'Cleveland police shoot dead 12 year old boy ' When will it end.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
Two officers on one child? The kid only reached for the gun, they fired too early. The officers could shot several bullets before the kid even pulled out the weapon.
In my opinion the officers got scared and blindly shot him. They should have taken into account the age of the child and the unlikely hood he would carry a real firearm.
In my opinion the officers got scared and blindly shot him. They should have taken into account the age of the child and the unlikely hood he would carry a real firearm.
Only reached for his gun?! Reaching is the step that happens a second before that gun is aimed and shot at officers.
The real problem here isn't the cops shooting kids, it's why are these kids around such bad influences? Assaulting officers, being given guns by other people etc.
Original post by geoking
Only reached for his gun?! Reaching is the step that happens a second before that gun is aimed and shot at officers.
The real problem here isn't the cops shooting kids, it's why are these kids around such bad influences? Assaulting officers, being given guns by other people etc.
The real problem here isn't the cops shooting kids, it's why are these kids around such bad influences? Assaulting officers, being given guns by other people etc.
Agreed. Don't these kids get taught not to play with guns at school?
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
Two officers on one child? The kid only reached for the gun, they fired too early. The officers could shot several bullets before the kid even pulled out the weapon.
In my opinion the officers got scared and blindly shot him. They should have taken into account the age of the child and the unlikely hood he would carry a real firearm.
In my opinion the officers got scared and blindly shot him. They should have taken into account the age of the child and the unlikely hood he would carry a real firearm.
What are they meant to do? Stand there and wait? "Now we're not sure whether it's a real gun or not, oh it was real, he's just shot one of us".
Weapons are treated as real until they are verified as being fake. It's the same principle as with shooting any weapon, you treat it as being loaded until you have verified that it is not, because up until that point it is still a potentially deadly item.
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
People are agreeing with me, you're moronic for condoning the life of a 12 year old child for a start. I'd like to see a 12 year old kid take a taser easily. There's a difference, if you expect to be tasered you can brace yourself to take impact. Tasers are very efficient, they are used in the US not just in the UK (not that you would know).
The kid also couldn't pull out a gun in time before being tasered. The distance was point blank range so they wouldn't miss. They didn't miss with the gun so they wouldn't miss with the taser. Simple.
The kid also couldn't pull out a gun in time before being tasered. The distance was point blank range so they wouldn't miss. They didn't miss with the gun so they wouldn't miss with the taser. Simple.
The effective range of a taser is approximately 15 feet. At anything more than about ten feet is is very easy to have one of the barbs miss, which makes the shot useless. They also take around ten seconds or more to reload, so if you do miss then you are effectively defenceless for a good while and now facing a more angry suspect and you are at greater risk than you were before.
The fact of the matter is that this kid was shot because of his own actions. He chose to remove the orange tip from the replica firearm. He chose to wave it around in a public place. He chose to ignore the instructions of the police. He chose to pull a gun out when confronted by the police. A series of actions that turned him from a kid into a potentially dangerous individual and which left the police with no choice.
Original post by mackemforever
He chose to ignore the instructions of the police.
Tbh we've all done things like this, like doing something our parents tell us not to do, not to rebel but because of the habit. "Don't bite your nails" etc.
Original post by Bubzeh
Why the **** was my post deleted.
It's true. Black people are ruining America.
**** them.
It's true. Black people are ruining America.
**** them.
The Ancient Romans called. They want their white-supremacist bigotry back.
Original post by Arkarian
Are you emphasising on the "omg they can still use guns publicly and its so bad" or are you emphasising on the fact that the media are just drawing particular attention to it?
Lets compare the UK and US
US
Gun incidents from 2000 to 2010
Few thousand
Gun casualties
11,068
Deaths per 100k pop
3.2 to 3.8
England
Gun incidents from 2000 to 2010 (not sure they listed the actual amount of guns used)
686
Gun casualties
686
Deaths per 100k pop
0.1
Conclusion
Yeah US is a big place for gun crime
Also the US is 40 times the size of UK
So if you took the 0.1 per 100k in uk and times it by 40 you get 4 kills per 100k population, therefore just because america is bigger we believe that the US has more deaths but in ratio we have more deaths by guns.
