That’s a good thread for those issues. I’ll be interested to follow it and perhaps offer my own thoughts. But it’s not directed to what I see as Metacom’s asinine argument that the cops should have assumed the gun was fake and let the kid shoot at them before shooting him – a position he clung to even as he was shown reason upon reason why he was talking crap. That’s the point I was making, however inartfully.
What? He’s hardly posted at all in these threads. He’s not “clung” to anything; instead, he’s made it clear that he wasn’t going to participate in a thread in which lots of people were insulting him, but that he’d be interested in participating in a GD thread on the subject. A refutation of the idea that cops shouldn’t use lethal force until the first shot has been fired would work perfectly in the GD thread I started; and you might find that, when folks are making that refutation in a civil manner, you can actually fight someone’s ignorance.
Daniel
Because he left early after it was pointed out several times that his arguments lacked common sense and reason.
He hasn’t let go of his unreasonable positions, either. Or maybe he has, but since running away and hiding because all of us anonymous jackals hurt his feelings, we would have no way of knowing.
Yes you would: you could start a thread in Great Debates on the topic and present your arguments cogently and forcefully to him, and see if he responds.
Daniel
It appears that many of us here and in the other Pit thread already have, namecalling notwithstanding. He failed to see the reasoning, clinging to his position, if you will, and left the threads.
I think this may have been a case of suicide-by-cop.
I dunno: he posted for about an hour in this thread and then left, telling folks where to find him. Were I interested in actually debating the issue with him, I wouldn’t keep making posts in a place where I knew he wouldn’t respond to them, considering how simple it’d be to go where he probably would respond.
But I’m not sure we’ll change each other’s minds on this issue, and it’s not like much useful is being said here; so I’m gonna hang out in GD for a bit.
Daniel
Maybe whoever accused you of making these threads about you is on to something.
This particular instance is being discussed in two very active threads in this forum. What is the point of starting yet another thread in another forum, disguized as a general discussion but one in which this particular case is sure to rear its head again, only to turn into a trainwreck once Metacom’s position is again shown to be a ridiculous assesment? I can think of only one reason, and it’s not to debate issues.
As far as GD, I’ve never posted there. I’m not sure I have the either intelligence or time to debate a position for that long, frankly. I only won 5 debates on my debate team in high school, so I hardly consider myself worthy in that forum. I was comfortable in these threads dealing with this particular case, and it’s very likely that in a similar case I may feel differently about the actions taken depending on the circumstances. In short, I don’t have a general feeling about police using deadly force. I’ll form my opinions about that on a case by case basis.
Enjoy your GD thread. I hope you’re able to achieve your goal, whatever it may be.
I find it disturbing that three years ago, when he was 12, he was unable to spell such simple words as “point” and “shoot.” Did he have a learning disablity, or was he simply a victim of the atrocious Florida public schools?
:rolleyes: My goal is not mysterious. But if you’d rather construct bizarre theories than participate in meaningful discussion, have at it.
Daniel
What was your first clue?
Is it so inconcievable that the Dad might not be telling the truth, or even stretching the truth? A panicked parent might easily lie if they thought there was the slightest chance that a lie would save their kid’s life. I realize the Dad was not lying in this situation, but a SWAT team leader would have to consider that the Dad may be trying to protect the kid.
That struck me too. Pathetic if he didn’t have a learning disability.
As a parent, I feel terribly sad for the family. But as a parent, I also agree 100% with the actions of law enforcement during a volatile tactical situation.
You cannot point guns at police. Even fake guns. If you aren’t teaching your kids this, I don’t know what to tell you. Hell, you shouldn’t ever point a gun at anybody unless you are dead-set on killing them.
In CA, using a fake weapon during a robbery is still armed robbery if the victim has no reason to believe the gun isn’t real.
The cops and SWAT team members took the correct action at the time. That kid created a horrible, tragic situation for lots of people, not just himself.
Because while the asshole is running around yelling “I want to die”, he’s quitel likely to start shooting at anyone to force the issue. As I have said before, in other discussions of this case: this shooting was quite justified.
IIRC, good ole Rodney King was Taser’ed - twice - and still managed to charge the cops afterwards. Of course, he was drunk and unarmed, and a good bit larger than the dear departed under discussion in this thread.
As I understand it, Taser’ing is a two step process - shoot the bad guy with the wire with a barb on the end, then hit the button and zap him. Then, ideally, he falls down and stops doing what ever he was doing, and you cuff him. So the extra quarter-second involved in Taser vs. lead vaccination might make it less desirable as an option against firearms.
Of course, I am firmly in the camp that believes that one ought not to make threatening gestures towards people with firearms, if possible. Fortunately, it tends to be self-limiting behavior.
Regards,
Shodan
Who says the police were happy to do that?
I think you left something out of the equation. The 15-year-old wasn’t merely running around yelling that he wants to die. Said 15-year-old was yelling that he wanted to die bold and was pointing what seemed to be a real firearm at the police officer.
Please don’t try to corner me. Police don’t like to be the instrument of “suicide-by-cop.” Had this SWAT team gotten a phone call from dad informing them the kid was probably armed with a black painted pellet gun they might not have felt the need to respond with the full force of their SWAT training. I was responding to the allegation that running around saying you want to die is justification for fullfilling that wish. Saying you want to die? Not a good reason to shoot. Waving a gun around? Good reason to shoot. Saying you want to die and waving a gun around? Good reason. Waving a gun around and saying you want to die but knowing that probably isn’t a real gun and you’re a fucked up 15-year-old upset about his girlfriend? Not a good reason to shoot.
I already said I was willing to give the SWAT team a pass for defending themselves against what appeared to be a genuine threatening weapon.
I still don’t see where the “probably isn’t a real gun” fits into the equation for the poor police officer confronted with the (You guessed it!) gun pointed in his direction.
What probability of the thing being real would work for your hypothetical rule for the use of deadly force? How are the police supposed to determine that probability?
How are the police supposed to determine probability? I don’t know. Based on what they see I guess.
Before going into a situation what should they know beforehand? As much as possible.
As far as I knew, Dad was on the phone for 15 minutes with LE, then wasn’t let into the area for the 30 minutes it took to take out lone 15-year-old.
Since then I’ve heard otherwise.
Still. Let’s forget dad. There was pepper spray. There was tasers. There was tear gas. There was shooting perp dead. What was the right decision? I really don’t know.
I’ll give 'em a pass because the kid had what appeared to be a gun. But I’m not thrilled about it.
In other words:
The police did everything right.
Got it.