[MikeD]

What it has to do with handguns is that if the student did not have access to a handgun (or a close replica thereof in a society where guns are so commonplace that it would be likely to be assumed to be real) then we wouldn't have the story at all.

That makes no sense. The societal conditions surrounding this are merely incidental to the facts. The fact is that a student presented a credible threat to the lives of fellow students and police officers on the scene, so they killed him. Whether lots of people own handguns or not has no bearing on the fact that he presented this threat; it doesn't make a bullet less likely to kill the officer or student at whom the gun is pointed, nor should the police consider whether the gun is fake or not. That's not their job; their job is to respond to the threat to public safetly. They shouldn't and can't guess on this stuff, nor can they often reasonably take the time to confirm whether or not the gun is real due to the conditions forced upon them by the suspect. I don't care if he's 8 or if he's 80...it's not, nor should it be, the cops' job to provide counseling or assistance or comfort to someone who's threatening others' lives.

If it's readily apparent the gun is fake, they should act as such. If not, they are obligated to act as if it's real for public safety.

None of that is related to whether Americans like guns, own guns, or whether you like this or not. The cops should take the same actions whether handguns are common and/or legally available, or not.

MD

 

[N8 v2.0]

I maintain that the sniper team probably could have wounded him in his gun hand or shot the pistol out of his hand....

 

[N8 v2.0]

I maintain that the sniper team probably could have wounded him in his gun hand or shot the pistol out of his hand....

I don't think you really mean tha do you? I mean what if the sniper was not the one who made the shot? What if it was a cop on the entry team who had about 1/1000 of a second to make a decision on what to do.

 

[fluff]

That makes no sense. The societal conditions surrounding this are merely incidental to the facts. The fact is that a student presented a credible threat to the lives of fellow students and police officers on the scene, so they killed him. Whether lots of people own handguns or not has no bearing on the fact that he presented this threat; it doesn't make a bullet less likely to kill the officer or student at whom the gun is pointed, nor should the police consider whether the gun is fake or not. That's not their job; their job is to respond to the threat to public safetly. They shouldn't and can't guess on this stuff, nor can they often reasonably take the time to confirm whether or not the gun is real due to the conditions forced upon them by the suspect. I don't care if he's 8 or if he's 80...it's not, nor should it be, the cops' job to provide counseling or assistance or comfort to someone who's threatening others' lives.

If it's readily apparent the gun is fake, they should act as such. If not, they are obligated to act as if it's real for public safety.

None of that is related to whether Americans like guns, own guns, or whether you like this or not. The cops should take the same actions whether handguns are common and/or legally available, or not.

MD

If handguns are common it would be sensible to assume it is real and act accordingly (as they did). If handguns are rare there is a higher probability that it is a replica. Hence the threat is more credible where guns are more common.

The US is a society where handguns are common. The UK is a place where handguns are rare (due to being prohibited).

Law enforcement officers should have a duty not to kill anyone that they do not have to. Having said that, in this instance I don't think that they acted incorrectly.

 

[fluff]

I don't think you really mean tha do you? I mean what if the sniper was not the one who made the shot? What if it was a cop on the entry team who had about 1/1000 of a second to make a decision on what to do.

You're not talking to yourself again...

 

[N8 v2.0]

I don't think you really mean tha do you? I mean what if the sniper was not the one who made the shot? What if it was a cop on the entry team who had about 1/1000 of a second to make a decision on what to do.

Good point! You are brilliant! However, shouldn't an elite team member like someone on SWAT be able to diffricient between a pellet pistol and a 9mm even in such a situation? Or does all the hours of training ultimately teach SWAT to shoot first and ask questions later?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Good point! You are brilliant! However, shouldn't an elite team member like someone on SWAT be able to diffricient between a pellet pistol and a 9mm even in such a situation? Or does all the hours of training ultimately teach SWAT to shoot first and ask questions later?

It's "Differentiate" you n00b!

 

[Changleen]

Wow, This is the most N8's contributed for like, ages...

 

[greg447]

SWAT stands for exactly what N8 is talking about ( special weapons and taactics) they are trained to keep their fingers literally off the triger until they are absolutely sure they are in danger, also the range of accuracy for a hand gun for an expert marksman is about 25 feet, there would be no need for the police to feel in danger from a kid flaunting a 9mm, and they could have used less lethel force such as a taser to aprehend the kid.

