Cleveland, US. Police kill boy, 12

[melthebell]

oh I thought Cleveland in the title meant Middlesbrough lol

[nikki-red]

Ive edited the title to make it clearer.

[alchresearch]

Its easy to blame the police in this, I think I heard on the news this morning that the parents are going to sue.

 

But you need to go back a couple of steps to find out why the kid had the gun in a playground in the first place. If the gun wasn't there, there would have been no police to kill him.

[Member]

Its easy to blame the police in this, I think I heard on the news this morning that the parents are going to sue.

 

But you need to go back a couple of steps to find out why the kid had the gun in a playground in the first place. If the gun wasn't there, there would have been no police to kill him.

 

Yeah. If the young lad hadent been harmlessly playing with a toy then the police wouldnt have murdered him.

[charmer]

Even if it had been an adult, then the police's 'instinctive' response (given that they were not under direct threat and were presumably wearing body armour in any case) would still have been disproportionate.

 

The fact that it was a child makes it all the more appalling that (a) they were not told that the caller was unsure whether the gun was real or not and (b) that their first resort was to shoot to kill. Do they not have tazers? Are they not trained to wound and disable rather than kill, if they genuinely believe themselves to be in a life-threatening situation?

 

Presumably by the time the police arrived the yard was clear of children...so why could they not have backed off and tried to talked him down via a megaphone?

 

The problem with saying 'It's just tough. It's the risk you run if you run about with a replica gun which looks like a real one. There's nothing that can be done', is that you are putting the blame on the child, and not on the out-of-control, gun-obsessed mentality which allows this scenario to develop. 18 young people every day are shot dead in the US. When will they learn?

 

They are trained to shoot to kill, as are British armed police. If you wound someone with a gun, they will understandably be somewhat vexed and therefore more likely to get shooty.

 

It is also comparitively difficult to shoot a person's "safe areas" (their limbs), soldiers and armed police are trained to shoot at the chest, as it is the biggest surface area. If you go for a leg or an arm, where does the bullet go if you miss?

 

Why have you presumed that the area had been cleared of other innocent people?

 

Whilst I agree with you about society being to blame, it isn't exactly relevant is it? Are you saying that instead of confronting the child that the police should have left him and instead campaigned against the NRA and the stupid fire arm laws?

 

Takers are difficult to use, the accuracy is highly impacted by environmental conditions and have a very limited range.

 

 

America the land of the free and the home of the brave unless your a ****** then you may as well be mulch. No way would a white kids have been 'offed' like that.

Now way!

 

I would normally be with you in this claim. In this incidence though, I do not believe race plays a part.

 

sorry but they was no need to shoot the boy twice why wasnt he shot with a stun gun are the guns that fire bean bags he was only a kid im sure a stun gun are the bean bag guns would have been more than enough to put the child on ground i can understand the police having to make a decision on the spot but why was a stun gun not used they new they was dealing with a child with a gun that may are may not be real a stun gun are similiar should have been used also why have they shot to kill the lad and why has he been shot twice if they honsetly belived it was a real gun they could have shot him in leg

 

That is not what they are required to do. Please read the above.

[ronthenekred]

Its easy to blame the police in this, I think I heard on the news this morning that the parents are going to sue.

 

But you need to go back a couple of steps to find out why the kid had the gun in a playground in the first place. If the gun wasn't there, there would have been no police to kill him.

 

Millions of toy guns, playgrounds, kids...who'd a thunked it.

[PRESLEY]

Why don't the Police carry a Tranquillizer pistol or some sort of baton round gun, wild animals on the rampage get shot with a Tranquillizer why not Humans.

[charmer]

Why don't the Police carry a Tranquillizer pistol or some sort of baton round gun, wild animals on the rampage get shot with a Tranquillizer why not Humans.

 

Because, if the miss a wild animal it doesn't turn round and shoot them. However, I do believe that when animals immedietly endanger human life, they are killed.

[martok]

Why don't the Police carry a Tranquillizer pistol or some sort of baton round gun, wild animals on the rampage get shot with a Tranquillizer why not Humans.

 

Because a tranquillizer will slow an animal down significantly before it eventually fall a sleep, a man with a gun would still be able to fire the gun.

[JFKvsNixon]

Why don't the Police carry a Tranquillizer pistol or some sort of baton round gun, wild animals on the rampage get shot with a Tranquillizer why not Humans.

 

Tranquillisers don't often work immediately, an anaesthetic only works fast because it is given straight into a vein.