13-year-old with BB gun killed by police in Columbus, Ohio

[balo]

Why no white boys , all I hear is tragic stories about black boys in the US. 

[nottocus]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

And I guess you're going to vote Trump?

What's wrong with voting Trump man?

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, balo said:

Why no white boys , all I hear is tragic stories about black boys in the US. 

 

When a police officer yells STOP to a white boy they stop. They do not pull out a fire arm to fire at police.

 

IF they did then they would be shot also...its just that they don't.

[stevenl]

17 minutes ago, nottocus said:

What's wrong with voting Trump man?

We all make our choices.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

28 minutes ago, nottocus said:

What's wrong with voting Trump man?

We all make our choices.

 

Why can't you answer a question?

[Strange]

1 hour ago, balo said:

Why no white boys , all I hear is tragic stories about black boys in the US. 

 

Because they keep doing retarded things to get shot. I mean its pretty easy. If you are breaking a law, you need to keep in mind that not only do you need to worry about getting caught, but that the police can and will use force. White boys same as black boys. Unfortunately some do it more than others. 

 

 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Another typical deflection. 

I think it reflects on your question perfectly.

 

You know it has nothing to do with what I was asking you. You just feel good saying "ban guns" and can't come up with anything better. I like debating this topic and it never fails. 

[smutcakes]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

You know it has nothing to do with what I was asking you. You just feel good saying "ban guns" and can't come up with anything better. I like debating this topic and it never fails. 

 

You provide your opinion, same as anyone else. 

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

You provide your opinion, same as anyone else. 

 

But your opinions are based on what? Experience in the US? First hand knowledge of American people? BBC News telling you what to feel? 

[smutcakes]

Just now, Strange said:

 

But your opinions are based on what? Experience in the US? First hand knowledge of American people? BBC News telling you what to feel? 

 

I have spent a lot of time in the US in the past, and reading the news etc.

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

I have spent a lot of time in the US in the past, and reading the news etc.

 

Hope you enjoyed your time there. Im sure americans were quite welcoming. Every time I go to the UK its the polar opposite. So sour and complaining about everyone else and everywhere else. So unhappy. 

 

You can hardly judge a country based on what you see in the news. Look at where you are. Thailand. It aint like they portray it in the new is it? A small demographic but thats hardly news worthy right? 

Edited September 16, 2016 by Strange

[crankshaft]

3 hours ago, Pimay1 said:

Yes that is what I am saying. I support making gun ownership more onerous by strict background checks and 100% registration of handguns. But not taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

Mandatory gun handling course , yes...but no way registration....then the government knows exactly where guns are when they decide to confiscate them....

[smutcakes]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Hope you enjoyed your time there. Im sure americans were quite welcoming. Every time I go to the UK its the polar opposite. So sour and complaining about everyone else and everywhere else. So unhappy. 

 

You can hardly judge a country based on what you see in the news. Look at where you are. Thailand. It aint like they portray it in the new is it? A small demographic but thats hardly news worthy right? 

 

I base my views on what i believe is common sense. The US has a very high gun crime rate compared to many other developed countries. All countries have criminals, but they don't all have high gun crime.  Why then has the US got such high gun crime then? Is the easy availability of guns a factor in it. Personally i think it is.

[ClutchClark]

9 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

I base my views on what i believe is common sense. The US has a very high gun crime rate compared to many other developed countries. All countries have criminals, but they don't all have high gun crime.  Why then has the US got such high gun crime then? Is the easy availability of guns a factor in it. Personally i think it is.

 

Smutcakes, 

 

Thanks for finally discussing the OP even if its the very periphery of the topic. 

 

Certainly gun violence is greater in the US than in the UK due to the presence of firearms in the US. 

 

However, a large number of Americans do not wish to lose their Right to own firearms legally because some subculture of black America has chosen to glorify gun violence with illegally obtained firearms. 

 

The problem is not me and my firearms. I have never used my firearms in the commission of a crime. I have never had my firearms stolen. I have never shot anyone. 

 

A very small minority of Americans choose to break the law. 

 

In your own country, when someone uses a tool (and that is all a gun is) to commit a crime or to commit violence against another person do you make the posession of that tool illegal for all citizens and confiscate it from your communities? 

 

I am asking a genuine question. 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

24 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

I base my views on what i believe is common sense. The US has a very high gun crime rate compared to many other developed countries. All countries have criminals, but they don't all have high gun crime.  Why then has the US got such high gun crime then? Is the easy availability of guns a factor in it. Personally i think it is.

 

Smutcakes, 

 

Thanks for finally discussing the OP even if its the very periphery of the topic. 

 

Certainly gun violence is greater in the US than in the UK due to the presence of firearms in the US. 

