Mumblefratz

Let me start by saying that I believe in Freedom of Speech and the right to one's own opinion. I would never silence someone for disagreeing with me in my articles. The blacklist feature to me is only for people who are flat out stupid and do not provide any kind of substance on any article besides being annoying on purpose; I don't think I have ever blacklisted anyone before and don't plan on starting now just because our opinions differ. My "feel free to steer clear" comments was meant as a choice not a demand. To point to something as silly as missing a letter in a word as oppose to misspelling it in a very uneducated way as part of your argument is a lame concept. I wrote this article to debate about the cops actions vs the 15 year olds actions, not to point out small gramatical errors in the attempt to make someone look stupid and distract from the point of the artcle.

Your idea of what a cop shooting a child looks like is not what could be considered a general idea. A child is a child regardless of age and cops should not be shooting people just because they can. How many times have we not seem situations where cops were faces with people with guns and only when someones life was truly threatened did the cops open fire? How many times have we seen cops shoot first only to find out the person who got shot was no threat before the gun was shot?

Plese elaborate how you feel that a cop should shoot people just because there is a possible threat? Can you imagine if cops shot every person they felt was a threat? Can you imagine if our soldiers in the battle field ignored the rules of engagement and shot every person they came across that had a gun? How can you or anyone possible justify shooting first, asking questions later? How come homeowners get sued for shooting people who break into their homes but it's OK to shoot a kid with a gun who never got a shot off?

Of course not, why would anyone believe that one thing would ever lead to future consequences? All it took was a couple of mistakes in Congress to put us in this disaster of an economy. All it took was the death of a few thousand Americans to pludge us into not 1, not 2 but now 3 wars. Our society is screwed up today because we chose to ignore the small things. Hurricanes start off as simple tropical depressions.

I think you are confusing offense with confusion. I'm not offended by any of your comments but confused by them as to how anyone can believe that shooting first is the way to resolve any situation. My debate with you would have been fine if not because you chose to point out some silly typo as oppsoe to simply sticking to the topic. Seeing as you felt the need to attack me on a more personal level rather than debate your point, seems to me that it was you who was offended by my comments.

taltamir,

You are lost and confused. That comment was in relation to him pointing out my typo as a way to insult me directly for disagreeing with his opinion. It had nothing to do with his disagreement. I wrote articles in the hopes to debate peoples opinions of any topic I post. To start name calling, insulting and doing silly things such as pointing to typo's (and not necessarily uneducatedly misspelled words) right off the back as oppose to providing a counter argument to the counter argument is childish to me and something i will point out and ask nicely to keep it to themselves, unless otherwise provocked and forced to use stronger words.

I'm not here to make enemies, I'm here to debate, to learn and to understand other people.

Toy or not the child did not shoot the gun and make any kinds of threats (that I read or heard of) besides pointing the gun. I don't believe that pointing a gun is an reason to shoot someone. Our society should be better than that, cops are there to protect and serve not shoot first ask questions later. I have seen countless situations where cops had plenty of reasons to shoot and didn't, situation where guns where never even drawn and situations where they did not shoot first. This was wrong, period.

And I admitted my mistake on the 4th post. Hey, I am only human. I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong. I did not insult him on that. like I said to him I say to you. chill out dude.

Agreed, but that was not a reason to shoot him. Plain and simple. This could have been handled better. This was not a call about someone goinga round shooting people, making threats and being violent. The child was riding his bike on the streets, how the hell does that make him a threat?

Restraint? They shot him was little cause. How is that restraint. Restarint is when a cop does not shoot unless absolutely necessary and even then they hesitate. Restraint is when not matter how much you want to do something, you don't. I'll use your own comment against you. Why did the cop only shoot him once? Did he really believe the kid was a threat?

Dude, the guy was shooting. Blanks or not he was a threat because they could not have know the bullets were blanks. The kid was not shooting, all he did was point the gun. He made not threats, he was not aggressive, he was not running from the cops, he was not shooting up the neighborhood. he simply pointed the gun, nothing more. I guess we don't believe in the rules of engagement anymore.

And yet the cops filled this guy with bullets. the number of bullets in his body was so high no one could excuse why so many bullets were fired at all.

How often do you hear stories about cops shooting people in these situations? Cops are traind to shoot but are also trained to know when to shoot. Cops are trained to resolve situations with the least amount of force necessary but are also train to use leathal force if necessary. Even soldiers understand the rules of engagement. Cops do not shoot first ask questions later in non-violent situations. The child was not a threat, plain and simple. Not shots were fired, no agressive actions were taken, no threats were made by the kid. Plain and simple.

