|
Post by boothenboy75 on Nov 26, 2014 21:31:30 GMT
Some quite astonishing replies on this thread, what did you want the police to do? Wait for the kid to draw the gun and fire it at them before they decided if it was real or not? And the people suggesting the police should of used tazers or pepper spray really haven't got a clue. Indeed. What a job spec that must be, "if you come across a little scrote with what appears to be a gun, wait until he shoots at you as it might be a fake. As leaving your child without a father matters less to those who will never have to make the decision."
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 26, 2014 22:03:43 GMT
Some quite astonishing replies on this thread, what did you want the police to do? Wait for the kid to draw the gun and fire it at them before they decided if it was real or not? And the people suggesting the police should of used tazers or pepper spray really haven't got a clue. No it's all perfectly fine less than 50 seconds after turning up, police shot and killed a 12 year old kid who had a toy gun. Good job uk cops rules of engagement aren't down to you.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 26, 2014 22:06:24 GMT
Some quite astonishing replies on this thread, what did you want the police to do? Wait for the kid to draw the gun and fire it at them before they decided if it was real or not? And the people suggesting the police should of used tazers or pepper spray really haven't got a clue. Indeed. What a job spec that must be, "if you come across a little scrote with what appears to be a gun, wait until he shoots at you as it might be a fake. As leaving your child without a father matters less to those who will never have to make the decision." Classy, the 12 year old shot dead is a scrote, the video is out there now less than 50 seconds after turning up the kid is shot. As it's America the cops will be find matters not whether he had a gun...
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Nov 26, 2014 22:12:20 GMT
Indeed. What a job spec that must be, "if you come across a little scrote with what appears to be a gun, wait until he shoots at you as it might be a fake. As leaving your child without a father matters less to those who will never have to make the decision." Classy, the 12 year old shot dead is a scrote, the video is out there now less than 50 seconds after turning up the kid is shot. As it's America the cops will be find matters not whether he had a gun... Alas, some 12 year olds aren't like they were when I was 12. A bit like toy guns aren't like the old cap guns we used to play with. Perhaps if the police officer had been there longer than 50 seconds he could of come to a different conclusion, who knows? I'm sure if you'd of been first on the scene you'd of put your life in his hands that bit longer?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 26, 2014 22:21:47 GMT
Classy, the 12 year old shot dead is a scrote, the video is out there now less than 50 seconds after turning up the kid is shot. As it's America the cops will be find matters not whether he had a gun... Alas, some 12 year olds aren't like they were when I was 12. A bit like toy guns aren't like the old cap guns we used to play with. Perhaps if the police officer had been there longer than 50 seconds he could of come to a different conclusion, who knows? I'm sure if you'd of been first on the scene you'd of put your life in his hands that bit longer? Actually I was wrong the video is 50 seconds long, the cop shoots him 2 seconds after pulling up, then calls in that shots were fired suspect young male maybe 20 is down. Drive by shootings take longer than that.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Nov 26, 2014 22:27:42 GMT
Alas, some 12 year olds aren't like they were when I was 12. A bit like toy guns aren't like the old cap guns we used to play with. Perhaps if the police officer had been there longer than 50 seconds he could of come to a different conclusion, who knows? I'm sure if you'd of been first on the scene you'd of put your life in his hands that bit longer? Actually I was wrong the video is 50 seconds long, the cop shoots him 2 seconds after pulling up, then calls in that shots were fired suspect young male maybe 20 is down. Drive by shootings take longer than that. Like I said, who knows? Other that is, than the officer who attended. It's all to easy to second guess those who have to put their lives on the line and make the tough calls. That said I'm sure if there's evidence that this police officer is some cold blooded kiddy killer (which I doubt) he'll end up in court.