 

[N8 v2.0]

It's "Differentiate" you n00b!

STFU!!!

Just because you have like 48,000 posts a day....

 

[manimal]

Clearly. but no handgun in home = no problem (in this case).

yeah, it's a good thing there was a gun in the home otherwise the kid would have had to break into his xbox game fund to buy one on the street.

-or-

no handgun in home = new headline:

"SUICIDAL STUDENT STAPS BOMB TO BODY AND GRABS HOSTAGE"

"SUICIDAL STUDENT BLINDS SEVERAL STUDENTS WITH RED RYDER BB-GUN"

"SUICIDAL STUDENT PLACES SPELL ON STUDENT BODY - STUDENTS/FACULTY SENT HOME FOR UNEXPLAINABLE BACKWARD TALKING AND PROJECTILE VOMITING"

"SUICIDAL STUDENT MURDERS SEVERAL STUDENTS WITH NINJA STARS AND SAMURAI SWORD"

my point: suicidal student bent on homicide will find whatever he can to act out on his problem. The accessibility of a gun just made it easier for him but would not necessarily have prevented the incident. The kid would have been shot whether he was holding a gun or a knife or a sword if he threatened the officer with it. it's nothing more than the usual Suicide By Cop.

 

[Changleen]

my point: suicidal student bent on homicide will find whatever he can to act out on his problem. The accessibility of a gun just made it easier for him but would not necessarily have prevented the incident. The kid would have been shot whether he was holding a gun or a knife or a sword if he threatened the officer with it. it's nothing more than the usual Suicide By Cop.

Dude, He was a little kid. If he was holding anything other than a gun, the cop could have just walked over and taken it from him. Hell, he probably could've taken the gun off him too!

 

[MikeD]

Dude, He was a little kid.

Doesn't matter a bit...what matters is that he had a gun (or a replica which HE was presenting as the real thing). Who's behind the trigger doesn't matter in the slightest. It doesn't make a bullet kill any less if shot by someone cute and cuddly or someone old and ugly and mean.

(edit: Sorry, I took your comment out of context, but I'll let it stand re: the comments below.)

SWAT stands for exactly what N8 is talking about ( special weapons and taactics) they are trained to keep their fingers literally off the triger until they are absolutely sure they are in danger, also the range of accuracy for a hand gun for an expert marksman is about 25 feet, there would be no need for the police to feel in danger from a kid flaunting a 9mm, and they could have used less lethel force such as a taser to aprehend the kid

The above goes to you, too. Plus, you'd better actually learn about these things before you opine about what the trained professionals feel is 'danger.' There are so many things wrong with your statement that I don't know where to start...from your perception of why and how SWAT is trained (you're mentioning, in a misquoted and misleading form, what is a very basic weapons safety rule for all shooters, from boy scouts on up) to your perception of the continuum of force.

In any case, you can talk about 'no need to feel in danger' when someone has a gun pointed at YOU from whatever distance. Or, in this circumstance, has a gun pointed at another student whose life you're obligated to protect. The reason the pros feel danger is because it's there...and not only to them.

MD

 

[MikeD]

If handguns are common it would be sensible to assume it is real and act accordingly (as they did). If handguns are rare there is a higher probability that it is a replica. Hence the threat is more credible where guns are more common.

Not really. What makes a threat credible are the circumstances at the time. Whether handguns are common or not, when someone points one at me, I'll react accordingly. It doesn't matter who ELSE owns a handgun, just that the person in front of me currently posesses one and is threatening me with it.

Edit: before we just keep repeating ourselves here, let me cut to what I see as the actual defining difference in our positions: you seem to think it's incumbent upon law enforcement to determine if a weapon is real or not before they act. I (and US law) say it's not at all incumbent upon them to do so; based on the totality of the circumstances, if a theoretical 'reasonably objective officer' would believe there's a threat, he's obligated (not just entitled) to act in response to that threat.

Law enforcement officers should have a duty not to kill anyone that they do not have to.

That's a nice thought, but honestly, they're there to protect the public, not to protect aggressors from the consequences of their own actions. And after that, their priority should be getting themselves home at the end of the day, alive. They aren't and shouldn't be required to take extra risks in the course of an already-dangerous job to protect those people who choose to threaten other citizens.

