So a 12 year old gets shot by a cop....

after the cop told him to drop a toy gun and he took off running.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2007/nov/07/7west/

“After careful consideration, we concluded that the evidence does not establish a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes,” Mark J. Kappelhoff, chief of the Criminal Section of the department’s Civil Rights Division, wrote in a letter dated Oct. 31."

This is a horrible headline that attracted my attention. The reason I'm posting is because of the responses to this article. Check the link. From the 1st several responses I knew I would have to post this. Some of these responses from Memphis are unreal. Blame the parents. Blame the kid. Anyone but the police. The police who are supposed to have the training and expertise to know a truly dangerous situation from one that isn't.

FOR FUCKING CHRIST'S SAKE, HE WAS A 12 YEAR OLD.

A typical response:
Posted by Memphis_Is_Bad on November 7, 2007 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course there was no wrong doing. The child aimed a gun at an officer and didn't drop it when told. I hate to see how much taxpayers will have to pay for investigations into a case with no merit.

Another:
Posted by bribri on November 7, 2007 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder if there would be such outrage if this would have been a black cop who killed the kid. Would Al Sharpton still try to get involved? Anyway, it is such a shame that the mother is trying to bank off of this from filing a lawsuit. I would hope that a jury would be intelligent enough to realize that if they awarded the mother any money, the city would have to cut back on all budgets including police and fire protection to pay her. It would be a shame for a home to burn down because the fire department had to cut back on their payroll. I completely support the police officer involved. All he did was doing his job.



OH,A 12 YEAR OLD WHO DIDN'T DO WHAT HE WAS TOLD...IMAGINE THAT!!!!!!
This kid was probably scared shitless, and did the only thing he knew to do, Run away. So a cop, knowing that he wouldn't be harmed, because the kid is running away, decides to shoot him, because, you know, he had a gun. A fucking toy gun, but no matter. And tell my why a cop wouldn't know this was a kid?? Wouldn't it be better or err on the side of life? But this is all hindsight, maybe the cop really thought he was in danger, but the total lack of compassion is what's really getting to me.

Another thought, these people without any sympathy or compassion for the kid or his family, repugs all, don't see the irony that a cop shoots a kid with a gun, but will defend to the death anyone's right to carry one.

Sorry guys, this makes me sick.
Rant over.

The facist police state advocates here at DU will soon rise up and flame you.

But thanks for the info.

One other post I wrote got copied over at freeperville. What a trip watching that one.

It's like, "Oh well, he would've grown up to be a crack dealer and might shoot a cop anyway, so...". These cop defenders living in their safe gated communities better hope their children are shot by a cop. Maddening, just maddening.

Denver's newspaper is full of problems with police investigations: They botched an investigation into an infamous and unsolved missing person's case (Beth Miller of Idaho Springs, CO) from 20 years ago.

We learned that in another case the investigators planted a false story about a suspect's mother having died. They did this to rattle the suspect. There are serious doubts if the suspect, who is serving life in prison, committed the crime.

(The off-duty cop I mentioned, got into a confrontation last weekend with a driver then shot and killed the passenger. The passenger and the driver were not armed. The passenger is a kid from Montana and his parents are questioning the use of a gun--an escalation, in a fight.)

Most certainly, on the face of it, this cop looks to be A-grade prime arsehole material.

However, in this case it does not appear that he has done anything wrong or worthy of censure. He saw what appeared to be a firearm. He told the kid (apparently at gunpoint) to drop the weapon. Instead the kid raised it.

It wouldn't matter if the kid was attempting to say: "What this? It's a toy".

Do you know what is really sad about this story? Not that a cop shot a child. But that cops feel that they have no choice but to shoot a child to maintain their own safety and the safety of the public.

What is sad is a society in which one has no choice but to assume that a "gun" carried by a child, is the real thing and not a toy.

What is sad, is that in a supposedly civilised nation, twelve year olds packing heat is not an uncommon occurrence.

the most believable story is the only one that can be told.

To take at face value the story of a cop or anyone whose about to be judged for killing a 12 year kid is a slap in the face of this kids family and just wrong in so many ways. Especially after looking back at this guys past history coupled with the history of law enforcements "circle the wagons" history.

Remember. this kid cannot tell his side of this story, and who can say whether this toy gun actually looked real, or glowed orange in accordance with the law, or even existed at all?

Who can say that this kid actually had a toy gun at all? Oh, that's right the cops will never make up a story to keep himself out of jail, or the department to protect one of their own.

There are lot's of definitive pronouncements and and judgments being made about this incident both responses following the article and even in this thread based solely on the account of someone with clearly vested interest and proven past of not being totally honest himself.

All the while ignoring questions raised even by the the official one sided story.

http://thadmatthews.blogspot.com/2007/07/erik-sammis-says-deaunta-farrow-didnt.html

...potentially heap abuse on a poor bastard who is already feeling about as low as a bloke can get.

Yes in this case the cop has a reputation for being a right royal prick. But it's for physical violence and not for using kids for target practice. From the articles (that a Google search on his name turned up) about him and other incidents in which he was involve, misuse of his sidearm doesn't appear to be one of his besetting sins.

Is the police story the correct one? Possibly not. However, a toy gun was entered into evidence, and presumably was identified (by someone other than the cops) as belonging to the kid or being like one belonging to the kid. There was a witness, (other than the cop's partner) another child, a friend.

And while only suggestive, there is the fact that the cop was on stakeout at the time. Even sadistic, petty tyrants don't generally risk blowing operations, just to play mind games with and intimidate a couple of kids. Thus it is almost certain that he saw pretty much what he said he saw to cause him to exit the vehicle.