|
|
|
Post by chuckrocky on Nov 26, 2014 22:29:29 GMT
Some quite astonishing replies on this thread, what did you want the police to do? Wait for the kid to draw the gun and fire it at them before they decided if it was real or not? And the people suggesting the police should of used tazers or pepper spray really haven't got a clue. No it's all perfectly fine less than 50 seconds after turning up, police shot and killed a 12 year old kid who had a toy gun. Good job uk cops rules of engagement aren't down to you. How were the police supposed to know is a toy gun? The first thing they'd have looked for would of been the Orange safety cap, which wasn't there. This would of been a heated and tense moment in a location notorious for gun crime,,just put yourself in that situation, are you going to allow him to draw his gun and point it at you in the hope that it's a fake? Are you bollocks. And you clearly know fuck all about rules of engagement or else you wouldn't be criticising the police.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 26, 2014 22:33:56 GMT
Actually I was wrong the video is 50 seconds long, the cop shoots him 2 seconds after pulling up, then calls in that shots were fired suspect young male maybe 20 is down. Drive by shootings take longer than that. Like I said, who knows? Other that is, than the officer who attended. It's all to easy to second guess those who have to put their lives on the line and make the tough calls. That said I'm sure if there's evidence that this police officer is some cold blooded kiddy killer (which I doubt) he'll end up in court. That would be the same officer who said he shouted to the kid to put his hands up three times and then shot him when he made a move in the 1.2-2 seconds it took him to get out of the car. I'm sure the officer believed what he did was right but at the very least you'd expect him to be sacked and maybe those calling the kid a scrote might just think on too.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 26, 2014 22:38:05 GMT
No it's all perfectly fine less than 50 seconds after turning up, police shot and killed a 12 year old kid who had a toy gun. Good job uk cops rules of engagement aren't down to you. How were the police supposed to know is a toy gun? The first thing they'd have looked for would of been the Orange safety cap, which wasn't there. This would of been a heated and tense moment in a location notorious for gun crime,,just put yourself in that situation, are you going to allow him to draw his gun and point it at you in the hope that it's a fake? Are you bollocks. And you clearly know fuck all about rules of engagement or else you wouldn't be criticising the police. And you clearly now fuck all about what actually happened, the kid was shot 1.2-2 seconds after the cop exited the car so all the guff about safety caps is bollocks even superman would be struggling to make that out in the 1.2-2 seconds he gave the kid.
|
|
|
Post by chuckrocky on Nov 26, 2014 22:43:54 GMT
How were the police supposed to know is a toy gun? The first thing they'd have looked for would of been the Orange safety cap, which wasn't there. This would of been a heated and tense moment in a location notorious for gun crime,,just put yourself in that situation, are you going to allow him to draw his gun and point it at you in the hope that it's a fake? Are you bollocks. And you clearly know fuck all about rules of engagement or else you wouldn't be criticising the police. And you clearly now fuck all about what actually happened, the kid was shot 1.2-2 seconds after the cop exited the car so all the guff about safety caps is bollocks even superman would be struggling to make that out in the 1.2-2 seconds he gave the kid. It takes less than that amount of time to draw a pistol, like I said did you expect the police to allow him to draw his pistol and not act in the hope that it was a toy? Imagine having to explain that someone's family that you allowed their husband/dad/son/brother to be shot because you were trying to establish wether or not the gun he was shot with was real.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 26, 2014 23:55:50 GMT
I can't imagine the parents having a case tbh.
As tragic and shocking as it is, if he's holding what looks like a gun and they thought they were in danger then they can't prove otherwise really.
The whole culture over there stinks though. Why you'd think the majority having guns is better than (I want to use minority but that opens this post up to immense punage but fuck it.....) the minority I do not know. Absolutely frightening.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Nov 27, 2014 6:50:19 GMT
Some quite astonishing replies on this thread, what did you want the police to do? Wait for the kid to draw the gun and fire it at them before they decided if it was real or not? And the people suggesting the police should of used tazers or pepper spray really haven't got a clue. No it's all perfectly fine less than 50 seconds after turning up, police shot and killed a 12 year old kid who had a toy gun. Good job uk cops rules of engagement aren't down to you. Why don't you try drawing a toy gun (with the identification taken off) on a UK armed cop and see how different the rules of engagement are.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 27, 2014 8:55:54 GMT
No it's all perfectly fine less than 50 seconds after turning up, police shot and killed a 12 year old kid who had a toy gun. Good job uk cops rules of engagement aren't down to you. Why don't you try drawing a toy gun (with the identification taken off) on a UK armed cop and see how different the rules of engagement are. Firstly the identification is a red herring, the cop gave the kid 2 seconds it's dubious in that time he even knew he had any kind of weapon. Secondly the way the british police tried to apprehend Raul Maot and the killers of Lee Rigby tells me i'd get more than 2 seconds, it also tells me the british police have more faith in tasers than experts on here do. That is the difference of course in having a professional, well trained police force.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Nov 27, 2014 9:31:17 GMT
Why don't you try drawing a toy gun (with the identification taken off) on a UK armed cop and see how different the rules of engagement are. Firstly the identification is a red herring, the cop gave the kid 2 seconds it's dubious in that time he even knew he had any kind of weapon. Secondly the way the british police tried to apprehend Raul Maot and the killers of Lee Rigby tells me i'd get more than 2 seconds, it also tells me the british police have more faith in tasers than experts on here do. That is the difference of course in having a professional, well trained police force. The dispatcher told them the suspect was walking around pointing a gun at people. As their car pulled up he walks towards them and reaches to his waistband. In the Lee Rigby case the police shot both of them as soon as they made a move towards them. The difference being the unarmed police had been able to setup a cordon and assess them in advance. I think you need to go and watch the video.
