I think this discussion is better suited for Great Debates. Thread relocated from IMHO.
I think it time to put the blame where is really belong , right on the companies that keep making toy guns to look like real one when kids are getting killed and also the blame fall on the parents for letting their sons have the guns . If you going to let a kid have a toy gun that look real you need to made it clear not to point at a police or any person especially if you’re a Black boy!
Please see “replica firearms”.
These are definitely NOT toys. A large part of the problem is that parents give these to kids AS toys.
An attempt was made to defuse the problem by forcing the replicas to have bright orange muzzles.
I don’t know if the rules was subverted because "Hey! it needs to shoot pellets!, no orange is possible, or whether this one was subverted by simple shoe polish.
A replica should never be outside - they exist for collectors who can’t afford the real weapons.
NEVER give a kid a replica as a toy.
This same exact scenario played out in SF back in the 80’s - a large, retarded 13 yr old (looked 18) was out playing with his replica. The cops arrived, yelled at him to drop it. He instead pointed it at the cops. The ‘orange muzzle on non-operational replicas’ rule came shortly after that.
We now expect a cop to instantly see an orange dot at 100 yards. Except when, for reasons of marketability, the orange is removed.
I agree with the OP … however I’m not entirely clear what would bring this up. Of course when an adult suspect brings a toy gun to bear on a police officer the officer is going to fire away. I don’t think there’s but a tiny minority that could see it otherwise, and only them who hate cops to begin with. We don’t expect the officers to make this split-second decision, we expect civilians to not threaten officers under any circumstances or by any means.
This is like using the five seconds every eight years to get a driver’s license photograph as an excuse to ban all head coverings all the time everyplace … both are just unreasonable conditions.
Is there a problem with “trigger-happy” cops? I don’t know, but the OP is the worst example to start with IMEIO
ETA: Crooks can just paint the muzzles orange and shoot cops all they want? And if they’re hitting at 100 yards … maybe we could use them in our sharp shooting corps …
Quite a bit, they’ve had kevlar door inserts for a while, and the latest ones can even stop rifle rounds.
Oh, and I second this opinion. There are reasonable steps between doing nothing, and getting shot.
Once again, this was not a toy. I agree, that it’s probably a good idea to make toy guns look so realistic. (Perhaps start requiring them to be bright colors or whatever)
BB guns, however, generally aren’t considered to be toys. They may not be real, actual fire-arms, but they can do some serious damage. Let’s not stop calling them toys.
And even if it’s just something that LOOKS real – DON’T FUCKING POINT THEM AT COPS. For fuck’s sake, that’s just common sense. Hell, if someone pulled a gun on me, and I thought it was a real one, you better believe I’d shoot first and ask questions later. This wasn’t racism, this was a Darwin Award.
Simply having a gun is not a threat. 99% of the time, people aren’t upset that cops shot someone who had a toy gun, they are pissed that cops shot someone who wasn’t an immediate threat to anyone. Like a kid playing alone in a park, or a guy minding his business shopping at Walmart.
Simply carrying, holding, or possessing a firearm is a constitutionally protected act, and people shouldn’t be executed for doing so, no matter how “realistic” the implement. Now if they threaten your life or someone else’s, I agree, it doesn’t matter if the gun was a fake, unloaded, or non functional, so long as it wasn’t clear to the officer that it was a toy.
Feel free to copy this to other relevant threads, where people don’t seem to understand how hard it is to tell a real gun from anything else made to look like a gun. Call it a toy, a replica, airsoft, pellet, whatever - here’s a handy string of pictures: Can you tell a real gun from a toy? It's tougher than you think. Take our quiz. - cleveland.com. I dare anyone to determine in less than a second whether each is lethal or not.
A friend of Tyre King, who had run away from the police with him, alleges that King had planned to rob someone with the gun that was on his person.
If it’s holstered or concealed, this may be mostly true. If it’s already in someone’s hand, do you know how long it takes for them to raise it enough to pull the trigger and kill you? Less time than it takes for you to unholster your own gun. So if the person with the gun in their hand doesn’t immediately drop it, it’s their own fault when a cop takes umbrage to that.
You say if they threaten your life - brandishing IS threatening. Brandishing in itself, in concealed carry states, is illegal. Someone from an open carry state would need to ring in on whether unholstering an already openly carried weapon is also brandishing.
Has there been a real outcry in a situation like that?