I want to elaborate one thing here so as not to give the wrong impression. I have seen many comments on other sites that agree with you guys here but one thing I noticed was that someone mentioned cop-hate. This article is in no way an attempt to put cops down or hate on cops. Cops are necessary for our society. My point is that this one moment, to me, the cop could have handled this differently, we can't always rely on shooting first as the only option to any situation.

Most of the comments I read had the same sentiment "if I was the cop and something that looked like a gun was pointed at me, i would have done the same". But do we really want to resolve every possible conflict with a gun? Unless someone can prove to me that this cops life was in serious danger, i believe this cops actions were a bit too extreme in this situation.

BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN! [/sarcasm]

Excellent point, I missed the part about the typo being the issue.

No, no it couldn't, you live in a fantasy world. Cops DIE, when the cops tell you to DROP YOUR WEAPON, then as long as you COMPLY they have no reason to shoot you... if instead you point it at them (that is, you VEER from pointing in another directing to pointing at them) it looks like they are going to SHOOT Them, that is the only REASON one could HAVE for changing the position of their gun from pointing at some arbitrary location to pointing at the cop. The cops shot him because they didn't want to die.

Also, have you heard of columbine? The cops are there to serve and protect the other citizens, potential victims of a madman with a gun who would murder them all after he finishes off the cops he didn't fire even in self defense. Not to serve and protect the mad murderers or the guys PRETENDING to be mad murderers...

At 15 I knew not to create a "setup" as a "game" where it looks like I am trying to shoot a cop, rape someone, murder someone, dispose of a body, etc... maybe this "kid" thought he was being "funny", but that is just utterly stupid and not conductive to having a long life. He will live and actually learn from this experience.

the biggest irony is that you latch on to such a trivial case...

Cops decide to deal with protestors by having one hold their head and the other dab their eyes with cotton swabs full of pepper spray.

911 operators hang up on people for using profanity and get a slap on the wrist ("send a fucking ambulance, my dad isn't breathing!") or they say things like "I really don't care what happens to you" to people calling in with things like "My ex is trying to break down the door, he has a knife, he is going to kill me send help"...

Swat teams are breaking into peoples homes without ever sending regular cops in, shooting all dogs to death (standard procedure of swat team is to kill all the dogs) and beating the residents.. usually because someone called in and lied, or because they were following "leads" they know to be bogus (drug dealers mail drugs to random addresses, then their contants in the post office intercepts the package instead of letting it be delivered... the police KNOWS that and is tracking them... so what do they do? swat the people who were addressed on the package despite them never receiving it.)

then you have cases of children being victimized by insane laws against pedophiles... like the case of the 13 year olds who had sex and are both up for charges of satutory and being registered sex offenders. among many others like them, check out www.crimesagainstchildren.com

No, you ignore all the real atrocities and focus on some retard who decided to get a replica gun that looks real, go around scaring the neighbors, and when the cops show up and ask him to put it down he goes on to "play" at a having a gunfight with the police.

One aspect of this case is blaringly obvious and yet no one has commented on it.  YOU WEREN'T THERE.  We can all see 20/20 in hindsight.  In the heat of the moment, a cop has to make a decision in a flash and he has to be right.  This "child" would no doubt been charged as an adult had he been packin' real steel and shot the cop.  Cops have a responsiblility to protect the public, allowing themselves to be shot by teens who can then go on and shoot others is not protecting the public.  The question should not be "why did the cop shoot a child?"  it should be "what the hell was that child thinking?".

I don't see what the problem is. The kid is fine.

Think of it this way. Even if the kid did not have a real gun, the police did. The kid must have seen those. What would you do if confronted by armed and angry government drones shouting for you to drop your "weapon"?

These are the same people who often have nothing better to do than hand out parking tickets like candy, and we all hate them. But at the end of the day, don't be fooled. If you are by the doughnut shop with a gun, fake or real, you are likely to get shot. This is why krispy kreme is safer than Gringotts. You should be happy they are there to prevent real criminals from war riding on a bike through your neighborhood.

Now I'm lost and confused. Why do you say I ignore these things? I have not made any comments or articles about any of this stuff, that doesn't mean I ignore them.

Agreed.

When you say in the heat of the moment, that is where I see it different from everyone else. There was no bad situation besides a kid with a gun, no shooting, no murder, no violence. I just don't see why shooting first in this situation was the right choice. I understand the not getting shot by the kid part, but do we truly believe cops should shoot first every time? Bad people shoot first, that's how it always works. Cops are suppose to handle the situation with the least amount of force possible. How do we know the kid intentionally pointed the gun? In the end it's the cops word vs the kids word and who's gonna say the cops lied? No one. I just think the cop did not need to shoot first. thats all. The situation did not seem to merit the cop shooting first. That's just my opinion.

