Did you even read the article that you reference? The first sentance quotes the age of the "child". The last sentance points out why the cop could have reasonably mistaken the gun for real.

I don't know about you but I stopped playing cops and robbers when I was 7 and even if for some reason I was still playing it at the age of 15 I had enough sense to not point even a "toy" weapon at a cop that had ordered me to "drop it".

If by a "collapse" of our society you mean that we now have 15 year olds that are stupid enough to point toy guns at a cop then I agree, but this has nothing to do with our government or cops or paranoia, it has to do with the stupidity of the 15 year old "child" and even more so with the parents that obviously did such a poor job of raising the "child".

 

What has happened to our society? This is not the same society I remember 20 years ago where playing out in the streets was a common thing; where playing cops and robbers was the Nintendo of the old days, where cops didn't pull their guns out just because. Did they truly feel this child (or young person) was a true threat that they needed to shoot him?

20 years ago it wasn't quite as common for teens to go around shooting people.  20 years ago Columbine hadn't happened, which was a huge turning point for our society's perception of teens and guns.  Though I was only in elementary school when Columbine happened, I remember a "No Tolerance" policy being enacted that someone years before that would have considered extreme. 

 

 

All 15 year old at some point do something incredibly stupid.  That doesn't necessarily reflect on the parents, just the fact that "teen" is often synonymous with "what the *$% were you thinking?"

Dude, chill. My mistake, I read more than one article and forgot the age was on the second article which happens to be the one I links. I am only human you know.

Yea, what ever. Just because you stopped at an early age does not mean everyone else did. Regardless of the "child's" actions, the cop did not need to shoot the child. Funny how we send our military people to war and usually wait to be shot at first before shooting yet here we have a cop shooting first at a 15 year old and you don't see anything wrong with it?

Lord, did you have a childhood at all? My son is 10 and plays with guns with his little brother. Most of the games they have on their gaming systems have guns. I played with toy guns when I was older than him. They are children, not gansters, murderers and pychos. Wow, thank you for proving my point. The cops a hero here according to you. I'm sure one less child playing with toy guns on the streets will make us safer. With mentalities like this, doom is just one Sun orbit away.

Please tell me how does this resemble Columbine? I can't believe that a simple childs game is now considered a possible danger to society. This is really sad. The child is at fault on this one, wow. What a fucked up society this has become.

Welll, at least you said something I can agree with. I do find it idiotic to blame parenst for everything a 15 year old does. That's kinda stupid, kids will do stupid things even when taught better. It's nature that humans have to make mistakes in order to learn from them.

I didn't say it resembled Columbine, or that a child's game was a danger to society, simply that Columbine changed our way of thinking.  Before Columbine it was almost laughable to imagine a kid carrying around a real weapon, and using it to murder people, and if this had happened 20 years ago, the cops probably would have laughed it off, assuming that the gun was a toy.

Now, though, because of Columbine, these things are taken much more seriously, and it is no longer unreasonable to assume that a realistic looking gun with no orange cap may be real.  I don't know if shooting him was the proper way to end the altercation (if it can be called such), but I hardly think it was illogical for the cops to assume that the gun was real.

 

I agree, it did change the way we see things. Kinda sucks though.

I do, it's not. You don't shot a child just because you think you may be in danger. Imagine if cops shot everyone they thought might have a gun or a real gun? Imagine if cops shot first and asked questions later? That's insane. This could have been avoided.

I agree here as well, but a real gun is not a reason to shot unless they are in real danger. I would have to be proven that the cops life was in real mortal danger when the child aimed the gun at them. What ever happened to the rules of engagement?

The police received a 911 call reporting a person outside brandishing a handgun. That's all the information the officers have. They arrive on the scene, tell the perpetrator to put the gun down, and he points it at them. Should the police wait until they're shot? Of course not. The teen should have complied.

In Seattle on New Years, a college student was firing blanks into the air out of a WWII era rifle. The police arrived, told him to put down the weapon, he pointed the rifle at the officers, and soon found himself dead. Should the police wait until they're shot? Of course not. The student should have complied.

I agree here as well, but a real gun is not a reason to shot unless they are in real danger. I would have to be proven that the cops life was in real mortal danger when the child aimed the gun at them. What ever happened to the rules of engagement?

A police officer staring down the barrel of a gun is in real mortal danger and should appropriately protect himself. What other definition do you have? How would the officer know when or if that person decided to pull the trigger? If someone pointed a gun at your child would you fear for their life? Who decides what is "real mortal danger?" The officers are not to blame; they responded to an emergency call, had a gun aimed at them, and acted as any sensible person would: with deadly force in defense of their life.

Yeah, Whatever.

Correct. You don't shot a child. But you do shoot a 15 year old that points what  appears to be a gun at the cop that has ordered him to drop it.

Hello!, He was shooting the gun, even if blanks, he was shooting (key word shooting) the gun. There is no way for the cops to know the bullets were blanks at that point, he was shooting the gun, a real gun. The 15 year old was not.

You don't shoot first, plain and simple. Remember the guy who got shot with a bunch of bullets while he was simply reaching for his wallet? And we wonder why we are called arrogant cowboys, we come in guns a blazing to solve every problem. Is this what we believe the cops should do? Solve every problem by shooting the "possible" criminal? The irony here is that you all are defending the cops actions but I bet had it been your family member your comments would be demanding this cops head.

If shooting first ask questions later is OK with you all, then I look forward to seeing your reactions if this ever happens to you. And while I am not hoping this does happen to any of you (like some may think I am), if it was OK for Sykes to want Rush's death, than I should be given a pass as well.