|
|
|
Post by bubbleblower on Nov 27, 2014 9:39:03 GMT
Some quite astonishing replies on this thread, what did you want the police to do? Wait for the kid to draw the gun and fire it at them before they decided if it was real or not? And the people suggesting the police should of used tazers or pepper spray really haven't got a clue. No a shot to the knee arm hand would of done
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Nov 27, 2014 9:48:33 GMT
Why don't you try drawing a toy gun (with the identification taken off) on a UK armed cop and see how different the rules of engagement are. Firstly the identification is a red herring, the cop gave the kid 2 seconds it's dubious in that time he even knew he had any kind of weapon. Secondly the way the british police tried to apprehend Raul Maot and the killers of Lee Rigby tells me i'd get more than 2 seconds, it also tells me the british police have more faith in tasers than experts on here do. That is the difference of course in having a professional, well trained police force. Not sure what Raul Maot has to do with it, as the only person he was threatening was himself. As Brits has said as soon the murderers of Lee Rigby threatened the polices safety, they were shot. Very similar to what happened here, police attended a scene with a possible gun in use and asked him to raise his hands, he went for his waistband and they shot him. Struggling to see what they did wrong really. The only ones who should be having a look at themselves are the idiot parents who let their child wander the streets with a replica firearm.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 27, 2014 10:30:22 GMT
In the wake of several police cover ups, both in UK and the US, do some people really believe the full account from the police?
Remember, Ian Tomlinson was supposed to have pushed a police officer to the floor before being restrained yet video evidence shows Tomlinson walking away from the standing police officer before the altercation happens. A jury believed that Jean Charles de Menezes did not walk towards police officers who did not shout "Armed police" before shots were fired, all contrary to police statements. There's huge discrepancies between the police's account of the Michael Brown shooting and other eye-witness accounts.
I think the general public are sensible enough to know that police do a hard job and it's not easy in cases like this to differentiate between reality and the perceived danger. But time and again the police have shown that in order to justify their actions they have to resort to distortion, discrepancies, and some times outright lies.So, to me, that means their actions must've been pretty fucking over-the-top and misguided.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 10:51:53 GMT
And you clearly now fuck all about what actually happened, the kid was shot 1.2-2 seconds after the cop exited the car so all the guff about safety caps is bollocks even superman would be struggling to make that out in the 1.2-2 seconds he gave the kid. It takes less than that amount of time to draw a pistol, like I said did you expect the police to allow him to draw his pistol and not act in the hope that it was a toy? Imagine having to explain that someone's family that you allowed their husband/dad/son/brother to be shot because you were trying to establish wether or not the gun he was shot with was real. you think a little kid can draw, aim and fire a pistol at the policeman in just over 1 second??? he's not Jesse James FFS, he's a 12 year old!!!! they still have "Fast draw competitions" and the world class competitors take around half a second and you think a 12yr old will be able to do it in just over twice that length of time???? i'm fully aware that young kids are involved in gang crime and some carry firearms in the US nowadays but to credit him with that kind of skill is ludicrous. there's no doubt that if the police genuinely believed him to be a threat then they would have reason to open fire, i have no issues with that but shoot to kill as your first thought?? really?? at a KID???!!! there's absolutely no doubt at all that they left nowhere near enough time to be able to establish the likelihood of anything let alone that it was a real gun so they could have a right to open fire and shoot to kill. the 911 call was made because he was apparently repeatedly pointing the gun at people...in other words by the time the police got there he'd been doing it for several minutes yet never once opened fire on anyone...in that knowledge is it justified to therefore presume he presented an imminent threat to the lives of the police officers so they had to open fire in less than 2 seconds given that he'd been sat there for several minutes without opening fire on anyone? if the police are to open fire then they are supposed to take ALL factors into account. they had a few minutes to weigh all this up before they arrived on the scene and quite obviously just didn't.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Nov 27, 2014 12:42:01 GMT