I'm sure the guy who had to shoot a kid feels bad enough already without the peanut gallery telling him what he "should" have done in their armchair-expert opinion. Still, what matters most are the opinions of his superiors and the courts...both of whom are squarely on his side.

Having said that, in this instance I don't think that they acted incorrectly.

Hey, at least we agree on something. Not saying we should be happy a kid died, but we should at least be satisfied that the officers did their job and protected people.

 

[The Kadvang]

I maintain that the sniper team probably could have wounded him in his gun hand or shot the pistol out of his hand....

I am fairly certain that this is counter to SWAT policy: IE if they shoot, it is to kill.

 

[MikeD]

I am fairly certain that this is counter to SWAT policy: IE if they shoot, it is to kill.

He's being ficitious, and attempting pre-mockery of the discussion he expects to show up in the thread soon.

 

[The Kadvang]

He's being ficitious, and attempting pre-mockery of the discussion he expects to show up in the thread soon.

Didn't think he was quite that stupid, but you never know. I'm kinda out of the Political Discussion loop RE N8's latest fetish.

 

[Changleen]

Not really. What makes a threat credible are the circumstances at the time. Whether handguns are common or not, when someone points one at me, I'll react accordingly. It doesn't matter who ELSE owns a handgun, just that the person in front of me currently posesses one and is threatening me with it.

Yes, but the big picture dude, the big picture!

 

[Changleen]

Didn't think he was quite that stupid, but you never know. I'm kinda out of the Political Discussion loop RE N8's latest fetish.

Talking to himself.

 

[MikeD]

Yes, but the big picture dude, the big picture!

But that's my point...it [handgun proliferation/control/ownership] is a *very* valid discussion, but it's NOT pertinent to this event.

People who feel strongly about certain issues try to see them everywhere they look.

 

[ohio]

The kid would have been shot whether he was holding a gun or a knife or a sword if he threatened the officer with it.

Really? You're trained to shoot to kill a juvenile armed with a knife if he/she threatens you with it? That may be the case, but I have to say I'm surprised.

While there's little question in my mind the cops acted appropriately in this situation, you'll have a hard time convincing me that this incident would have occured identically if the kid didn't have access to a gun in his or a neighbor's home. You're saying some wimpy a pathetic suicidal pre-teen is going to bone up the courage (let alone knowledge) required to either rob a gun store or hunt down a black market piece? He may have pulled a knife, but I don't think the outcome would be the same (not to mention, it's also really hard to be suicidal with a knife). There were a few knives pulled from time to time in my highschool. I don't remember the cops ever having to shoot one of the offenders.

 

[fluff]

Not really. What makes a threat credible are the circumstances at the time. Whether handguns are common or not, when someone points one at me, I'll react accordingly. It doesn't matter who ELSE owns a handgun, just that the person in front of me currently posesses one and is threatening me with it.

Edit: before we just keep repeating ourselves here, let me cut to what I see as the actual defining difference in our positions: you seem to think it's incumbent upon law enforcement to determine if a weapon is real or not before they act. I (and US law) say it's not at all incumbent upon them to do so; based on the totality of the circumstances, if a theoretical 'reasonably objective officer' would believe there's a threat, he's obligated (not just entitled) to act in response to that threat.




That's a nice thought, but honestly, they're there to protect the public, not to protect aggressors from the consequences of their own actions. And after that, their priority should be getting themselves home at the end of the day, alive. They aren't and shouldn't be required to take extra risks in the course of an already-dangerous job to protect those people who choose to threaten other citizens.

I'm sure the guy who had to shoot a kid feels bad enough already without the peanut gallery telling him what he "should" have done in their armchair-expert opinion. Still, what matters most are the opinions of his superiors and the courts...both of whom are squarely on his side.



Hey, at least we agree on something. Not saying we should be happy a kid died, but we should at least be satisfied that the officers did their job and protected people.

It does seem that we are perhaps arguing semantics. To clarify what I meant I feel that the responsibility to determine the reality of the threat and to protect the public does include detecting (if possible) if the weapon is real and that the agressor is also a member of the public and hence should be accorded whatever protection is possible.