Sources
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20759139
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html
http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/compare/usa.htm
Lets compare the UK and US
US
Gun incidents from 2000 to 2010
Few thousand
Gun casualties
11,068
Deaths per 100k pop
3.2 to 3.8
England
Gun incidents from 2000 to 2010 (not sure they listed the actual amount of guns used)
686
Gun casualties
686
Deaths per 100k pop
0.1
Conclusion
Yeah US is a big place for gun crime
Also the US is 40 times the size of UK
So if you took the 0.1 per 100k in uk and times it by 40 you get 4 kills per 100k population, therefore just because america is bigger we believe that the US has more deaths but in ratio we have more deaths by guns.
Sources
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20759139
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html
http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/compare/usa.htm
Faulty maths.
You don't multiply the deaths per 100 000 people by a scaling factor to account for the size of the country. The size of the country has already been accounted for by the fact that it's not for the entire population, but per 100 000 people. So yeah, you're about 30-40 times more likely to be killed in a gun-related incident in America than you are in Britain. Also, on average, one person is killed per gun incident in Britain, and from the vague "few thousand" you gave for the American statistics, there could be anywhere between an average of three and ten people killed per gun incident in America. So, shootings are not only more common in America, but they tend to result in more casualties.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Blazar
Faulty maths.
You don't multiply the deaths per 100 000 people by a scaling factor to account for the size of the country. The size of the country has already been accounted for by the fact that it's not for the entire population, but per 100 000 people. So yeah, you're about 30-40 times more likely to be killed in a gun-related incident in America than you are in Britain. Also, on average, one person is killed per gun incident in Britain, and from the vague "few thousand" you gave for the American statistics, there could be anywhere between an average of three and ten people killed per gun incident in America. So, shootings are not only more common in America, but they tend to result in more casualties.
You don't multiply the deaths per 100 000 people by a scaling factor to account for the size of the country. The size of the country has already been accounted for by the fact that it's not for the entire population, but per 100 000 people. So yeah, you're about 30-40 times more likely to be killed in a gun-related incident in America than you are in Britain. Also, on average, one person is killed per gun incident in Britain, and from the vague "few thousand" you gave for the American statistics, there could be anywhere between an average of three and ten people killed per gun incident in America. So, shootings are not only more common in America, but they tend to result in more casualties.
Ok maybe I worded it wrong.
How about I say, as america is so big you should compare the gun death rates per state instead of the US as a whole.
They should also probably consider how many deaths were caused by police OR civilian.
But yeah I referenced because I thought I had something wrong
But its like saying "if i took a few automatic weapons to a big shopping complex i bet i could get a few kills in"
That then raises the whole statistics and puts it out of proportions.
And what about planned attacks, those would count towards the whole thing rather than
"oops i just shot someone they will get over it"
Which seems to be how people view the police in america
Original post by Blazar
The Ancient Romans called. They want their white-supremacist bigotry back.
Black people in America account for more crime, particularly homicide and aggravated assault, than any other ethnic group. The next statistical group is Latinos, then whites. While I would argue socio-economic factors are to blame for this, the stats don't lie.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_1_murder_victims_by_race_and_sex_2013.xhttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_2_murder_victims_by_age_sex_and_race_2013.xlsls
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense/expandedoffensemain_final
Original post by mackemforever
The effective range of a taser is approximately 15 feet. At anything more than about ten feet is is very easy to have one of the barbs miss, which makes the shot useless. They also take around ten seconds or more to reload, so if you do miss then you are effectively defenceless for a good while and now facing a more angry suspect and you are at greater risk than you were before.
The fact of the matter is that this kid was shot because of his own actions. He chose to remove the orange tip from the replica firearm. He chose to wave it around in a public place. He chose to ignore the instructions of the police. He chose to pull a gun out when confronted by the police. A series of actions that turned him from a kid into a potentially dangerous individual and which left the police with no choice.
The fact of the matter is that this kid was shot because of his own actions. He chose to remove the orange tip from the replica firearm. He chose to wave it around in a public place. He chose to ignore the instructions of the police. He chose to pull a gun out when confronted by the police. A series of actions that turned him from a kid into a potentially dangerous individual and which left the police with no choice.
They could have got closer to the child easily without being hurt. From 15ft it is highly unlikely you're going to miss with a tazer.
