13 year old boy gunned down by deputies...

[drillsgt]

Bad outcome. I thought all toy and replica guns in California were required to have a blaze orange device at the end of the muzzle?

They paint them

 

[RockofStrength]

Yeah, but you know if it was just a lowly citizen that did it then there'd be hell to pay, you'd hear the old this is why only cops should be carrying guns etc.

That may well be true, but we can't control dumb people or the media (which is run by smart people manipulating the dumb ones!). I'm hardly one to support trigger-happy cops, but this is pretty cut and dry unless something shows up that indicates the kid was gunned down inappropriately. You point anything resembling a weapon at someone who is already shouting and aiming at you, you have a death wish.

 

[88GT]

As long as we arent dealing with another case of " the officers said 'the guy with the knife came at us and we had to shoot' then neighbor's video shows otherwise." I'm cool with this. I saw the file photo of the rifle on the ground. It looks real enough that I'd have fired too. Especially with stories like this showing up now...

IMPD searches for young armed robbery suspects - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

Yeah, I don't have much confidence in the responding officers to admit to gunning down a 13y/o without cause. That they claim he raised the rifle is not evidence that he raised the rifle. In the absence of a witness to corroborate or refute, it's just another he said/she said piece of information. And given that it comes from someone with a dog in the fight, it comes with a grain of salt. One can no more say it was a good shoot based on the LE saying it was than one can say it was a bad shoot based on the same limited information.

My perception is that there is not enough effort to avoid the last resort discharge of a firearm these days.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

That they claim he raised the rifle is not evidence that he raised the rifle.

How do you figure that?

It is direct evidence under the law.

 

[88GT]

That may well be true, but we can't control dumb people or the media (which is run by smart people manipulating the dumb ones!). I'm hardly one to support trigger-happy cops, but this is pretty cut and dry unless something shows up that indicates the kid was gunned down inappropriately. You point anything resembling a weapon at someone who is already shouting and aiming at you, you have a death wish.

Outside of the LEOs' claims, what evidence is there that the kid did what he was accused of doing?

 

[88GT]

How do you figure that?

It is direct evidence under the law.

Because they can say he was smoking pot too and it doesn't mean he was smoking pot. Saying it was so doesn't make it so. This is a pretty simple concept, Kirk.

 

[Jerchap2]

Bad outcome. I thought all toy and replica guns in California were required to have a blaze orange device at the end of the muzzle?

I thought this as well. I know it is the case in Indiana, and would assume the restrictions are even more egregious on the left coast. A child is dead. A child with a toy weapon, a boy playing with toy guns as I think all boys should, in preparation for becoming men. Killed by adults carrying deadly weapons. LEOs who should be trained to recognize playing from malicious intent. This is a tough one. Especially if the boy did not speak English, and maybe thought that they were participating in the game he was playing. I am most saddened thinking about what the boy's family is going through, and what the LEOs and their families are going through realizing the boy was not a threat. Sucks all around.

 

[Manatee]

They paint them

The kids paint them? Hmmm. That might get me to thinking…if I was in California LE…that the AK was a bonafide AK.

 

[cbhausen]

Two things:

Play toy guns AT HOME.

And:

Learn English! If the evil FIA can mandate it for Formula 1 anything's possible.

I thought this as well. I know it is the case in Indiana, and would assume the restrictions are even more egregious on the left coast. A child is dead. A child with a toy weapon, a boy playing with toy guns as I think all boys should, in preparation for becoming men. Killed by adults carrying deadly weapons. LEOs who should be trained to recognize playing from malicious intent. This is a tough one. Especially if the boy did not speak English, and maybe thought that they were participating in the game he was playing. I am most saddened thinking about what the boy's family is going through, and what the LEOs and their families are going through realizing the boy was not a threat. Sucks all around.

 

[HoughMade]

Because they can say he was smoking pot too and it doesn't mean he was smoking pot. Saying it was so doesn't make it so. This is a pretty simple concept, Kirk.

As Kirk said, there is direct evidence through the responding officers that he raised the gun.

What evidence is there that he did not?

 

[88GT]

I didn't say he didn't raise the rifle. I said that the cops saying he did didn't make it so.

Here's the problem:

If the boy raised the rifle and the shoot is good, the cops are going to say he raised the rifle.
If the boy didn't rase the rifle and the shoot is bad, the cops are going to say he raised the rifle.

Same claim, different reality. How is the claim that he raised the rifle evidence that he raised the rifle?

 

[HoughMade]

15 years of practicing law, trying cases and the Rules of Evidence say that a witness's statement of what he saw is evidence. Don't believe him? Cross examine on bias or present contrary evidence if there is any. Maybe a jury won't believe the testimony, but it's still evidence....but with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in the criminal context, without conflicting evidence, it won't see a courtroom.

 

[jrogers]

15 years of practicing law, trying cases and the Rules of Evidence say that a witness's statement of what he saw is evidence. Don't believe him? Cross examine on bias or present contrary evidence if there is any. Maybe a jury won't believe the testimony, but it's still evidence....but with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in the criminal context, without conflicting evidence, it won't see a courtroom.

The statement is evidence, but it's not necessarily fact. This is the point I believe 88GT is trying to make.

 

[88GT]

I see the problem. You lawyerly types like to think the only definition of a word is the one you use on a daily basis. Yes, testimony is legal evidence IN THE COURTROOM. In the real world, evidence has a broader meaning, and a cop's claim doesn't fit.

 

[88GT]

The statement is evidence, but it's not necessarily fact. This is the point I believe 88GT is trying to make.

I'm not even going that far. I'm just saying that it provides no proof, loosely speaking, that it happened the way someone said it did.

 

[hoosierdoc]

As Kirk said, there is direct evidence through the responding officers that he raised the gun.

What evidence is there that he did not?

I think the lawyers are using legal jargon where us non-lawyers are not. 88GT, it's like saying OJ Simpson was innocent of murder even though he did it (for example). Officer sworn statements are evidence, correct?

 

[Destro]

a boy playing with toy guns as I think all boys should, in preparation for becoming men. Killed by adults carrying deadly weapons. LEOs who should be trained to recognize playing from malicious intent.

Boys will be boys

Fourteen-year-old killed by NYPD cop a gang member, ex-shooting suspect: sources - NY Daily News

 

[Destro]

I think the lawyers are using legal jargon where us non-lawyers are not. 88GT, it's like saying OJ Simpson was innocent of murder even though he did it (for example). Officer sworn statements are evidence, correct?

yes, those statements, along with the toy guns found, the 911 call, official report, etc. will all be looked at when they investigate the shooting to develop a clear picture of the totality of the circumstances

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How is the claim that he raised the rifle evidence that he raised the rifle?

What? Is everyone listening to Alex Jones now?

How is the evidence the evidence? I don't know how to respond to this? Is this sarcasm?

I'm just saying that it provides no proof, loosely speaking, that it happened the way someone said it did.

I am stunned. So evidence does not matter? We ignore the rule of law?

If you have a bias against the police, fine, but tell me how the police are not telling the truth. You are making the accusation, you may cross exam now.

BTW, it does not matter if the boy raised the rifle or not, it matters what the reasonable person would perceive.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Tragic, and odds are the kid spoke English. Believe it or not, even with Latino parents that don't speak English, the kids typically do. And that kid's age it would be very odd that he wasn't going to school and thus shouldve understood English.