Cleveland, US. Police kill boy, 12

[PRESLEY]

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.

 

I know that! but this only a kid not a man, couldn't another form of weapon been used instead of going for the kill, sounds like a complete over reaction to the situation.

 

---------- Post added 24-11-2014 at 11:11 ----------

 

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.

 

Not always, have you ever watched Daktari.

Edited November 24, 2014 by PRESLEY

[JFKvsNixon]

I know that! but this only a kid not a man, couldn't another form of weapon been used instead of going for the kill, sounds like a complete over reaction to the situation.

 

So what weapon, that is routinely carried by the American police, is capable of disabling someone in an instant?

[charmer]

I know that! but this only a kid not a man, couldn't another form of weapon been used instead of going for the kill, sounds like a complete over reaction to the situation.

 

How old would be the age in which police switch to non lethal weapons? What if we have either a child that looks older than they are, or an adult that looks younger?

 

It is unfortunate yes, but non lethal weapons aren't as effective as lethal ones in terms of reliability, accuracy and stopping power.

[Obelix]

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

 

It's not a toy though. A toy would be coloured bright orange or blue so it couldnt be mistaken for a real firearm.

 

Whilst I'll castigate the police at every opportunity, here I can't see they did much wrong. Someone draws what looks to be a gun - and is clearly a gun - they are going to shoot. This isn't a table leg wrapped in a bag carried in a non threatening manner, this was someone drawing what looked like a firearm after being told explicitly not to do so. There's only one outcome if you do that and the police think you are an immediate threat.

[PRESLEY]

So what weapon, that is routinely carried by the American police, is capable of disabling someone in an instant?

 

That's the whole point I'm trying to make, concentration should be spent more on disableing than killing, let's start their, police can carry a killing weapon also a disableing weapon no real extra weight, then at least there is a choice in the the immediate situation.

 

---------- Post added 24-11-2014 at 11:20 ----------

 

How old would be the age in which police switch to non lethal weapons? What if we have either a child that looks older than they are, or an adult that looks younger?

 

It is unfortunate yes, but non lethal weapons aren't as effective as lethal ones in terms of reliability, accuracy and stopping power.

 

No one had been killed so no need to kill.

[charmer]

That's the whole point I'm trying to make, concentration should be spent more on disableing than killing, let's start their, police can carry a killing weapon also a disableing weapon no real extra weight, then at least there is a choice in the the immediate situation.

 

What choice would you make if someone reached for what you believed to be a firearm after being explicitly told not to?

[JFKvsNixon]

That's the whole point I'm trying to make, concentration should be spent more on disableing than killing, let's start their, police can carry a killing weapon also a disableing weapon no real extra weight, then at least there is a choice in the the immediate situation.

 

What like? Remember it has to work in an instant.

 

---------- Post added 24-11-2014 at 11:22 ----------

 

No one had been killed so no need to kill.

 

So you believe that deadly force should only be used after a loss of life?

[Ellco]

Gun culture, bad parenting and a misguided child. Doomed from the start.

[PRESLEY]

What like? Remember it has to work in an instant.

 

---------- Post added 24-11-2014 at 11:22 ----------

 

 

So you believe that deadly force should only be used after a loss of life?

 

For a start in the seventies in Northern Ireland a gun was used to fire baton rounds which would if it you on the chin would knock you out or if hit in the chest would knock you on your back winded, thats an Adult, this is a kid we are talking about here, so this type of weapon would have been more than sufice.

 

---------- Post added 24-11-2014 at 11:31 ----------

 

What like? Remember it has to work in an instant.

 

---------- Post added 24-11-2014 at 11:22 ----------

 

 

So you believe that deadly force should only be used after a loss of life?

 

He certainly didn't need killing.

[truman]

For a start in the seventies in Northern Ireland a gun was used to fire baton rounds which would if it you on the chin would knock you out or if hit in the chest would knock you on your back winded, thats an Adult, this is a kid we are talking about here, so this type of weapon would have been more than sufice..

 

Were they used against people pointing firearms in N.I....or just against rioters/protesters?