 

However, a large number of Americans do not wish to lose their Right to own firearms legally because some subculture of black America has chosen to glorify gun violence with illegally obtained firearms. 

 

The problem is not me and my firearms. I have never used my firearms in the commission of a crime. I have never had my firearms stolen. I have never shot anyone. 

 

A very small minority of Americans choose to break the law. 

 

In your own country, when someone uses a tool (and that is all a gun is) to commit a crime or to commit violence against another person do you make the posession of that tool illegal for all citizens and confiscate it from your communities? 

 

I am asking a genuine question. 

 

Have a look at this gem:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/zombie-knives-banned-in-england-and-wales

[smutcakes]

4 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Smutcakes, 

 

Thanks for finally discussing the OP even if its the very periphery of the topic. 

 

Certainly gun violence is greater in the US than in the UK due to the presence of firearms in the US. 

 

However, a large number of Americans do not wish to lose their Right to own firearms legally because some subculture of black America has chosen to glorify gun violence with illegally obtained firearms. 

 

The problem is not me and my firearms. I have never used my firearms in the commission of a crime. I have never had my firearms stolen. I have never shot anyone. 

 

A very small minority of Americans choose to break the law. 

 

In your own country, when someone uses a tool (and that is all a gun is) to commit a crime or to commit violence against another person do you make the posession of that tool illegal for all citizens and confiscate it from your communities? 

 

I am asking a genuine question. 

 

The UK has very very low murder and violent crime rate, but i would certainly support bans on large knives, guns etc if there use in crime was prevalent. I understand that some Americans want to maintain there right to guns, but they should really consider how to strengthen the regulations on who and how they can be acquired. If we rule out any kind of restrictions on guns, how would you go about trying to reduce gun crime? Its all very well saying no to gun ownership regulations, but what are the other solutions?

[ClutchClark]

2 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

The UK has very very low murder and violent crime rate, but i would certainly support bans on large knives, guns etc if there use in crime was prevalent. I understand that some Americans want to maintain there right to guns, but they should really consider how to strengthen the regulations on who and how they can be acquired. If we rule out any kind of restrictions on guns, how would you go about trying to reduce gun crime? Its all very well saying no to gun ownership regulations, but what are the other solutions?

 

Most gun owners I know support the regulations for firearms that are on the books today. 

 

Sadly, the regulations would not have prevented this incident. 

 

The video I supplied at the beginning of this thread should help to show that there is a subculture within the African-American community which has glorified the gun for committing acts of violence. 

 

That is the problem and reading the amount of gun crime and headlines in these communities should make that clear to anyone. 

 

Why not address that issue? that is the root source for this gun violence--not the gun.

[smutcakes]

3 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Most gun owners I know support the regulations for firearms that are on the books today. 

 

Sadly, the regulations would not have prevented this incident. 

 

The video I supplied at the beginning of this thread should help to show that there is a subculture within the African-American community which has glorified the gun for committing acts of violence. 

 

That is the problem and reading the amount of gun crime and headlines in these communities should make that clear to anyone. 

 

Why not address that issue? that is the root source for this gun violence--not the gun.

 

Well there is that culture and the violence and the availability of guns cannot do anything but make the problem worse. The US has an enormous disenfranchised underclass who need to be kept engaged in society. I would love to hear Hilary and Donald speaking about their policies to deal with this type of issue, rather than the petty mud slinging. If i was an American i would quite frankly be embarrassed about the current state of affairs.

[ClutchClark]

4 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

Well there is that culture and the violence and the availability of guns cannot do anything but make the problem worse. The US has an enormous disenfranchised underclass who need to be kept engaged in society. I would love to hear Hilary and Donald speaking about their policies to deal with this type of issue, rather than the petty mud slinging. If i was an American i would quite frankly be embarrassed about the current state of affairs.

 

I didn't realize your own country had no issue with an underclass.

 

here in the US we have spent huge sums of money and created much legislation to help this underclass become contributing members of society but they don't want to.

 

Now perhaps we can focus on this OP.

[sangtip2]

What would happen to me if I shot and killed a kid because I "Thought" he had a gun ?

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, sangtip2 said:

What would happen to me if I shot and killed a kid because I "Thought" he had a gun ?

 

Well then you would be arrested. As a civilian you can not pull out a gun in public without a confirmed threat to your life witch means that if you shot a guy and the police showed up and he didn't have a weapon you go to jail. You can not "Think maybe he had a gun". In the OP the case is clear. 

 

I would also like to note, in this situation, pulling out a firearm without cause (just pulling it out - don't have to shoot it) is called brandishing and its a felony, if convicted of ANY felony your 2nd amendment rights are completely revoked. For life. Meaning that you can not ever own a firearm, ammunition, nor can you live in a home with a firearm. IE: Even if you are a felon (did your time but you are a felon for life) and your wife is not, you can not have firearms in your home. You can not be around them. 