I've seen a lot of "bad cop" stories this year, and sometimes it has been very clear when the cop has been in the wrong or way over the top in his actions. But mostly they have been a lot like this one. With essentially zero concrete (or even circumstantial) evidence to support the loudly brayed assertions that there MUST have been mis/malfeasance on the part of the authorities either during the incident itself or in its aftermath. And from the worst few, that there always must be such mis/malfeasance in any untoward incident involving the police or others with police like powers.

People who make such automatic unsupported assertions are every bit as much bigots as Limpballs himself. And when I see such happening, I will put the boots in, even on behalf of "Chester the Molester" himself. Not because I think he is worthy of defending, but because I believe that the principles of just and fair treatment for all ARE.

Automatic assumptions made that the cop did nothing wrong but there is still a dead 12 year old child whose crime justifying instant death was.... what???? That is what is wrong.

Re-read you post again... this time from the perspective of this dead child and his family. Can you now see that there should be a complete investigation and finding of fact beyond the ever evolving story of a flawed officer before we start talking about this "poor bastard" and how low he must feel.

I'll bet he doesn't feel as low as this kids Mother.

You offer that he doesn't have a history of using kids for target practice? Does this kid have a history of shooting at cops with toy guns as a hobby? Kinda goes both ways and demonstrate that some people want to view this tragedy from one angle only. You don't build a history until after the first time.

If you look at something from one perspective, and only looking for evidence that support what you want to see, you can convince yourself of anything.

And then you accuse me of assuming a cover up. No, I only pointed out that there is always more than one side to a story.

But on the other hand, you and others seem to assume a cover-up and are happy to apply any spin to this unfortunate event to justify it.

nor if the gun was marked with an orange marker that were put on toy guns to reduce these tragedies.

As to training, cops are trained to treat any encounter with a potential deadly weapon as a threat... and toy guns look very real

My, personally would not allow my kids to have those toys... for that reason... then again my nephews don't

These shootings are tragedies all around... for all involved, ranging from the kid and the family, who lost a loved one, to the cop, who will go on for the rest of his life wondering, what if? Shooting somebody when your life is truly at risk is traumatic enough... but when you learn that it was a toy... it is far worst

I have sympathy for all involved actually... the family, and the cop.

And every time we have these tragedies... I don't rant... just wonder, what can we do to reduce them to zero?

wasn't the kid running away when he was shot in the back? The cop thought his life was at risk from a child with a toy gun who was running from him?

This is sickening!

how heartbreaking. do they (cops) always have to "shoot to kill"?

can't they ever shoot someone in the hand or arm that is holding a weapon? like, for example, shoot a CHILD in their arm if you really think the kid is holding a real gun?

or say something like "LOOK OVER THERE!" to distract a child long enough to take the toy gun away?

i'm reading those comments posted on that link--and jesus!

"OK again can anyone tell a toy gun from a real one? Not now a day.! and at night its more harder to tell."
(from your link)

i've got an idea. let's get rid of these fucking toys.

"In other states, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $200,000 to settle a New York court judgement concerning the sale of toy guns. WalMart had been accused of selling toy guns that did not have the state-required markings to ensure they do not look like real firearms.

"Federal law requires toy guns to have an orange marking at the end of the barrel. New York requires and additional marking, an orange stripe along the end of the barrel.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_7_48/ai_105797564

possibly only if the person you intended to shoot paused obediently and held their hand still for you to shoot, the lighting was ideal, etc.; basically, if you have the time to make that kind of a shot, you probably don't have justification to shoot in the first place, though there could be exceptions in a hostage situation or something.

With a stationary target, good lighting, and a few seconds, you can shoot a handgun with surprising accuracy; I've hit a 24" target 8 for 9 at 110 yards with a compact 9mm CCW pistol, under ideal conditions and using a spotter; the playing card below shows three rounds from the same pistol at 21 feet (top two holes are siamesed), 3 or 4 seconds per shot.





HOWEVER, if that card were moving like a person's limbs move, or if the time constraints were more like 1 second or less per shot, or if the card was shooting back (or about to), then that level of precision becomes impossible. Center of mass is possible under those conditions, but shooting the gun out of someone's hand is pretty much a myth; it at least requires a very cooperative target, and don't forget that in the movies, they shoot blanks and fake the hits.

From a legal standpoint, if the justification is not there to shoot center-of-mass, you can't legally shoot; ALL gunshots are legally considered lethal force, and rightly so (contrary to most movies, a shot to the shoulder or leg can kill just as certainly as a torso hit). If you aren't justified in using lethal force, you aren't justified in shooting at all; it is a binary proposition, all or nothing, and rightly so. You can't shoot someone "a little bit."

:P



( I stole that from M.A.S.H. )

But I wonder when some punk will paint an orange tip on a real gun to avoid a confrontation while he's getting ready to carjack somebody.

It has happened before, mistaking a toy gun for a real one, and children have died from it before. The Police officer likely wouldn't get a criminal action against him, few do in similar cases, but he will always remember he killed an innocent 12 year-old child for the rest of his life. No doubt the police officer was quick to jump the gun, probably fear conditioning. Tragic.

:hide:

This is a serious issue though.

:wtf:

Isn't the idea of the use of force supposed to be in cases where the officer feels their life is threatened?

so when someone runs, why do they fire? when did it become okay to shoot somebody who's running away from you?

i would much rather see a few "bad guys" get away then even one innocent kid getting shot because of something like this.

it's not the police themselves that scare me, it's the attitude that this is okay.

It's better to kill them, than let the guilty(potentially) get away.