I agree with you, he caused this and maybe it's a bad example but gun laws have killed many people including this child.
Original post by yo radical one
One instance of British police not killing someone with a toy gun, does not prove that the standard protocol is not to shoot, should British police believe their lives are in danger.
If you give me more than one example where British police have mistakenly killed someone because of a replica weapon I'll reconsider my opinion.
Original post by Jemner01
As for firearm control, I prefer America's system of firearm ownership (i.e. a God-given right to every citizen that shall not be infringed) but unfortunately states like NY and Cali don't understand that last part of the 2nd A, and neither does the American government.
As for firearm control, I prefer America's system of firearm ownership (i.e. a God-given right to every citizen that shall not be infringed) but unfortunately states like NY and Cali don't understand that last part of the 2nd A, and neither does the American government.
That some Americans think of their ownership of a gun as a "God-given right" is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
Let's go surreal and, for a second, pretend that a benevolent God did in fact exist: why the bloody hell would he condone his alleged favourite creation to keep something that has no real purpose (clay pigeon shooting aside, and let's be honest here, how many American gun owners really go to those events compared to how many in total own guns?) other than killing members who also fit into the above "favourite creation" category?
It's a completely nonsensical notion, but unfortunately many Americans don't seem to have that level of critical thinking because any time somebody contradicts something that the government has caused to come into being their mind goes empty save the tune of Star Spangled Banner and an image of a bald eagle.
Original post by tibis
there is nothing interesting about this.
if you go to almost any country in the world and wave a bb gun, replica or anything that looks like a gun and is not clearly made out of transparent, brightly coloured material and filled with water then the police will ask you to drop it and if you do not or if you point it at anyone you will be shot.
don't do it if you don't want to be shot.
it is no ones fault but your own for being shot.
keeping any markings on a gun which signify that it is a bb gun also should not make a difference as those can easily be applied to a real gun aswell. there is no good reason that you shouldn't be shot just because there is some orange paint on the toy/gun.
it has absolutey nothing to do with guns being legal.
this is exaclty what would happen in almost all countries which guns are illegal.
the police would order for it to be dropped and if it was not drpoped or if it was pointed at anyone you're going to get shot, probably several times in the chest.
if you go out in public in england with a bb gun and wave it around then armed response will show up and they will order you to drop the weapon and if you don't drop it or if you point it at anyone they will immediately open fire on you.
you obviously have almost no experience with firearms at all.
hitting a head, leg or arm moving in an unpredictable fashion even at 20 metres can be very difficult.
if you think that shooting such a small and thin target at medium range is easy then explain what happened during the north hollywood shootout.
two men wearing body armour covering their chest and parts of their upper arms and upper legs robbed a bank and for the next 44 minutes walked around in hollywood with dozens of police firingo n them.
for 44 minues they slowly walked around in the open with no protection on their head or much of their arms and legs and many police officers at them all the time.
in all that time not once could any of those countless police officers hit their head, arms of legs.
eventually one of the bank robbers stood still a short distance infront of police officers with his gun held under his chin to show the police officers that he was about to shoot himself.
at the same time a nearby police officer took that moment to simultaneously shoot the robber in the head as he shot himself in the head.
the second bank robber was only hit in the legs by police officers afew metres away by shooting with assault rifles underneath the car which he was on the other side of.
the bank robbers had several rifles, a g3, some car15 and two or three kalashnikovs with drum magazines iirc and fired thousands of rounds of ammunition.
they wounded many people but did not kill any wounded police officers. if they want to they could have easily killed countless police officers and innocent civillians but they clearly were only trying to scare the police away so that they could escape.
police officers are trained to shoot centre mass for very good reason. even if you do shoot someone in the legs then not only is it far less likely to stop that person from being able to carry on shooting but also if you hit someone in the thighs, especially with jhp rounds, then there is still a good chance that the wound will kill the person if they do not receive medical attention soon enough.
i am from england and you are the person who doesn't understand.