To illustrate with an absurd example, if an adult came running up to a police officer, telling him that the 6 yr old boy on the other side of the street has a plasma rifle (when in fact he is holding a bright yellow super-soaker water-pistol), I would not expect the police officer to immediatey shoot the child. You would not either because there is no credible threat; the reason there is no credible threat is because the police office can tell that the child does not have a plasma rifle etc.

(The police office could be excused for cuffing the idiot adult however).


Somewhere between my ridiculous example and the incident that this thead refers to is a grey line of judgement. If the day comes when plasma rifles become household objects and super-soaker water-pistols resemble them closely, then this hypothetical 6 yr old could be in serious danger.

 

[skatetokil]

The few SWAT people I know are clearly on the job because they wanted a nice legal way to shoot people. This one guy i know still goes to bus stops late at night and picks fights with strangers. totally insane.

Doesn't matter a bit...what matters is that he had a gun (or a replica which HE was presenting as the real thing). Who's behind the trigger doesn't matter in the slightest. It doesn't make a bullet kill any less if shot by someone cute and cuddly or someone old and ugly and mean.

(edit: Sorry, I took your comment out of context, but I'll let it stand re: the comments below.)



The above goes to you, too. Plus, you'd better actually learn about these things before you opine about what the trained professionals feel is 'danger.' There are so many things wrong with your statement that I don't know where to start...from your perception of why and how SWAT is trained (you're mentioning, in a misquoted and misleading form, what is a very basic weapons safety rule for all shooters, from boy scouts on up) to your perception of the continuum of force.

In any case, you can talk about 'no need to feel in danger' when someone has a gun pointed at YOU from whatever distance. Or, in this circumstance, has a gun pointed at another student whose life you're obligated to protect. The reason the pros feel danger is because it's there...and not only to them.

MD

 

[MikeD]

Really? You're trained to shoot to kill a juvenile armed with a knife if he/she threatens you with it? That may be the case, but I have to say I'm surprised.

People just don't seem to get the concept that you're just as dead if you're shot or stabbed by a juvenille as you'd be if you were shot or stabbed by Schwartzenegger.

It's not like Manimal's walking up to kids and randomly frisking them for knives, then shooting them if they've got one; the test here is whether someone presents an imminent threat of deadly force to the officer or others and whether that suspect has the apparent means to carry it out. The second prong of that varies with circumstance, but the fact that the person is a juvenille doesn't mean he can't stab you. And once a knife is in play, it's a deadly-force situation...it's just that a gun is a better deadly-force implement than a knife in most cases. Manimal's not obligated to give the suspect an even fight-in fact, he's trained and expected to stay 'ahead' of the suspect tactically. But it's at his discretion, and I don't think he or most cops would take shooting a juvenille, or most suspects, lightly.

While there's little question in my mind the cops acted appropriately in this situation, you'll have a hard time convincing me that this incident would have occured identically if the kid didn't have access to a gun in his or a neighbor's home. You're saying some wimpy a pathetic suicidal pre-teen is going to bone up the courage (let alone knowledge) required to either rob a gun store or hunt down a black market piece? He may have pulled a knife, but I don't think the outcome would be the same (not to mention, it's also really hard to be suicidal with a knife). There were a few knives pulled from time to time in my highschool. I don't remember the cops ever having to shoot one of the offenders.

Um, he didn't have a handgun. He had a toy. And he can always have a toy and paint it black, or represent a gun in some manner realistic enough to fool scared people and cops who have a requirement to stop him before he potentially hurts someone. I know we want to sympathize with the 'wimpy suicidal pre-teen,' but I just don't get how his potential access to a real gun changes the facts on the scene. Again, cops aren't going to consider whether it's a toy or not unless they're 100% sure it's a toy, which is unlikely given the circumstances. The subject is representing it as a gun, so unless you've personally verified that he's lying, (not too easy to do)
you treat it as a real gun. There's no other sane or safe choice.

If he only did have a knife in this case, it would certainly have changed his ability to present a deliverable threat to the officers, but if he actually did present a threat, the officers could and should have shot him.

Did people in the high school incidents you mention actually threaten the cops with knives? I bet they displayed it or pulled it on another student, and submitted to the cops' authority when they showed up. Big difference between possessing or threatening someone with a weapon and continuing to threaten others in the presence of the cops, or threatening the cops themselves with it...cops are NOT trained to simply shoot someone with a knife or a gun on sight. They need to look at the totality of the circumstances. That said, there ARE situations where they can, for example, shoot someone in the back quite legally.

