The Student Room Group

'Cleveland police shoot dead 12 year old boy ' When will it end.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Schrödingers Cat
Considering how close the officers were to the boy, hitting the legs would have been easy


No it wouldn't. I think you totally underestimate how hard it is to shoot acurately, particularly when the situation is more stressful than at a shooting range.

Besides, shooting in the legs doesn't stop someone from shooting back. You can take a lot of bullets before coing down. This is real life, not a film.
Original post by goobypls
You idiots do realize that the kid had a BB gun and not a real gun.

It's like me carrying a water gun and the cops shooting me because i refused to lay it down.


The police don't know that though.
Original post by JG1233
He had modified it and even took the orange tip of at the end to make it look as realistic as possible. Unfortunately it looked like it worked.

This is one of the very few times i could agree with the police. The phone call which reported the kid said he was going up to random people and pointing the gun at them. If this was a state where a person could legally carry guns it could have easily ended up being another civilian who shot him.

If i was walking through a park when a kid walked up to me and pulled out what looked like a gun and aimed it at me i'm not going to wait for him to shoot, i could have easily thrown myself to the ground and started rolling. He was committing a serious offence, and after the police told him to put his hands up he instead reached to get the BB gun out again? Considering he's 12 i'm not going to hold him fully responsible, but he was refusing to follow instructions and the police were never going to wait to see if he fired at them before they did.


I understand where your coming from but lets put it this way why can't the police use a form of bullets which don't actually kill but still apply excruciating pain thus crippling the suspect without killing him.
Original post by james22
The police don't know that though.


Is it still right to kill though, why not injure using bullets that don't kill but still cripple the suspect, leaving him neutralized.

Also my bet is that the kid is black, which is probably going to result in mass riots and attacks on the police again.
Original post by Jemner01
The boy began to pull it out before the officers shot. I don't think the details of how far the gun was drawn before the shots were fired have been released. I can tell you that if someone begins to brandish a weapon then the police should have every right to prevent the brandishing of said weapon as a necessary action to ensure the safety of others. It happens that the weapon was fake this time, but the exception isn't the rule. better safe than sorry.


Yeah better a dead 12 year kid with a future ahead of him and devastated parents than a cop who looks like a fool.
Original post by james22
No it wouldn't. I think you totally underestimate how hard it is to shoot acurately, particularly when the situation is more stressful than at a shooting range.

Besides, shooting in the legs doesn't stop someone from shooting back. You can take a lot of bullets before coing down. This is real life, not a film.


Yes it must have been stressful pointing a gun at blank range at a 12 year old. I don't think a twelve year old is going to take a bullet very well.
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
Considering how close the officers were to the boy, hitting the legs would have been easy


This isn't a movie mate, accurately engaging a person with a pistol more than 25m away is very, very hard. I die a little inside every time I see a film with 200m pistol head shots.

Having said that, us cops seem to be the worst trained armed police anywhere in the world. So so trigger happy.

There was an incident a while ago where a police officer shot a deaf man who was carving a wooden figurine whilst walking down the street. The cop shouted him to stop, he didn't, so shot him
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
Yeah better a dead 12 year kid with a future ahead of him and devastated parents than a cop who looks like a fool.


Better the ability to defend a nation effectively and eliminate threats to life with minimal loss of life than to pretend everything is rosy and crime doesn't exist and police shouldn't kill criminals. Better to end one life (caused by their own actions) and explain to one set of parents than have a criminal end multiple lives (caused by a criminal's actions) and have to explain to multiple sets of parents. I don't see how you can believe the life of 1 irresponsible but ultimately harmless child in a misunderstood situation he brought onto himself somehow negates the countless lives saved by both the police and firearm-bearing civilians killing criminals.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Jemner01
And are you trained to do so? Are you an authority on how proficient one may need to be in firearms training? Neither am I, by my point is that the safest and most practical option for law enforcement with regards to a target is to aim for center mass, as proven by literally every trained military around the world. If it didn't work, they wouldn't train professionals to do it that way. The can risk killing a kid because the evidence the officers has pointed towards a kid being armed and in the process of brandishing a weapon, potentially being a threat to the lives of others. Getting shot isn't as a movie experience: the fatality rates for being shot once in the chest are not 100% and never will be because of all the soft tissue. It's hard to avoid the femoral when shooting, or stabbing for that matter, a thigh. You're much less likely to hit a main artery if you aim for the torso (pelvic girdle). Source: any anatomic diagrams. Again, the police get a call about, arrive and then see someone displaying a firearm. Once announcing that they're police, the person goes to brandish that firearm. For me, that's enough evidence to start shooting, regardless of age. A 12 year old with a gun can kill you just as dead as a 30 year old with a gun.


You really don't understand do you? The police should not be carrying firearms in the first place, a tazer would have easily disarmed the boy and saved a life. But no you live in an uncivilized violent country full of raging idiots who think it's appropriate to kill anyone who walks on your land.
Reply 29
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
You really don't understand do you? The police should not be carrying firearms in the first place, a tazer would have easily disarmed the boy and saved a life. But no you live in an uncivilized violent country full of raging idiots who think it's appropriate to kill anyone who walks on your land.


