13 year old boy gunned down by deputies...

[Beowulf]

I'm literally the first person to criticize the use of force by police (and it is something that they do without cause all too frequently). I'd be happy to discus at length my issues with our turning American police forces into heavily armed, but poorly trained, combat shock troops, instead of community police, all due to the idiocy that is our War on Drugs (and all the billions of dollars and military weapons that the Federal government has been dumping into this).

That all being said, with the facts in evidence in the article and the picture of the "toy" gun, I'd say this appears to be justified on the officers' part, if it happened the way they said. Perhaps the boy didn't understand them, but given that the airsoft gun looks so real at any real distance, I can't fault them for taking the action they did (again, if it happened the way they said). This is definitely tragic, but I can't blame the officers given the scenario.

 

[netsecurity]

In the real world a rifle is much more of a threat than a knife or handgun. One doesn't have to wait for shots to be fired to recognize a threat as life threatening and take action. Your comments are no more than Monday morning quarterbacking. Unless you have the training and experience to back up your conclusions, they have no worth. FYI, 13 year-olds can just as deadly as adults. You can bet your bottom dollar that these officers are extremely upset about this incident.

If airsoft guns did not exist, and tween boys did not carry them around their neighborhoods every single day, all across the country, then I would say it was a good shoot. But since the officers should have KNOWN that there was a 90% chance that the gun was a toy (no shots fired, child carrying it, in a neighborhood, no victims, etc., etc.), they should have run instead of shooting. Actually, to my earlier point, if they weren't overly gun happy, they should have stayed in their car, or behind their car for cover so that they wouldn't risk the chance of feeling forced to shoot like this.

 

[cobber]

Seven seconds not much time? It is an eon!

At trial, seven seconds lasts three days. True fact.

 

[jbombelli]

If airsoft guns did not exist, and tween boys did not carry them around their neighborhoods every single day, all across the country, then I would say it was a good shoot. But since the officers should have KNOWN that there was a 90% chance that the gun was a toy (no shots fired, child carrying it, in a neighborhood, no victims, etc., etc.), they should have run instead of shooting. Actually, to my earlier point, if they weren't overly gun happy, they should have stayed in their car, or behind their car for cover so that they wouldn't risk the chance of feeling forced to shoot like this.

There have been plenty of 13 year old gang bangers who have shot people. I dont expect anybody to wait and figure out if the guy with the gun is in that 10% before acting. That's how people end up dead.

 

[cobber]

There have been plenty of 13 year old gang bangers who have shot people. I dont expect anybody to wait and figure out if the guy with the gun is in that 10% before acting. That's how people end up dead.

If the citizens taking that position re the police are willing to live by the same rule themselves, that's fine.

This is like the Trayvon Martin argument, that you have to be on the verge of unconsciousness from having your head pounded against the pavement before you are entitled to exercise your right to self defense.

 

[jbombelli]

If the citizens taking that position re the police are willing to live by the same rule themselves, that's fine.

This is like the Trayvon Martin argument, that you have to be on the verge of unconsciousness from having your head pounded against the pavement before you are entitled to exercise your right to self defense.

I follow that rule and would vote accordingly on any jury.

 

[netsecurity]

There have been plenty of 13 year old gang bangers who have shot people. I dont expect anybody to wait and figure out if the guy with the gun is in that 10% before acting. That's how people end up dead.

It could have been a gang banging neighborhood, and the kid could've been huge and wearing a bandanna, or whatever other mitigating circumstances. I dunno. I'm not saying it was definitely a bad shoot, just that it seems most likely that the police acted out of control to me. I can't understand why you all would assume it was a good shoot just based on self defense alone, and not on common sense. Do you not all have sons who play with airsoft, and see them almost every day outside? What if this happened in your neighborhood, would you still be saying the cops had every right?

Here is a better question maybe. Was it illegal for the 13 year old to be carrying an AK47? I guess so in Kalifornia, but not in free states. So should the police have even approached him with guns pointed? Shouldn't they have said: "Hi, how are you doing?" first, and maybe asked if the gun was real instead of escalating straight to yelling "Drop the gun or I'll shoot!" I mean, my impression is that the kid may have been surprised, panicked, and tried to raise his hands over his head without dropping the gun.