 

[MikeD]

It does seem that we are perhaps arguing semantics. To clarify what I meant I feel that the responsibility to determine the reality of the threat and to protect the public does include detecting (if possible) if the weapon is real and that the agressor is also a member of the public and hence should be accorded whatever protection is possible.

To illustrate with an absurd example, if an adult came running up to a police officer, telling him that the 6 yr old boy on the other side of the street has a plasma rifle (when in fact he is holding a bright yellow super-soaker water-pistol), I would not expect the police officer to immediatey shoot the child. You would not either because there is no credible threat; the reason there is no credible threat is because the police office can tell that the child does not have a plasma rifle etc.

(The police office could be excused for cuffing the idiot adult however).


Somewhere between my ridiculous example and the incident that this thead refers to is a grey line of judgement. If the day comes when plasma rifles become household objects and super-soaker water-pistols resemble them closely, then this hypothetical 6 yr old could be in serious danger.

Our fundamental difference, then, is that I don't think the cops are required to protect those who pose a threat. They're employed to protect you and me FROM those who pose a threat.

If plasma rifles are ever real, and I see someone holding what appears to be one, I won't care where he got it or if it's real. No one wants to kill a 6-year-old, of course, but such a hypothetical incident could go a lot of different ways depending on the specifics of it.

Could I reasonably expect a 6-year-old to fire such a device? Is he pointing it at anyone? Could a 6-year-old even lift up a real plasma rifle? These things matter, and I don't know much about plasma rifles.

And if an adolescent had one at school and articulated a threat to other students and/or cops with it, I wouldn't care at ALL where he got it, nor would I be required to. Unlikely that it's real because it's a military weapon? Yeah, but that's HIS problem. I'm not required to make a gamble on public safety or my own because HE decided to turn an ordinary school day into a potentially deadly situation.

MD

 

[fluff]

Our fundamental difference, then, is that I don't think the cops are required to protect those who pose a threat. They're employed to protect you and me FROM those who pose a threat.

If plasma rifles are ever real, and I see someone holding what appears to be one, I won't care where he got it or if it's real. No one wants to kill a 6-year-old, of course, but such a hypothetical incident could go a lot of different ways depending on the specifics of it.

Could I reasonably expect a 6-year-old to fire such a device? Is he pointing it at anyone? Could a 6-year-old even lift up a real plasma rifle? These things matter, and I don't know much about plasma rifles.

And if an adolescent had one at school and articulated a threat to other students and/or cops with it, I wouldn't care at ALL where he got it, nor would I be required to. Unlikely that it's real because it's a military weapon? Yeah, but that's HIS problem. I'm not required to make a gamble on public safety or my own because HE decided to turn an ordinary school day into a potentially deadly situation.

MD

There are two high-profile examples from recent years in the UK where armed police have shot and killed unarmed men who they though represented a threat. The first was the Brazilian Jean Menezes, killed because officers incorrectly believed him to be an Arab suicide bomber, the second a Scotsman called Harry Stanley, mistakenly believed to be Irish who was shot dead when he 'pointed' a table leg at police officers.

Two innocent people dead because the police officers incorrectly evaluated the threat. In these two cases I do not think that they took enough care of the public, being as the people who are the 'threat' are 'members of the public' at all other times.

Hence all it take to be a threat (and in your book a legitimate target) rather than a member of the public (to be protected) is the police officer's evaluation of the situation.

Until we develop mind-reading techniques for police officers mistakes will be made and that is why they have a responsibility to protect the 'threats' from harm wherever possible also.

 

[PonySoldier]

Really? You're trained to shoot to kill a juvenile armed with a knife if he/she threatens you with it? That may be the case, but I have to say I'm surprised....
.

This exact event occured in Denver...in fact the juvenile with the knife was mentally disabled as well...If I recall the young man stood in the doorway of his house threatening the Officers with a knife...one Officer felt he was a threat and shot him...there has been some controversy over this event..

 

[golgiaparatus]

This would have never happened if faggot liberal pansies would allow the rest of the kids in 8th grade to be armed. Imagine if they all had guns, you'd never need to call the police.

My school would have been interesting to say the least.