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We can all sit here in the cold light of day..aware of all the facts..and make calm rational decisions devoid of any emotional and psychological content. The reality of course is somewhat different. Some police officers/soldiers etc may have been in similar situations before..not acted decisively and the results have been disastrous. Given the extreme psychological pressure placed on Armed Response Officers to react swiftly to potential mayhem it is perfectly understandable why this situation occurred...and understandable why sometimes situations go wrong..human beings are fallable. Remember that it was 'only chldren' that tortured Jamie Bulger..horrendously..they knew precisely what they were doing and enjoyed it. My guess is this 12 year old knew what he was doing and enjoyed scaring the shit out of other children around him. This,of course, doesn't mean the police were right to shoot him. But just imagine if this gun had been real and this child had shot a few people..imagine what the reaction would have been then. Heads the police lose tails the offender wins. Theyre in a virtually impossible situation. But sometimes we make too many excuses up for bad behaviour. Why did these parents allow their child to wander around pointing a replica gun at people? Some parents let there kids wander round doing whatever they like with whoever they want. But when something goes wrong it's never their fault.There's always someone else to blame..teachers..police..social workers etc etc etc. And even worse, they get solicitors and barristers onto the case and make money out of it. Rant over.
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Nov 27, 2014 16:00:54 GMT
Some quite astonishing replies on this thread, what did you want the police to do? Wait for the kid to draw the gun and fire it at them before they decided if it was real or not? And the people suggesting the police should of used tazers or pepper spray really haven't got a clue. No a shot to the knee arm hand would of done When I was in the Army, I was told you never shoot to wound, only shoot to kill, a wounded person can fire back.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 27, 2014 16:41:46 GMT
No a shot to the knee arm hand would of done When I was in the Army, I was told you never shoot to wound, only shoot to kill, a wounded person can fire back. you aim for the largest mass which is usually the body - this usually kills
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 27, 2014 16:47:18 GMT
Some quite astonishing replies on this thread, what did you want the police to do? Wait for the kid to draw the gun and fire it at them before they decided if it was real or not? And the people suggesting the police should of used tazers or pepper spray really haven't got a clue. No a shot to the knee arm hand would of done if you can hit a knee, arm or hand with a pistol at more than 5m you must be annie oakley the reality of firing a 9mm pistol at anything more than 10metres is you will probably miss aiming for anything other than the body, especially when you consider individual situations, weather, stress, etc etc movies are so far fetched where you can have perfect aim from long distances
|
|
|
Post by chuckrocky on Nov 27, 2014 17:57:29 GMT
It takes less than that amount of time to draw a pistol, like I said did you expect the police to allow him to draw his pistol and not act in the hope that it was a toy? Imagine having to explain that someone's family that you allowed their husband/dad/son/brother to be shot because you were trying to establish wether or not the gun he was shot with was real. you think a little kid can draw, aim and fire a pistol at the policeman in just over 1 second??? he's not Jesse James FFS, he's a 12 year old!!!! they still have "Fast draw competitions" and the world class competitors take around half a second and you think a 12yr old will be able to do it in just over twice that length of time???? i'm fully aware that young kids are involved in gang crime and some carry firearms in the US nowadays but to credit him with that kind of skill is ludicrous. there's no doubt that if the police genuinely believed him to be a threat then they would have reason to open fire, i have no issues with that but shoot to kill as your first thought?? really?? at a KID???!!! there's absolutely no doubt at all that they left nowhere near enough time to be able to establish the likelihood of anything let alone that it was a real gun so they could have a right to open fire and shoot to kill. the 911 call was made because he was apparently repeatedly pointing the gun at people...in other words by the time the police got there he'd been doing it for several minutes yet never once opened fire on anyone...in that knowledge is it justified to therefore presume he presented an imminent threat to the