'the police should not be carrying firearms'
warning that these police videos are films of shootouts.
do not watch them if you don't want to see it.
the suspect died in the above video. he was shot in the chest mid shootout and died afew minutes after driving off.
shooting someone in the chest does not stop them being able to kill, let alone shooting them in the leg.
and that is just from a very quick search, there are endless such videos to be found.
you are really going to tell me that the police should not be carrying guns after watching those videos?
not only is that the reason that police should be carrying firearms but it also the reason why police are trained to be so quick to act as police recruits are shown such videos in training.
there is a much bigger issue with police being unprofessional by being so slow to shoot people than police shooting too soon.
tazers, pepperball paint guns, beanbag shotguns and rubber bullets are either only at closer ranges and are only used against an armed suspect while another police officer is already aiming a weapon loaded with bullets at the suspect. if the suspect points his gun at anyone then he is shot with bullets.
because of the close range which is required for them to be effective to subdue the suspect and needing another officer right beside who is ready to kill the suspect with bullets should anything go wrong it is only practical for when raiding a house to catch criminals etc and are well prepared for the suspect.
if you go to almost any country in the world and wave a bb gun, replica or anything that looks like a gun and is not clearly made out of transparent, brightly coloured material and filled with water then the police will ask you to drop it and if you do not or if you point it at anyone you will be shot.
don't do it if you don't want to be shot.
it is no ones fault but your own for being shot.
keeping any markings on a gun which signify that it is a bb gun also should not make a difference as those can easily be applied to a real gun aswell. there is no good reason that you shouldn't be shot just because there is some orange paint on the toy/gun.
it has absolutey nothing to do with guns being legal.
this is exaclty what would happen in almost all countries which guns are illegal.
the police would order for it to be dropped and if it was not drpoped or if it was pointed at anyone you're going to get shot, probably several times in the chest.
if you go out in public in england with a bb gun and wave it around then armed response will show up and they will order you to drop the weapon and if you don't drop it or if you point it at anyone they will immediately open fire on you.
you obviously have almost no experience with firearms at all.
hitting a head, leg or arm moving in an unpredictable fashion even at 20 metres can be very difficult.
if you think that shooting such a small and thin target at medium range is easy then explain what happened during the north hollywood shootout.
two men wearing body armour covering their chest and parts of their upper arms and upper legs robbed a bank and for the next 44 minutes walked around in hollywood with dozens of police firingo n them.
for 44 minues they slowly walked around in the open with no protection on their head or much of their arms and legs and many police officers at them all the time.
in all that time not once could any of those countless police officers hit their head, arms of legs.
eventually one of the bank robbers stood still a short distance infront of police officers with his gun held under his chin to show the police officers that he was about to shoot himself.
at the same time a nearby police officer took that moment to simultaneously shoot the robber in the head as he shot himself in the head.
the second bank robber was only hit in the legs by police officers afew metres away by shooting with assault rifles underneath the car which he was on the other side of.
the bank robbers had several rifles, a g3, some car15 and two or three kalashnikovs with drum magazines iirc and fired thousands of rounds of ammunition.
they wounded many people but did not kill any wounded police officers. if they want to they could have easily killed countless police officers and innocent civillians but they clearly were only trying to scare the police away so that they could escape.
police officers are trained to shoot centre mass for very good reason. even if you do shoot someone in the legs then not only is it far less likely to stop that person from being able to carry on shooting but also if you hit someone in the thighs, especially with jhp rounds, then there is still a good chance that the wound will kill the person if they do not receive medical attention soon enough.
i am from england and you are the person who doesn't understand.
'the police should not be carrying firearms'
warning that these police videos are films of shootouts.
do not watch them if you don't want to see it.
the suspect died in the above video. he was shot in the chest mid shootout and died afew minutes after driving off.
shooting someone in the chest does not stop them being able to kill, let alone shooting them in the leg.
and that is just from a very quick search, there are endless such videos to be found.
you are really going to tell me that the police should not be carrying guns after watching those videos?
not only is that the reason that police should be carrying firearms but it also the reason why police are trained to be so quick to act as police recruits are shown such videos in training.
there is a much bigger issue with police being unprofessional by being so slow to shoot people than police shooting too soon.
tazers, pepperball paint guns, beanbag shotguns and rubber bullets are either only at closer ranges and are only used against an armed suspect while another police officer is already aiming a weapon loaded with bullets at the suspect. if the suspect points his gun at anyone then he is shot with bullets.
because of the close range which is required for them to be effective to subdue the suspect and needing another officer right beside who is ready to kill the suspect with bullets should anything go wrong it is only practical for when raiding a house to catch criminals etc and are well prepared for the suspect.