 

[valve bouncer]

There are two high-profile examples from recent years in the UK where armed police have shot and killed unarmed men who they though represented a threat. The first was the Brazilian Jean Menezes, killed because officers incorrectly believed him to be an Arab suicide bomber, the second a Scotsman called Harry Stanley, mistakenly believed to be Irish who was shot dead when he 'pointed' a table leg at police officers.

Two innocent people dead because the police officers incorrectly evaluated the threat. In these two cases I do not think that they took enough care of the public, being as the people who are the 'threat' are 'members of the public' at all other times.

Hence all it take to be a threat (and in your book a legitimate target) rather than a member of the public (to be protected) is the police officer's evaluation of the situation.

Until we develop mind-reading techniques for police officers mistakes will be made and that is why they have a responsibility to protect the 'threats' from harm wherever possible also.

I think some police forces can develop somewhat of a gung-ho mentality if not properly led. It seems some forces bang away and count the holes afterwards while others go to extraordinary lengths to avoid killing people. I'd certainly like to see the police leaning towards the latter rather than the former. This is not meant as a specific comment on this case but rather a general observation.

 

[manimal]

Dude, He was a little kid. If he was holding anything other than a gun, the cop could have just walked over and taken it from him. Hell, he probably could've taken the gun off him too!

pardon me for being one of the few people in this discussion that can actually add professional training and experience to this argument.

21 feet. (roughly 7 meters for you foreign weirdos )
that is the lethal distance for someone with a knife or edged weapon. from 21' away, an attacker can get to you before the average trained person can unholster, draw and shoot the attacker. Police are usually well within this distance when dealing with subjects that may be armed.

greg447 - uh...check your facts man...it is true that the average gun battle occurs within arms reach but that is just combat dynamics. any person with the basic principles of shooting can easily hit a man sized target over 20 YARDS, not 25 feet. i can consistently put one between the eyes at almost 40 yds with a pistol.

ohio - read my first paragraph to reference your "kid with a knife" question.
here's a link to one of MANY articles regarding the reaction time to an attacker 21' away. you'd be surprised.
http://www.trailerparkshow.com/selfdefense3.html

**edit** let me clarify. this does not mean that the badguy will be shot if he has a knife and is within 21'. i'm simply stating the fact that an aggressor can cover that distance before an effective defense can be mounted. also...a .40 caliber pistol round will not stop a motivated attacker unless there is a kill shot in the head or if the pelvic girdle is hit and disabled. this is something that is in the back of every cops mind when confronting an armed attacker, we've been trained to recognize the possibility of a threat and prepare to defend against it**

fluff - while i see where you're coming from in your plasma rifle argument, it is still not a very good one. put yourself in the officers shoes.
what you know: (1) suicidal kid inside has pushed another kid into a closet with, what has been reported by witnesses as, a handgun.
(2) you confront suicidal kid, tell him to drop the weapon, a bb-gun that has the same size, color and dimensions as a real gun, which is only discrnable from a real gun if you can read the "daisy" imprinted on the side.
(3) suicidal kid does not drop the weapon but instead raises it in your direction.

**so...in the 1.1 seconds it'll take this kid to pull the trigger on what is, very possibly, a real handgun; do you (a) shoot him and go home to your family to wade through the impending armchair speculation from those who have no idea what they're talking about - or - (b) call the kids bluff, be a moviestar, walk up to him and snatch it away then laugh because you discover that it's a bb-gun and he could have put your eye out with it. (c) call the kids bluff and go home in a box.

sorry, you can't tell me that a kid over 4 years old in the country doesn't know what happens when you point a gun at the police. he knew what he was doing and when it comes to a dimented kid living in jail the rest of his life for shooting me or me going home to my family......i think the answer is clear.

skatetokil - i don't think the people you know are actually swat...if they are, they probably won't be employed as such for very long. your reference sounds too much like a "i have a friend......" story.

 

[fluff]

fluff - while i see where you're coming from in your plasma rifle argument, it is still not a very good one. put yourself in the officers shoes.
what you know: (1) suicidal kid inside has pushed another kid into a closet with, what has been reported by witnesses as, a handgun.
(2) you confront suicidal kid, tell him to drop the weapon, a bb-gun that has the same size, color and dimensions as a real gun, which is only discrnable from a real gun if you can read the "daisy" imprinted on the side.
(3) suicidal kid does not drop the weapon but instead raises it in your direction.