 

This point is important because for all the Urban Gangs most are felons. Guns are banned for life for them. This does not stop them. Hence the point that you can ban guns but it will not stop them. 

[ClutchClark]

25 minutes ago, sangtip2 said:

What would happen to me if I shot and killed a kid because I "Thought" he had a gun ?

 

Ofcourse your question has nothibg to do with this incident since this bad guy did have a gun.

 

but in your hypothetical, it would depend on several factors.

 

Did the guy you shot indicate he had a gun?

 

more importantly, did you have a reasonable fear for your lifeor some other innocent party? 

 

 

[JDGRUEN]

The call for banning guns in America will go unheeded because legal possession is protected by 2nd Constitutional Amendment and the individual possess of a gun has been reiterated by a Federal Court case with later concurrence by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Gun banning is not going to happen now and it is never going to happen... To change it members of both Houses of Congress will have to vote to set a nationwide vote on repeal of the 2nd Amendment by all 50 states.  Even if the first part could be done - (actually very unlikely) the second part - the vote by the states will never happen.  Why?  Elected members of Congress and State Legislatures want to be elected - and voting against the 2nd Amendment means that most who vote for banning guns will never be elected again... So it is not going to happen in a country that has 100 Million LEGAL owners of 300 Million Guns... Do the math. 

And as far as Illegally obtained guns - as long as there are criminals, gangbangers, hoodlums and thugs in America.  And as long as the U.S. has seashores and a 2000 mile border with Mexico the supply for Illegally obtained guns will never ever dry up.  We cannot control drugs coming from Mexico into the U.S. - there is no reason to believe that guns could be stopped either - not now - not ever. 

 

The shooting of the boy who supposedly pulled and aimed a realistic looking BB gun at police is unfortunate.  But it has happened before and it will happen again.  In the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s such shootings were very rare.  Why?  Because children had respect for police officers and they were by in large not stupid.  Back then children were not influenced by Rap music that glorified a gangsta lifestyle and shooting people.  

I remember being pulled over by a police officer in the 1960s for a traffic violation.  He shined his light into the back floor of my car .. And there was my sem-auto .22 rifle with a scope.   I used the rifle at opportune times to go shoot rats for target practice.  He next said .. "Hey - that is very much like mine ... is it a Remington?"   I said - no - just a Sears knockoff... but a good one... He then proceeded to ask to check out the rifle and ask questions... He put my rifle back and never gave me a ticket.    

[Xircal]

10 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

Don't even need to have something resembling a gun to be shot by LE, as Mr. Dylan Noble confirmed. Simply pretend to have a weapon. Being black is not a requirement either.:

 

 

 

 

He got shot twice and then when he fell to the ground he was told to get his hands up while lying on the ground. When he didn't do that immediately he got shot again.

 

Don't the cops take into account that after he'd be shot twice he'd likely be in a lot of pain and might not be able to comply with the cop's instructions?

 

After he'd been shot twice and had fallen to the ground it should have been pretty obvious he didn't have a weapon. Also when he was lying down on his back there's no way he could turn around easily and see the cops standing behind him. There was no excuse to shoot him anymore afterwards. Continuing to do so  until he died was just plain cold-blooded murder.

[vaultdweller0013]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

Well then you would be arrested. As a civilian you can not pull out a gun in public without a confirmed threat to your life witch means that if you shot a guy and the police showed up and he didn't have a weapon you go to jail. You can not "Think maybe he had a gun". In the OP the case is clear. 

 

I would also like to note, in this situation, pulling out a firearm without cause (just pulling it out - don't have to shoot it) is called brandishing and its a felony, if convicted of ANY felony your 2nd amendment rights are completely revoked. For life. Meaning that you can not ever own a firearm, ammunition, nor can you live in a home with a firearm. IE: Even if you are a felon (did your time but you are a felon for life) and your wife is not, you can not have firearms in your home. You can not be around them. 

 

This point is important because for all the Urban Gangs most are felons. Guns are banned for life for them. This does not stop them. Hence the point that you can ban guns but it will not stop them. 

 

So much wrong information.

 

You could shoot and kill someone in self-defense if a reasonable person would feel their life, or the life of another, was in danger. Whether the person you shot had or didn't have a gun, or other weapon, is not directly relevant. It is only relevant in that if the person actually had a gun, you were aware of it, and they were making threatening actions with the gun,  it is a strong indicator that a reasonable person would fear for their (or another's) life. There are some limitations, in that you would be guilty if there was another, less severe action you could take while still, with a high degree of certainty, eliminating the threat to you life. This would rarely come into play though, as it would need to be a case of "you are are martial arts expert and the guy is 2 feet away, so you could have easily disarmed him instead of shooting him". This is just a general overview, the exact conditions vary from state to state, but in general, if a reasonable person would fear for their life or that of another, you would not be guilty of a crime, regardless of whether the person kill actually had a gun or weapon or not.

