Shoot first, ask questions later; that seems to be today's form of dealing with people regardless if they are dangerous or not. That's what I gathered when I read a story today on the news (see Link below) about how an L.A. County Sheriff Deputy shot a boy who was riding his bike playing "cops and robbers" and happen to point his gun at the Sheriff's after being told to drop it. Considering the story does not mention the boy's age which obviously shows this was an underage child, it makes me wonder if our society has reached a point of paranoia where we can not even trust our own children.
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? It seems to me our society has lost it's way and we deserve nothing less than a severe punishment for it. What is happening today in this economy, where no matter how much of a little bit of hope comes up something else begins to collapse setting us back again, is an indication to me of how much we have lost our way (those who screwed up and those who did little to nothing to stop it). It's things like this that will push some people to want to ban anything that looks like a gun; toys, game controllers, tools, etc. It's always everyones solution to eliminate what is seen as the source of the problem rather than educate people how to use them properly. We deserve the Gov't we are moving towards. They say you get what you deserve and be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Link
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".
The boy, whose identity was not immediately released, was hospitalized in stable condition, Los Angeles County sheriff's Deputy Jeff Gordon said.
"He's expected to fully recover," Gordon said.
Deputies answering reports of someone riding a bicycle and brandishing a handgun went to 20th Street shortly before 8 p.m. Sunday and spotted the rider, Gordon said.
They ordered him to drop the weapon but instead he pointed it at deputies, Gordon said.
One deputy fired a shot and hit the boy in the upper body, he said.
Gordon said the teen apparently had been playing "cops and robbers" using a replica gun that resembled a black semiautomatic pistol with brown grips.
Gordon said the gun lacked the orange tip that most toys carry to distinguish them from real weapons.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Agreed, but that was not a reason to shoot him. Plain and simple.
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.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
