homicide') is VERY limited, and in a nutshell only permitted when there is a perceived real and immediate threat to life. The kind of threat where unless you stop the threat NOW, you or someone else will die.

Understanding that....logically, lethal and non lethal can never mix. If you're in a situation where less lethal is a viable and permissible option, then there isn't an immediate real threat to your life. Therefore, you can't legally use lethal force.

Likewise, if you're in a situation where there is a real and immediate threat to your life that will result in your death unless you immediate open fire and stop the threat, you would never ever use a less lethal option.

Its a nice thought, but....

In any event, I wouldn't have wanted to be one of those cops. I'd find it difficult to deal with the tragedy of killing this boy. How about having that on one's conscience (assuming the officers have a conscience). This will likely haunt them the rest of their lives. I would not surprised if some of them get out of police work and find another livelihood, or face much worse professional and personal consequences.

Without a doubt!

[TRICKSTER]

But it indicates a lack of reading comprehension on your part to have it seem as such.

If that's the case there seem to be several posters here that seem to have comprehension problems with your post. Funny it only seems to be your post that people have problems comprehending. Of course the problem is with everyone else, not what you are actually posting.

[Artema]

The problem is.

The criteria where it is permissable to use lethal force against another person (ie 'justifiable homicide') is VERY limited, and in a nutshell only permitted when there is a perceived real and immediate threat to life. The kind of threat where unless you stop the threat NOW, you or someone else will die.

Understanding that....logically, lethal and non lethal can never mix. If you're in a situation where less lethal is a viable and permissible option, then there isn't an immediate real threat to your life. Therefore, you can't legally use lethal force.

Likewise, if you're in a situation where there is a real and immediate threat to your life that will result in your death unless you immediate open fire and stop the threat, you would never ever use a less lethal option.

Its a nice thought, but....

Very true. If you're going to shoot someone, even with rubber bullets, you have to consider that to be a deadly action. Cops often worry about carrying enough bullets as it is, having a mag with less lethals would eat up valuable space in their equipment.

[TRICKSTER]

It's not about ease. I'm talking about active duty military members. They're a bit more muscular than the examples you are using.

Has our military gotten so out of shape that a 7 or 8 pound weight in their arms has such an obvious effect?

[IrishJoe3]

It's not about ease. I'm talking about active duty military members. They're a bit more muscular than the examples you are using.

So, muscular active duty troops are visibly strained by picking up a 'heavy' AK47, but I've carried a 12 lb musket since the age of 14 without any problems or 'strain'.

So somehow, at a distance of 20 feet and in just a couple seconds, the deputies are supposed to analyze posture and muscle tension in order to determine the weight of the rifle, therefore be able to tell if its a toy or real.

Oookay then.

I'll play with you, as ridiculous as your argument is.

Lets say that the kid, instead of having an Airsoft AK47, he had one of those cheap Big 5 .22 rimfire mockups. I've handled those guns, they are a couple pounds at best.

What then? You're the cop, you analyze that the gun that is pointed at your head only weighs 3 pounds instead of 8 so you choose not to shoot. And you catch a .22 to the forehead.

[Artema]

If that's the case there seem to be several posters here that seem to have comprehension problems with your post. Funny it only seems to be your post that people have problems comprehending. Of course the problem is with everyone else, not what you are actually posting.

I do tend to respond to a specific claim, instead of readdressing my entire point. I have seen people address me when they think they are speaking to someone else, and it gets confusing, it is understandable. I just believe that being a cop takes more than just being friends with your boys in blue and protecting their paychecks. I have taught people that cops are the good guys, and when they treat all situations as life or death, they tend to fulfill that destiny. We need level headed people out there doing good work. These guys weren't murderers. They're just not good at their job.

[Ninety]

Yep, I know that's what I always thought about at the beginning of every shift. I hope I get lucky and get into it with someone carrying a full auto AK. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

That was exactly my point.. how ridiculous it is that these cops actually thought that they had just stumbled across a mass shooting in the making.

They obviously thought they had just stumbled across a person walking in a field? at 330 in the afternoon open carrying an AK that was out to do harm. Why else would they have responded the way they did?

I'm doing my best to remain objective..

All the facts aren't out yet.. It will be interesting to see exactly where this kid was. Hopefully there is some video that will exonerate these police officers and show that it was just a horrible mistake caused by the actions of the child. I hope it shows the kid spin and point. Not just turn around after getting shouted at and get dropped.

What do you think happened? Do you think they shot to quickly? Do you think they should have done something differently?

The radio call for back up and the radio call for shots fired are 6 sec apart. Maybe they were so focused on the gun they couldn't identify their target as a child. Maybe there was a little bit of profiling going on , in a bad neighborhood.. I'm not trying to blame the cops for feeling threatened.. But they may have very well placed themselves into a corner where there only option was to shoot givin a very certain set of circumstances..

but we just saw a story out of TX where the cop lied about the shooting of the man with a knife.. so it is not out of the realm of possibility that the story given won't later be contradicted by video evidence.