Wow, if this is the best argument you can give me feel free to steer clear from posting on my articles. It's kinda corny to try to prove your point by pointing out something as minor as missing an o in a word that needed 2 of them.

No wonder we so screwed in this country. This is the limit to some people's attempt at making a decent argument. 2008 elections was not an Presidential election, it was an American Idol  competition except people had to actually leave their houses to vote.

I am not saying that the kid was completely at fault, just that the situation escalated on the kid's stupidity.  As negaither pointed out, when you are facing the wrong end of a gun, your reaction may not be "what are the chances that this is just a toy" but more along the lines of... "this kid is not obeying orders, I may be in serious danger right now."

It's a matter of putting yourself into the shoes of these men as humans.

Cops are humans, (I think), and though they are trained to handle situations certain ways, sometimes fear will overcome that training.

Those are the kind of people that don't make good cops. 

I don't necessarily think it's a matter of "Did these cops react logically," because not many people would react logically when having a gun pointed at them.  I think it is more of a matter of "Do these men (women?) have what it takes to be a good cop, and keep their cool."

I think the answer to that, in this particular case, is no. 

As for how this exemplifies society... well, we are all apt to take things personally, and not always consider the logic in things. 

You have to look around, and see America for what it really is.  It's not that we are screwed up because Obama is president, we are screwed up because our priorities as a nation have revolved around "What's in it for me, and mine."  Perhaps I am just too cynical, but I think that everyone is in it for themselves, yet expecting everyone else to have a sense of understanding and compassion.  

The truth is, compassion and understanding take a lot more sacrifice than being selfish, and we Americans are not raised to be sacrifical of anything. 

 The cops had their own well-being in mind, something that most people can, and do, relate with.

 

 

OK. Mostly I do, but I’ll try to do better in the future. By that I mean not your articles in particular but all Joe User blogs in general. I’m more of a general Stardock forum guy that visits a large number of Stardock’s different sites. It can often be difficult to make the distinction between what one person considers to be ”his” article in a blog as opposed to simply the person that happened to write the OP of a thread in a forum.

There does seem to be quite a difference in how those two things are viewed. Certainly people seem to be far more possessive of their “blogs” than any forum goer would feel about a thread that he happened to author. Perhaps, dude chill, can apply in both directions.

But I do have some simple basic points about your "article" which are merely my own personal opinion, with which on the one hand everyone is certainly free to agree or disagree, but on the other hand are opinions that many “reasonable” people may legitimately hold. Firstly I feel you exaggerate the “child” aspect of this story. While a 15 year old is obviously not a full grown adult, to me the cops shooting a “child”, brings up visions of the cops gunning down an 8 to 10 year old in cold blood which is far from the case here. Secondly, I personally feel that the cops were totally justified by their action in this case, and thirdly, I hardly read into this story any such dire consequences as the total collapse of our society.

With that I’ll withdraw and do my best to avoid your “articles” in the future. Feel free to blacklist me, it actually helps me know who to avoid. I know how much you JU guys would prefer to pretend that everyone agrees with you. That’s the difference between a “blog” and a “forum”. A blog is merely some guy of dubious qualifications pontificating on a soap box that gets offended when not everyone agrees with him, whereas a forum is “a meeting or medium for the open discussion of subjects of public interest”. 

Admittedly forums don’t often live up to such lofty ideals either, but I've yet to see the author of a "thread" somehow presume ownership because they happened to make a comment on an excerpt of a story from a newspaper or take major offense because everyone else didn't happen to share that opinion.

WTF kind of bullshit is that? he pointed out that you obviously didn't read the article and instead jumped to conclusions from the title, you should thank him and slink away, and retract your silly statements, not tell him to not post on "your articles"...

You said toy, it was a replica without the plastic cap to indicate its a replica, you said "no mention of age" when the artile starts with the age of the "kid" (15)...

If a 15 year was told by a cop to drop their weapon, they shouldn't point it the cop, actually the cops showed a lot of restraint, they shot him ONCE in a non essential part and he will make a full recovery, cops are trained to empty their magazine into an assailant to make sure he is dead (a person with just 1 or 2 bullets in him can still shoot you back).

Hello!, He was shooting the gun, even if blanks, he was shooting (key word shooting) the gun. There is no way for the cops to know the bullets were blanks at that point, he was shooting the gun, a real gun. The 15 year old was not.

You are right, there was no way for the officers to know that the bullets were blanks. In the current article, there was no way for the officers to know that the gun was fake. I don't see a difference. Whether shots had been reported fired is irrelevant: the perpatrator pointed a deadly weapon at the officers. Toy or not, blanks or not, the officers don't know. All they see is a deadly weapon.

Remember the guy who got shot with a bunch of bullets while he was simply reaching for his wallet? And we wonder why we are called arrogant cowboys, we come in guns a blazing to solve every problem.

Reaching for a wallet or otherwise is completely different than pointing a gun. The police drive up, tell the perpetrator to put the gun down. It is NOT pointed at them. The teen then DELIBERATELY pointed the gun at the officers. There is no further question to ask. The split second it takes for a trigger pull is all that seperates the targeted officer from life and death.

What do you recommend the officer do? Do you seriously advocate waiting to see if he is going to pull the trigger? What is the waiting period? Let him point the gun at your head, try a few more times to tell him to put it down for good measure, hoping he doesn't pull the trigger in the meantime? I think you have a completely unreasonable standard here.