I feel like i had to reply to this thread because I hate ignorance being left unanswered.
1) It's not illegal to own a replica weapon in the US but is in the UK, so for example it is much harder to buy replica weapons in the UK, people know not to do it i.e. little kids. Kids won't be able to easily get their hands on weapons like the 12 year old kid in the US. Thus it is very unlikely for a situation like this to occur in any other country other than the US. Try and find an example like this in the UK.
2) I have had experience with firearms, the boy was standing still at the time and the cops had their guns pointed at him, they were at a short range of him, thus it wouldn't have been tricky to shoot the legs especially as their 'supposedly trained'. Your story is irrelevant really as these people were moving targets from a long distance.
3) Being from England doesn't automatically make you understand gun laws
4) I don't understand these clips, if anything it furthers my point, thanks for that.
In every single clip these officers would still have got shot no matter whether they were carrying fire arms or not. What would have been different however if a gun law was in place is that the drivers would probably not have been wielding guns and so the officers wouldn't have got shot.
5) If you look at officers killed from gun crime in the UK i think you'll wake up and realise how wrong you really are.
You're welcome
Original post by geoking
Only reached for his gun?! Reaching is the step that happens a second before that gun is aimed and shot at officers.
The real problem here isn't the cops shooting kids, it's why are these kids around such bad influences? Assaulting officers, being given guns by other people etc.
The real problem here isn't the cops shooting kids, it's why are these kids around such bad influences? Assaulting officers, being given guns by other people etc.
All I have to say is the officers had their guns trained on the boy so could have easily shot him anytime
Original post by Jemner01
Black people in America account for more crime, particularly homicide and aggravated assault, than any other ethnic group. The next statistical group is Latinos, then whites. While I would argue socio-economic factors are to blame for this, the stats don't lie.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_1_murder_victims_by_race_and_sex_2013.xhttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_2_murder_victims_by_age_sex_and_race_2013.xlsls
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense/expandedoffensemain_final
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_1_murder_victims_by_race_and_sex_2013.xhttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_2_murder_victims_by_age_sex_and_race_2013.xlsls
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense/expandedoffensemain_final
That really doesn't support the original statement.
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
They could have got closer to the child easily without being hurt. From 15ft it is highly unlikely you're going to miss with a tazer.
Not quite that simple.
[video="youtube;7firDaaFVgo"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7firDaaFVgo[/video]
Original post by pjm600
Not quite that simple.
[video="youtube;7firDaaFVgo"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7firDaaFVgo[/video]
[video="youtube;7firDaaFVgo"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7firDaaFVgo[/video]
You literally just contradicted yourself with your own video
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
All I have to say is the officers had their guns trained on the boy so could have easily shot him anytime
And they did when he presented himself as a danger to their lives...
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
You literally just contradicted yourself with your own video
Not only did the first officers taser not take effect and leave him in no position to defend himself, but it was fired from far closer than 15 feet.
Who would reach for a taser when there's potentially a firearm involved?
Original post by geoking
And they did when he presented himself as a danger to their lives...
I think as he was a little kid it would have been difficult for him to get a clean shot away before the officers, but fair point.
Remember this though: Just because the officers said their account of things doesn't mean it went down like that. I'm sure you've seen the savageness of the US police department in action.
I'm waiting to hear of any witness statements before I jump to any conclusions however
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- In the film La Haine, what is the whole Grunwalski episode about?
- Three ideas for my latest book. Which one should I go with
- UK equivelant of American cities...
- How the radical left turned America's cities into slums.
- thoughts on 19 yo girl dating 17yo guy??
- Cocky boy beat me up and threatening to beat me up again!
- Shooting in Brussels. Shooter still at large.
- Crazy things that have happened at your school
- I like everyone and everything. Is this weird
- Was I abused as I child or am I looking into it to deeply?
- Can someone please grade this for me?
- How can I get married if I look like a kid?
- UK Police
- Work experience for 19 year old
- What's the most overrated Christmas song?
- So I am only just realising I am BI
- Does this boy even like me?
- Sarah's GYG
- Scared of where I am living
- Of Mice and Men, extract question Jan 2024 exam
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