Well here’s the thing, in many states, you are allowed to carry a real gun. You can openly carry a gun, and the last time I checked it was legal to be Black, or brown, or scary looking, etc. The issue in many of these cases is that the latter things become a pretense for thinking the aforementioned gun is being carried or brandished in an illegal manner. Then the issue is often compounded by the cops refusing to release evidence and/or lying about what actually happened. That’s what the issue typically at issue in cases like this. It’s the community, who for better or worse don’t trust the cops, asking for evidence, and cops just saying to trust them.
For example, the case of John Crawford. Even putting aside the facts alluded to above, there were so many other ways they could have confronted a real shooter in that case without just shooting him dead on sight.
Some might be, and they’d be wrong IMO. The vast majority of others are arguing the following:
- Police are trigger happy and unlikely to try to de-escalate situations because they refuse to take any real risks to their safety
- They are less likely to do that when the person is Black, or had mental health issues, etc.
- They lie after the fact about what happened even when the law is on their side
- They rarely hold the people involved accountable, nor do they treat their fellow police like suspects as they would a citizen in the same situation
- They drag their feet when it comes time to release evidence, rarely get statements immediately, and do everything possible to avoid transparency
How do you know that kid pointed the gun at the cops? Because the cops said he did? Remember when the cops said Walter Scott fought with the cop then grabbed his taser? Or how about Levar Jones who was shot by a cop who believed he saw a gun, was shot at and returned fire, and that Jones took “an aggressive stance toward [him]” (all claims belied by the video).
Now the kid in this case very well may have pulled his gun, giving the cops a legal, and moral reason to use deadly force, but I think we need more than just the cops saying it happened after kill the guy. When was the last time a cop admitted to murder even when the evidence demonstrates it was? That’s the issue. Doubly so when you are from a community that sees the cops doing illegal things on a regular basis.
But even if you are not exposed to that sort of thing regularly, how much empirical and anecdotal evidence does it take for people to stop assuming the police are trustworthy in cases where there is every incentive for them to lie? Cops lie, steal, torture, you name it. Again, why does anyone think they should be trusted without scrutiny? Without video, I guarantee most would not believe Scott or Jones were victims.
Is death by cop the penalty for planning to rob someone now? The fact that you thought it necessary to establish the kid was a “bad guy” when it’s hardly relevant to what happened is kinda troubling. Either he pulled a bb gun on the cops or he didn’t. His criminal plans don’t matter any more than if he was going to help feed the poor.
If true, it gives reasonable suspicion that he committed the robbery that the police were attempting to arrest him for, and that they had reason to believe he was armed and dangerous.
So the thing they didn’t know when they shot him gave them reason to believe he was armed and dangerous? :dubious:
Does that make sense to you? Again, you are just trying to paint him as a bad person. Maybe he was, but bad people can still be murdered.
I didn’t say they knew, I said had reason to suspect. And he did pull what they had reason to believe what was a weapon. It’s tragic that he was shot, but I don’t believe it was murder. I’m no apologist for the police, but come on. This kid wasn’t caught tagging a wall. He used a BB gun to intimidate someone into giving him money. Legally, that’s considered armed robbery, whether the gun is real or not.
They can’t suspect something based on evidence they don’t know. Again, they only knew after the fact that the kid supposedly planned to rob someone. How did that affect their judgement when they shot him?
Again, how do you know that? There are apparently conflicting accounts.
I never said it was murder. I am saying that I don’t assume it wasn’t given the history of these situations, the recent videos that disprove many of the official accounts, and the lack of evidence that I am aware of that backs the police account. Why do you believe the kid pulled the bb gun? It certainly could have happened, but given the kid knew he had a non-lethal weapon, why would he point it at cops he must have known possessed real weapons?
Did I miss something where it was substantiated that he robbed someone? Can you cite that claim?
:dubious:
It’s my opinion based on the reports I’ve read. Of course, the facts may prove me wrong, but I’m just not interested in continuing to argue with you. You have your opinion and I have mine.
Can you quote where you think I argued or said it was murder?
And your opinion is ridiculous. The idea that you really tried to argue an assertion only known AFTER the shooting substantiated a belief he was “armed and dangerous” beforehand, is so laughable I am wondering why wouldn’t just cede the point and admit your error if only to save a shred of credibility. Your choice I guess.
If what the cops say is what actually happened, then it seems like a “good” shooting. But without video, then who knows what actually happened? There are good cops who tell 100% the truth, and there are bad cops who lie freely to cover up bad shootings, and there are other cops who will cover up for the bad ones out of fear of repercussions from the blue wall/brotherhood.