 

As for brandishing, it is a misdemeanor in general. It can be a felony but only with additional aggravating circumstances. More importantly though, simply pulling out a firearm is not brandishing. Once again, the definition is state specific, but generally you must be wielding the firearm in a threatening manner. The test for threatening is what a reasonable person would perceive, so if someone is overly sensitive an feels that any wielding of a firearm is threatening, it isn't automatically a crime. Ultimately, the reasonable man test would be decided by a jury, but simply having a gun in the open in public is not brandishing. Also note that if you are acting in legitimate self-defense, it is generally not considered brandishing.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, vaultdweller0013 said:

You could shoot and kill someone in self-defense if a reasonable person would feel their life, or the life of another, was in danger. Whether the person you shot had or didn't have a gun, or other weapon, is not directly relevant.

 

While I agree what the statement, it is VERY relevant if the person you shot had a gun or other weapon. After the dust settles it is likely that you could be arrested (I didn't say convicted) because of the available evidence. You could then be subjected to the court system and subjected to trying to defend your position to a jury. You may not be convicted but shooting someone because you thought they had a gun might not be a good idea and my position still stands. You can hypothetical all kinds of situations but IMHO if you decide to pull that trigger you better be damn sure that your life is in danger. 

 

23 minutes ago, vaultdweller0013 said:

It is only relevant in that if the person actually had a gun, you were aware of it, and they were making threatening actions with the gun,  it is a strong indicator that a reasonable person would fear for their (or another's) life.

 

This one is easy and depending on the state you will likely not even be arrested. 

 

26 minutes ago, vaultdweller0013 said:

This is just a general overview, the exact conditions vary from state to state, but in general, if a reasonable person would fear for their life or that of another, you would not be guilty of a crime, regardless of whether the person kill actually had a gun or weapon or not.

 

My reply to the question of "What about if I shot someone because I thought they had a gun?" was that they would be arrested. Did not say convicted but arrested. It all comes down to the police on the scene/DA/evidence/public outcry/so many variables. I also replied in the way that I did because of the clear quotes on the word "Thought" indicating he meant "I Thought *Wink Wink* he had a gun hehe" in witch case he would be in jail.

 

3 hours ago, sangtip2 said:

What would happen to me if I shot and killed a kid because I "Thought" he had a gun ?

 

Emphasis on "Thought" ^^^

 

55 minutes ago, vaultdweller0013 said:

As for brandishing, it is a misdemeanor in general. It can be a felony but only with additional aggravating circumstances. More importantly though, simply pulling out a firearm is not brandishing. Once again, the definition is state specific, but generally you must be wielding the firearm in a threatening manner. The test for threatening is what a reasonable person would perceive, so if someone is overly sensitive an feels that any wielding of a firearm is threatening, it isn't automatically a crime. Ultimately, the reasonable man test would be decided by a jury, but simply having a gun in the open in public is not brandishing. Also note that if you are acting in legitimate self-defense, it is generally not considered brandishing.  

 

I think in the situation I was replying to "If I shot and killed a kid because I "Thought" he had a gun" then yes he would be wielding the firearm in a threatening manner. I was not talking about simply pulling a gun out. 

 

Look I agree 100% with what you are saying. The point I was trying to illustrate was that contrary to popular belief among some Europeans, we can not simply buy guns and shoot people willy nilly. Its a very big deal, a lot of personal responsibility to learn federal and state laws (If you have state laws - some are only federal) and that there are a lot of very big consequences. We also have laws already in place to keep dangerous criminals from having guns that the criminals don't care about. 

 

[KBsinter]

I think STRANGE  had the most convincing augument of you all,well done and I read them all,i"m English bye the way,once again "well put"

[ClutchClark]

On 9/16/2016 at 11:48 PM, KBsinter said:

I think STRANGE  had the most convincing augument of you all,well done and I read them all,i"m English bye the way,once again "well put"

 

VaultDweller provided the technical letter of the law.

 

Strange provided the application in real world.

 

Both excellent and knowledgeable posts that provide a thorough answer to the question. 

 

Please take note that the idea all gun owners are backwoods hillbillies is quickly disproven by these two guys.

[MyFriend You]

22 hours ago, Alive said:

The police should be the ones with BB guns or at least rubber bullets.

Obviously you never lived in the inner city USA, rubber bullets may be effective on prisoners that don't have guns, but not the average inner city teenager..............most of them have real guns.

[Pimay1]

14 hours ago, crankshaft said:

Mandatory gun handling course , yes...but no way registration....then the government knows exactly where guns are when they decide to confiscate them....

You do have a valid argument.