I get it.  And that is what is so great about this country, you are entitled to your opinion.  BUT.  You are still forming an opinion based on the outcome.  Requiring the cops to wait until they are fired upon before engaging a bad guy would lead to a lot of funerals with bagpipes.  The "heat of the moment" was the point at which the person with the gun pointed it at the cop.  What would be your opinion if the gun had been real and a 15 year old had shot the cop?  Would you feel that it was the "right" thing to do?  I know that there are dozens of shootings every year that shouldn't have happened.  Here in the Swirling Epicenter we had a doozie a couple of years ago...man on something roaring around the neighborhood threatening people and pushing people around.  Cops came and the man reached into his pocket and came out with something shiny that he held like a gun.  Cops shot him about a dozen times.  It was a staple-gun.  Were the cops wrong?  I don't think so.  When you put yourself in those situations...you are responsible for the outcome.  You can argue diminished capacity...drugs, alcohol, etc...but you made that choice, too.  Cops are not psychic, they have to act and act decisively in a split second.  Any reasonable person will act for self-preservation. 

Because his actions indicated he was GOING to shoot at them, he esculated the situation.

you are very, very wrong. SURVIVORS shoot first. the guy who is quicker on the draw in the one who wins.

When cops wait on perps to "shoot first" innocent victims die.

When a guy breaks into your house with a gun, you go ahead and let him shoot first... when a guy puts a gun to your wives head and starts tearing off her clothes, you go ahead and let him shoot first, if a mugger has dropped his gun, and you point your gun at him and tell him to freeze, and he jumps towards his own gun on the floor, grabs it and whips it around towards you,... you go ahead and let him shoot first...

Me, I'd like to get off the first (and ONLY) shoot in all those scenarios. Shooting first does not make you evil, and it is very sad that you beleive so.

This didn't start with Columbine.  Columbine made the news because it was a white suburban middle-upper class school that had a fair amount of people getting shot/killed. 

Its been happening in inner-city schools.  I went to an inner-city school we had metal detactors and Police patroling the school way before Columbine happened, why well because Lepton's would bring in guns to school/shot people.

"Swat teams are breaking into peoples homes without ever sending regular cops in, shooting all dogs to death (standard procedure of swat team is to kill all the dogs) and beating the residents.. usually because someone called in and lied, or because they were following "leads" they know to be bogus (drug dealers mail drugs to random addresses, then their contants in the post office intercepts the package instead of letting it be delivered... the police KNOWS that and is tracking them... so what do they do? swat the people who were addressed on the package despite them never receiving it.)"

I'm not saying that the swat team never came before regular cops BUT the proper procedure is for regular cops to make the assessment if the swat team is needed.  If someone calls in saying that so and so has a gun and is shooting people the 911 dispatcher CAN NOT make the call for the Swat team to go to that area.

It is the Sheriff or Police Chief's call to send in Swat and usual they'll send them in after several officers make the assessment that the SWAT team is needed.  Also about shooting dogs, yes, it is standard procedure (but if its only if they can't get around the dogs or if the dogs have the potential at getting at the officers).  I love dogs some dogs can be very protective and get violent when they feel threaten.  Dogs do act differently when guns are being shot and loads of people are coming to their homes.  You can say well the SWAT team has body armor yet it doesn't protect neck, legs, and arms. After owning a part wolf whose bite was pretty vicious it is not fun to be bite by a dog nor is it safe to be attacked by a dog when you have an automatic weapon in hand. 

To my knownledge most SWAT teams now have started using tranquilizers for animals.

After reading the story the police did tell the kid to drop the weapon.  I am confused as to why he didn't compile.  Why did he point the gun at the police. 

Also as stated the officers shot him probably shot him in manner not to kill.  Again, police go through training and continual training on shootiing, so I'm certain if they wanted to with 2 shots COULD have killed him.

Charles I do understand what you are saying about society.  They did tell him to drop his weapon and the article doesn't say how much time elasped between them telling the kid to drop the weapon to them shooting the kid.  From reading it I could assumed they said 'drop the weapon' then the kid pointed the gun at them and the police shot him, they said 'drop the weapon' then the kid pointed the gun at them and the police could have waited a few minutes, or even how many times they said drop the weapon (usually it does get said repeatly).

Society doesn't corrode over night nor a year it happens over time.  Just like a tooth that has a cavity.  The cavity problem didn't start when you felt the pain it most likely has been doing damage to your tooth quite some time until the point you felt the pain and consequences of the cavity.