lives of the police officers so they had to open fire in less than 2 seconds given that he'd been sat there for several minutes without opening fire on anyone? if the police are to open fire then they are supposed to take ALL factors into account. they had a few minutes to weigh all this up before they arrived on the scene and quite obviously just didn't. Again, are the police just supposed to wait and hope that kid has no skill handling a firearm? Are they bollocks. Although unlikely, they have to presume that this person has potentially had plenty of training with the weapon, you can't just think "oh he's only 12 he's probably not very well trained with that weapon, I'll just let him reach for the gun, draw it and then I'll decide if he's a real threat or not". As soon as the kid starts reaching for the pistol he immediately becomes a serious threat, you don't need to be John Wayne to reach for a weapon in under a second, it's a movement of the arm ffs. The Rigby killers didn't harm any other civilians because they were waiting for the police to arrive so they could attempt to kill them. For all the police knew this kid could of been threatening the public in order to alert the police so he could have a pop at them when they arrive. It doesn't matter what the police were weighing up on the way to the scene, all that goes out of the window when they stepped out of the car and were faced with an armed kid reaching for his weapon. You just can't hang around and weigh everything up you have to act.
|
|
|
Post by santy on Nov 27, 2014 18:26:02 GMT
Just makes me grateful I don't live in the US. How easy is it to get a hold of a toy gun, or a BB gun or an air rifle etc. Me and a few mates would regularly piss about with BB guns up park hall at 10/11/12.
|
|
|
Post by davei8vale on Nov 27, 2014 18:39:13 GMT
[/quote]No a shot to the knee arm hand would of done [/quote]
When discharging firearms the shooter is trained to aim for the centre of the observed mass. To try and shoot someone in the hand is only for the TV .
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Nov 27, 2014 19:38:15 GMT
No a shot to the knee arm hand would of done When I was in the Army, I was told you never shoot to wound, only shoot to kill, a wounded person can fire back. You can't shoot to wound..it's virtually impossible. When you're in a kill or be killed situation instinct takes over. You draw your weapon, sliding safety catch off (if it hasn't been taken off already) and firing into the mass of a person..all within a couple of seconds. You never aim at someones leg or chest you just instinctively pull the trigger until the target is no longer a threat.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Nov 28, 2014 12:08:22 GMT
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We can all sit here in the cold light of day..aware of all the facts..and make calm rational decisions devoid of any emotional and psychological content. The reality of course is somewhat different. Some police officers/soldiers etc may have been in similar situations before..not acted decisively and the results have been disastrous. Given the extreme psychological pressure placed on Armed Response Officers to react swiftly to potential mayhem it is perfectly understandable why this situation occurred...and understandable why sometimes situations go wrong..human beings are fallable. Remember that it was 'only chldren' that tortured Jamie Bulger..horrendously..they knew precisely what they were doing and enjoyed it. My guess is this 12 year old knew what he was doing and enjoyed scaring the shit out of other children around him. This,of course, doesn't mean the police were right to shoot him. But just imagine if this gun had been real and this child had shot a few people..imagine what the reaction would have been then. Heads the police lose tails the offender wins. Theyre in a virtually impossible situation. But sometimes we make too many excuses up for bad behaviour. Why did these parents allow their child to wander around pointing a replica gun at people? Some parents let there kids wander round doing whatever they like with whoever they want. But when something goes wrong it's never their fault.There's always someone else to blame..teachers..police..social workers etc etc etc. And even worse, they get solicitors and barristers onto the case and make money out of it. Rant over.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Nov 28, 2014 12:10:44 GMT
When I was in the Army, I was told you never shoot to wound, only shoot to kill, a wounded person can fire back. You can't shoot to wound..it's virtually impossible. When you're in a kill or be killed situation instinct takes over. You draw your weapon, sliding safety catch off (if it hasn't been taken off already) and firing into the mass of a person..all within a couple of seconds. You never aim at someones leg or chest you just instinctively pull the trigger until the target is no longer a threat.
|
|