Unless the kid did have a gun.
Then the police are fighting guns with tasers, which would result in dead police and everyone in that area being put a risk.
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
You really don't understand do you? The police should not be carrying firearms in the first place, a tazer would have easily disarmed the boy and saved a life. But no you live in an uncivilized violent country full of raging idiots who think it's appropriate to kill anyone who walks on your land.


I'm afraid you're the one who doesn't understand, considering you've been using emotional blackmail as the basis for your argument and not, you know, the practical effects of police intervention. I'm here nor there on police bearing arms, but I do believe that civilians should have the right to bear arms. Agree to disagree. Tazers are much more unreliable and much less efficient, not to mention the impracticality of having to approach a potentially armed criminal with a tazer in the hope he won't shoot the officer dead in that time. I live in the UK, but I am a US citizen. And yes, I do believe in stand-your-ground and castle doctrine laws provided there's enough evidence to prove the unlawful breaking and entering of a criminal in your home, or a threat to your life/property.
Original post by Jemner01
Better the ability to defend a nation effectively and eliminate threats to life with minimal loss of life than to pretend everything is rosy and crime doesn't exist and police shouldn't kill criminals. Better to end one life (caused by their own actions) and explain to one set of parents than have a criminal end multiple lives (caused by a criminal's actions) and have to explain to multiple sets of parents. I don't see how you can believe the life of 1 irresponsible but ultimately harmless child in a misunderstood situation he brought onto himself somehow negates the countless lives saved by both the police and firearm-bearing civilians killing criminals.


Yes because bombing Hiroshima killing millions and millions of innocent people was a great idea! :facepalm:

You don't understand how low the crime rate of guns and violence in general is in civilised countries who ban firearms do you? Let me give you some facts and maybe you can reevaluate your opinion.
Original post by JG1233
Unless the kid did have a gun.
Then the police are fighting guns with tasers, which would result in dead police and everyone in that area being put a risk.


:facepalm: How slow do you think tasers travel?
Maybe the kid panicked and reached for it to tell them that it wasn't a real gun? If so, that sucks but I understand why the cops shot him.

'murica
Original post by goobypls
Is it still right to kill though, why not injure using bullets that don't kill but still cripple the suspect, leaving him neutralized.

Also my bet is that the kid is black, which is probably going to result in mass riots and attacks on the police again.


They need to stop him, the only way to cripple someone quickly enough to stop them from being able to fire back is to kill them or hit their spinal cord in the right place. Both involve shooting at the chest.
Original post by Jemner01
I'm afraid you're the one who doesn't understand, considering you've been using emotional blackmail as the basis for your argument and not, you know, the practical effects of police intervention. I'm here nor there on police bearing arms, but I do believe that civilians should have the right to bear arms. Agree to disagree. Tazers are much more unreliable and much less efficient, not to mention the impracticality of having to approach a potentially armed criminal with a tazer in the hope he won't shoot the officer dead in that time. I live in the UK, but I am a US citizen. And yes, I do believe in stand-your-ground and castle doctrine laws provided there's enough evidence to prove the unlawful breaking and entering of a criminal in your home, or a threat to your life/property.


What? I used an article on the internet not blackmail, maybe this example of a dead child isn't good. How about the cinema shooting where 12 people died? No? How about all those school children where little kids died?
Original post by james22
They need to stop him, the only way to cripple someone quickly enough to stop them from being able to fire back is to kill them or hit their spinal cord in the right place. Both involve shooting at the chest.


I'm so glad you don't do politics
I'm not sure if you've seen the bb gun in question but it looks remarkably like 1911 pistol. There was no signs on the bb gun to distinguish it from an actual gun. The officer told him to put his hands up, instead the kid tried to go for his bb gun. The officer had to make a split decision, and unfortunately it resulted in the death of boy, but that isn't the fault of the officer.

Posted from TSR Mobile



Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Schrödingers Cat
Yes because bombing Hiroshima killing millions and millions of innocent people was a great idea! :facepalm:

You don't understand how low the crime rate of guns and violence in general is in civilised countries who ban firearms do you? Let me give you some facts and maybe you can reevaluate your opinion.


How the hell did you even get to Hiroshima? I'm astounded by the mental gymnastics at play here.

There's no proven statistical correlation between violence and gun ownership. There is a relation between gun ownership and gun-related violence, but the correlation is incidental rather than the cause. Much like a country with more knives will have more stabbings (UK), or a country with more cars will have more road accidents. More road accidents kill people that guns in every 1st world country, we should ban cars as they're a bigger threat to your life than a firearm ever will be.
Original post by james22
They need to stop him, the only way to cripple someone quickly enough to stop them from being able to fire back is to kill them or hit their spinal cord in the right place. Both involve shooting at the chest.


But surely if using bullets that don't kill but still aiming for the chest and spine it can still be effective in neutralizing him ?

Quick Reply