Cleveland, US. Police kill boy, 12

[PRESLEY]

I love it when armchair knowitalls wander up professing to know everything..

 

Ever fired a baton round? Don't bother - we all know you haven't.

 

A modern 37mm baton round is not as accurate as even a pistol let alone a rifle. The barrels are not rifled and the rounds tumble in flight considerably. If you hit someone in the legs that will just make them mad, and they can then shoot back still.

 

In the 1970's with rubber bullets (not baton rounds they were not in use then in NI) the police used to aim at the legs (actually the floor, wanting to richochet the rounds to slow them down). By firing at a large riot rubber bullets are useful as a volley will be effective as the target is large. Firing at a small person in this manner you will almost always miss.

 

HaHa, just waiting for a chump like you to jump in, here we go! I have fired baton rounds, and we used them in 76 in NI, I had one strapped to my back, whilst carrying my 7.62, aka SLR, the next time you pull up a sand bag get your facts right.

[tzijlstra]

As kids we used to play 'war' me and my dad made an awesome AK47 replica as a project, it was beautiful. Then one day as I was cycling back home a police officer stopped me and told me to hand it over, it was destroyed as far as I know.

 

In the Netherlands it is illegal to even have look-a-like guns, regardless of the markings and one of the reasons is to avoid situations like this.

[Member]

It's not a toy though.

 

Yes it is. A toys isnt defined by its colour but by its purpose.

[RootsBooster]

Yes it is. A toys isnt defined by its colour but by its purpose.

 

In England, airsofts used to be toys, they have since been reclassified.

It's possible that in America they are still regarded as toys.

[Obelix]

HaHa, just waiting for a chump like you to jump in, here we go! I have fired baton rounds, and we used them in 76 in NI, I had one strapped to my back, whilst carrying my 7.62, aka SLR, the next time you pull up a sand bag get your facts right.

 

Yeah sure you have.... we all believe you - honest....

 

---------- Post added 24-11-2014 at 12:16 ----------

 

Yes it is. A toys isnt defined by its colour but by its purpose.

 

The law would disagree with you on that one - have a look at the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006

[Bonzo77]

Unbelievable. A 12 year old with a toy gun is shot and killed by police because they didn't know whether it was real or not (he wasn't pointing it at anyone):

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30172433

 

This is partly to do with staggering police incompetence, but also a result of a culture in which it is assumed that 12 year olds may well be running around a school yard playing with a real gun.

 

I think your last point is key here. In a country as civilised as the US, why would there be sufficient reason to believe that this 12 year old was carrying a real gun and posing a real threat?

[ronthenekred]

Yes it is. A toys isnt defined by its colour but by its purpose.

 

If a toy and the real thing is indistinguishable then by default it become real. Even though it isn't. I think that was Obelix's point.

[truman]

I think your last point is key here. In a country as civilised as the US, why would there be sufficient reason to believe that this 12 year old was carrying a real gun and posing a real threat?

 

Because in the past youngsters with guns have killed their classmates...?

[Bonzo77]

Apparently the police ordered him to raise his hands, under gunpoint, and the 12 year old pulled the gun out of his waistband.

 

To be fair to the police, you're talking about having to make an instant decision. You have to remember that across the pond, young people have been on shooting sprees, so I'm struggling to see what else the police could have done?

 

The gun looked just like a real gun, it even had the orange safety indicator, which is there to differentiate it from a real gun, removed.

 

The lesson to learn here is, not to wave something that looks exactly like a fire arm at armed police.

 

What else could they have done?

 

They could have stood off at a safe distance, under cover, and waited a few more precious seconds.

 

They could have fired warning shots into the air.

 

Worse case scenario, they could have shot the boy in the leg or somewhere none fatal.

 

Having said that, I can see why the police in the US don't like taking any risks. People this age have been on shooting sprees before. But I don't think "shoot to kill", was necessary here.

[L00b]

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

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

Yes it is. A toys isnt defined by its colour but by its purpose.

Here's a toy of mine. Technically, it is "a toy". It is completely non-lethal, you couldn't kill anything with it (...other than an ant, maybe). It could damage an eye and will leave a welt at point blank, though. It looks the same, weighs the same, loads/shoots/recoils/cocks/decocks the same as the real thing (Heckler & Koch USP compact 9mm). Loaded on propane, and from a distance, an inexperienced bystander could well believe it is the real thing.

 

If I let my daughter go play outside with it (unloaded, for complete safety), how do you think bystanders/passers-by are going to react? Regardless of whether in the UK or the US?

 

There's a reason why there is a lot of existing legislation about RIFs ("Realistic Imitation Firearms"), in the UK as elsewhere. Google up VCRA (the UK's Violent Crime Reduction Act) and RIFs. This unfortunate event is just a reminder about why.

Edited November 24, 2014 by L00b