 

[BE Mike]

If airsoft guns did not exist, and tween boys did not carry them around their neighborhoods every single day, all across the country, then I would say it was a good shoot. But since the officers should have KNOWN that there was a 90% chance that the gun was a toy (no shots fired, child carrying it, in a neighborhood, no victims, etc., etc.), they should have run instead of shooting. Actually, to my earlier point, if they weren't overly gun happy, they should have stayed in their car, or behind their car for cover so that they wouldn't risk the chance of feeling forced to shoot like this.

Officers aren't supposed to run in a situation like this. They are supposed to neutralize the threat so no innocent citizens are subject to the same threat. Your leaps in logic and conclusions belie your lack of experience and training.

 

[netsecurity]

Officers aren't supposed to run in a situation like this. They are supposed to neutralize the threat so no innocent citizens are subject to the same threat. Your leaps in logic and conclusions belie your lack of experience and training.

Wow. Shoot first, think later. Scary.

 

[IMPD31323]

A suspect does not have to raise a weapon to be a threat!! The lunacy on here has reached a deafening roar. Having a weapon in your hands and failing to follow my directions will very like lead to your demise. Anyone who thinks otherwise please look up the murder of Texas DPS Randy Vetter. That suspect never "Raised" his rifle either. According to the people on here he doesn't deserve to be shot even though he didn't comply with the officers orders. Watch the video and tell me at what point you think te officer would have been justified shooting the man with the rifle in his hands held down low? Listen to the video of the officer breathing his last breath, that's commonly referred to the death rattle. Listen as the suspect radios for help on the officers own radio. If you listen closely you can hear the suspect say "man this feels good" that's from all the adrenalin in his body. By the way he was able to put a 223 through the Ofc Vetter's head just above the left eye firing from the hip. Good day. Stay safe.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

At trial, seven seconds lasts three days. True fact.

Three and a half with jury selection.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yeah, the whole story is tragic. I'll step away from the blue line, and give an honest opinion. Apparently the kid had his back turned when they issued the commands to drop the weapon, he turned around with muzzle up, and was shot not realizing he was a kid. That's a tough spot to be in, as you can't be sure a person with their back turned heard or even understood the commands. I'd call it a clean shoot, if we're clear that the kid understood, or acknowledged, the commands. I think it's doubtful that he knew the officers were addrssing him. I hate to second guess, as i wasnt tgere, but If this had been in Indiana, I'd expect the officers to possibly be charged with manslaughter. However, given California's laws concerning firearms, nothing criminal is present to convict the officers.

 

[BE Mike]

Wow. Shoot first, think later. Scary.

There you go again. I didn't say that. You said that. Unless you are entirely set in your opinions, I'd suggest you do some reading on the effects of stress, especially extreme stress on the human body. There is a huge difference in the ability of people to make decisions in front of a computer screen as opposed to being in a real-life extreme stress situation.

 

[Hookeye]

Trayvon has a roommate.

 

[phylodog]

I would like to live in the land of unicorns, rainbows and happy endings. If someone could provide me with a map it would be greatly appreciated.

The officers obviously should have shot the gun out of the boys hands while ensuring no bullet fragments struck his hands before taking him for ice cream and buying him a new, realistic toy AK47.

 

[BroodXI]

Are these the same cops that shot up the pickup with two women delivering newspapers?

 

[Lunati]

I guess that is a good question that hasn't been answered, what caused the police to approach this child in the first place? Did they have a right? Did they have the right to issue him commands if he wasn't breaking any laws?

 

[Lunati]

Are these the same cops that shot up the pickup with two women delivering newspapers?

That was completely justified, the newspaper looked like a weapon so according to other INGO members they HAVE to neutralize the threat before any citizens can be harmed. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I guess that is a good question that hasn't been answered, what caused the police to approach this child in the first place? Did they have a right? Did they have the right to issue him commands if he wasn't breaking any laws?

If they believed the weaponh was real (as I think anyone would), yes then they thought he was breaking the law. You can't OC in Cali.

 

[88E30M50]

I wonder what the dash cam would show. The story linked above kind of gives two different explainations. First, they say he raised the gun towards him. Then they say he had is back to them and when he turned, they opened fire.

from the article:
"After the deputies spotted the boy Tuesday, they called for backup and repeatedly ordered him to drop the gun, sheriff's Lt. Dennis O'Leary said in a news release. His back was turned toward the deputies, and they did not realize at the time that he was a boy.
According to the Santa Rosa police, the boy was about 20 to 30 feet from them when he turned toward the deputies with the gun and they opened fire."

I wonder if he had head phones on or something. If there is dash cam video, it would explain a lot. Since they came up behind him, you would think the whole thing would have been caught on video.