**so...in the 1.1 seconds it'll take this kid to pull the trigger on what is, very possibly, a real handgun; do you (a) shoot him and go home to your family to wade through the impending armchair speculation from those who have no idea what they're talking about - or - (b) call the kids bluff, be a moviestar, walk up to him and snatch it away then laugh because you discover that it's a bb-gun and he could have put your eye out with it. (c) call the kids bluff and go home in a box.

sorry, you can't tell me that a kid over 4 years old in the country doesn't know what happens when you point a gun at the police. he knew what he was doing and when it comes to a dimented kid living in jail the rest of his life for shooting me or me going home to my family......i think the answer is clear.

Bear in mind that I stated that I did not think the police negligent in this particular case.

The point I was making was that in a society where guns are easily accessible the natural assumption would have to be that if the gun looks real it probably is real. Therefore in the US, where guns are relatively common, the police assumption and consequent action are to be expected. In a society where guns are much harder to come by there is more reason to doubt it's authenticity.

The plasma rifle analogy was simply to illustrate how the relative rarity of a weapon would impact the decision making process. It was also acknowleged to be an absurd example to illustrate the point.

 

[manimal]

Bear in mind that I stated that I did not think the police negligent in this particular case.

The point I was making was that in a society where guns are easily accessible the natural assumption would have to be that if the gun looks real it probably is real. Therefore in the US, where guns are relatively common, the police assumption and consequent action are to be expected. In a society where guns are much harder to come by there is more reason to doubt it's authenticity.

The plasma rifle analogy was simply to illustrate how the relative rarity of a weapon would impact the decision making process. It was also acknowleged to be an absurd example to illustrate the point.

oh, ok....i see your point now.. however, even in a country where guns are not as prevalent, would you, the officer, scoff at one pointing at you? it's kind of a split second decision, can you imagine the thoughts that would be going through your head? "i've seen one of those things in america...i think it's a gun, but people don't have guns here so it must be a joke...he's just messing w/ me.......BANG!"

 

[fluff]

oh, ok....i see your point now.. however, even in a country where guns are not as prevalent, would you, the officer, scoff at one pointing at you? it's kind of a split second decision, can you imagine the thoughts that would be going through your head? "i've seen one of those things in america...i think it's a gun, but people don't have guns here so it must be a joke...he's just messing w/ me.......BANG!"

It depends on circumstance, if I was previously aware that there was a possible firearm or if I was completely surprised by it would be a factor. It also depends on how likely the gun is to be real (which in the UK very much depends on where you are, inner city London has far more accessible guns than rural Pembrokeshire). I'm not suggesting that police officers should sacrifice their lives, simply that there is a difference in judgement criteria in different places and under different circumstances.

 

[manimal]

It depends on circumstance, if I was previously aware that there was a possible firearm or if I was completely surprised by it would be a factor. It also depends on how likely the gun is to be real (which in the UK very much depends on where you are, inner city London has far more accessible guns than rural Pembrokeshire). I'm not suggesting that police officers should sacrifice their lives, simply that there is a difference in judgement criteria in different places and under different circumstances.

don't get me wrong, i totally understand where you're coming from and it's a valid argument.......until you've experience it first hand. with such an elevated stress level in a situation like that all kinds of physiological things start happening. you get tunnel vision, auditory exclusion (many people involved in shootings have no recollection of ever hearing shot), tremors......all of these things can hinder a normal, rational thought process. the survival instinct kicks in and your eyes see a threat and tell you brain to react. it takes tons of real-life training and practice to be able to think through those situations.
so just keep that in mind when armchair-ing the situation.

 

[fluff]

don't get me wrong, i totally understand where you're coming from and it's a valid argument.......until you've experience it first hand. with such an elevated stress level in a situation like that all kinds of physiological things start happening. you get tunnel vision, auditory exclusion (many people involved in shootings have no recollection of ever hearing shot), tremors......all of these things can hinder a normal, rational thought process. the survival instinct kicks in and your eyes see a threat and tell you brain to react. it takes tons of real-life training and practice to be able to think through those situations.
so just keep that in mind when armchair-ing the situation.

Sure - I'd probably shoot and miss.

I realise that 'mistakes' will happen, especially in close quarter situations. Should I ever be dumb enough to wave a gun at a police officer in the US I know that I'd be very lucky not to be shot.

 

[ohio]

People just don't seem to get the concept that you're just as dead if you're shot or stabbed by a juvenille as you'd be if you were shot or stabbed by Schwartzenegger.

And I'm just as dead if someone kills me with a spoon, rather than a gun. That doesn't mean I would treat someone wildly waving a spoon the same way I would treat someone wildly waving a gun. There are different levels of threat.

Manimal answered my question about the level of threat a knife poses. That was all that needed to be said. It wasn't an accusation.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Just shoot to thrill!

 

[Transcend]

pardon me for being one of the few people in this discussion that can actually add professional training and experience to this argument.

21 feet. (roughly 7 meters for you foreign weirdos )
that is the lethal distance for someone with a knife or edged weapon. from 21' away, an attacker can get to you before the average trained person can unholster, draw and shoot the attacker. Police are usually well within this distance when dealing with subjects that may be armed.

greg447 - uh...check your facts man...it is true that the average gun battle occurs within arms reach but that is just combat dynamics. any person with the basic principles of shooting can easily hit a man sized target over 20 YARDS, not 25 feet. i can consistently put one between the eyes at almost 40 yds with a pistol.

ohio - read my first paragraph to reference your "kid with a knife" question.
here's a link to one of MANY articles regarding the reaction time to an attacker 21' away. you'd be surprised.
http://www.trailerparkshow.com/selfdefense3.html

**edit** let me clarify. this does not mean that the badguy will be shot if he has a knife and is within 21'. i'm simply stating the fact that an aggressor can cover that distance before an effective defense can be mounted. also...a .40 caliber pistol round will not stop a motivated attacker unless there is a kill shot in the head or if the pelvic girdle is hit and disabled. this is something that is in the back of every cops mind when confronting an armed attacker, we've been trained to recognize the possibility of a threat and prepare to defend against it**

fluff - while i see where you're coming from in your plasma rifle argument, it is still not a very good one. put yourself in the officers shoes.
what you know: (1) suicidal kid inside has pushed another kid into a closet with, what has been reported by witnesses as, a handgun.
(2) you confront suicidal kid, tell him to drop the weapon, a bb-gun that has the same size, color and dimensions as a real gun, which is only discrnable from a real gun if you can read the "daisy" imprinted on the side.
(3) suicidal kid does not drop the weapon but instead raises it in your direction.

**so...in the 1.1 seconds it'll take this kid to pull the trigger on what is, very possibly, a real handgun; do you (a) shoot him and go home to your family to wade through the impending armchair speculation from those who have no idea what they're talking about - or - (b) call the kids bluff, be a moviestar, walk up to him and snatch it away then laugh because you discover that it's a bb-gun and he could have put your eye out with it. (c) call the kids bluff and go home in a box.

sorry, you can't tell me that a kid over 4 years old in the country doesn't know what happens when you point a gun at the police. he knew what he was doing and when it comes to a dimented kid living in jail the rest of his life for shooting me or me going home to my family......i think the answer is clear.

skatetokil - i don't think the people you know are actually swat...if they are, they probably won't be employed as such for very long. your reference sounds too much like a "i have a friend......" story.

I haven't been in this thread since I posted originally. Let me just point out that this was NOT my point in posting this thread. In no way, shape or form should the officers involved be blamed. They couldn't tell if that gun was fake, or real.

I am certain they were acting well within their training/legal ground when they shot. To be honest, I would have done the same thing. What if the gun was real? Then we would not only have a dead child (as he would have been gunned down instantly upon firing) but also possibly a dead police officer.

My point wasn't even "ban handguns", because frankly, at this point, it makes no difference. The culture is there. We EXPECT kids to be able to easily get guns. Banning them now would make no difference at all in cases like this.

The point was, that if the culture were different; if it wasn't expected that a schoolkid could easily get his hands on a gun, then maybe the police would have hesitated a bit more - would have tried something else...and we wouldn't have another dead kid.

 

[Silver]

Anyone think maybe there is some merit in not selling toy guns that look exactly like the real thing?

This isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened.

 

[Transcend]

Anyone think maybe there is some merit in not selling toy guns that look exactly like the real thing?

This isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened.

Of course, so did congress. Their solution: add an orange tip.

Well, that certainly worked out well.


Sarcasm aside, I completely agree. Super soakers for everyone.