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

[ClutchClark]

10 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

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.

 

After an armed individual has refused an officers direct order then the officer...or anyone...has every right to conclude that person intends to do the officer harm and the officer has every right to stay alive.

 

The armed assailant had adozen opportunities to change his course of action and chose not to. 

 

An officer does not have to stop and ask after every shot if the assailant has by chance changed his mind and no longer wants to shoot.

 

What would you do if someone was intending to shoot you? Would you be concerned for his welfare or that your kids grew up with a father?

[Dagnabbit]

2 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

After an armed individual has refused an officers direct order then the officer...or anyone...has every right to conclude that person intends to do the officer harm and the officer has every right to stay alive.

 

The armed assailant had adozen opportunities to change his course of action and chose not to. 

 

An officer does not have to stop and ask after every shot if the assailant has by chance changed his mind and no longer wants to shoot.

 

What would you do if someone was intending to shoot you? Would you be concerned for his welfare or that your kids grew up with a father?

 

But in this case, the person was not armed.

 

He had mental issues and was executed for the crime of not complying with police orders.

[ClutchClark]

6 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

But in this case, the person was not armed.

 

He had mental issues and was executed for the crime of not complying with police orders.

 

Thanks. I did not see the attached video. It was quite helpful in understanding the situation.

 

This was a quite straight forward police shooting and the body cams were of great benefit in clearing the officer. 

 

The bad guy was certsinly under the influence of drugs, he clearly ignored a dozen police commands to show his hands while in the vehicle, he then exited the vehicle and ignored more police orders, he then began to approach police in an aggressive manner and the officer did not fire while both hands were visible. Only after several seconds of the suspect refusing to follow additional police commands and with the suspects right hand disappearing behind his back at the level of his waistband did the officer finally shoot. 

 

When a suspect refuses over 2 dozens police commands and is acting erratic and approaches officers in a threatening manner while reaching behind his back in a manner that fully appears to be reaching for a weapon tucked into his belt then an officer has the right and responsiblity to stop that suspect from causing him grievous harm. 

 

I am quite amazed you cannot fathom this. 

 

Are you completely incapable of placing yourself in this situation and considering what you would do? 

 

Do you atleast recognize that this suspect was a "threat" ?

Edited September 17, 2016 by ClutchClark

[Xircal]

9 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

After an armed individual has refused an officers direct order then the officer...or anyone...has every right to conclude that person intends to do the officer harm and the officer has every right to stay alive.

 

The armed assailant had adozen opportunities to change his course of action and chose not to. 

 

An officer does not have to stop and ask after every shot if the assailant has by chance changed his mind and no longer wants to shoot.

 

What would you do if someone was intending to shoot you? Would you be concerned for his welfare or that your kids grew up with a father?

 

What makes you think the victim was intending to shoot anyone? I don't see him taking an aggressive stance like diving for cover behind the truck like you would expect anyone with a weapon to do.

 

Regardless of that fact, having been shot twice and lying prostrate on the ground what right did the cops have to shoot him two more times? He was no danger to anyone at that point.

 

His only crime was that he was a bit too cocky for his own good and thought he could talk his way out of the situation. The autopsy report revealed that he was over the limit for drink driving and there were traces of cocaine in his system. That I imagine was he main concern and not wanting to go to jail, did his best to present himself in a non-threatening manner.

[Dagnabbit]

 

Thanks. I did not see the attached video. It was quite helpful in understanding the situation.

 

This was a quite straight forward police shooting and the body cams were of great benefit in clearing the officer. 

 

The bad guy was certsinly under the influence of drugs, he clearly ignored a dozen police commands to show his hands while in the vehicle, he then exited the vehicle and ignored more police orders, he then began to approach police in an aggressive manner and the officer did not fire while both hands were visible. Only after several seconds of the suspect refusing to follow additional police commands and with the suspects right hand disappearing behind his back at the level of his waistband did the officer finally shoot. 

 

When a suspect refuses over 2 dozens police commands and is acting erratic and approaches officers in a threatening manner while reaching behind his back in a manner that fully appears to be reaching for a weapon tucked into his belt then an officer has the right and responsiblity to stop that suspect from causing him grievous harm. 

 

I am quite amazed you cannot fathom this. 

 

Are you completely incapable of placing yourself in this situation and considering what you would do? 

 

Do you atleast recognize that this suspect was a "threat" ?

So you can tell the difference between 'on drugs' and 'mentally ill'. Really?

But to help you. The majority of countries on planet earth would not have seen police execute this man.

He was unarmed. He was executed for not following orders.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, Xircal said:

 

What makes you think the victim was intending to shoot anyone? I don't see him taking an aggressive stance like diving for cover behind the truck like you would expect anyone with a weapon to do.

 

Regardless of that fact, having been shot twice and lying prostrate on the ground what right did the cops have to shoot him two more times? He was no danger to anyone at that point.

 

His only crime was that he was a bit too cocky for his own good and thought he could talk his way out of the situation. The autopsy report revealed that he was over the limit for drink driving and there were traces of cocaine in his system. That I imagine was he main concern and not wanting to go to jail, did his best to present himself in a non-threatening manner.

 

You are certainly allowing your bias cloud your judgement and thats the luxury you have by being behind your computer screen rather than in the real world situation this officer lives in every day.

 

Your very first paragraph here shows you completely misread the  situation and your assumption an individual under the influence of drugs and acting erratically is going to behave in a crrtain manner is completely naive.

[Xircal]

Just now, ClutchClark said:

 

You are certainly allowing your bias cloud your judgement and thats the luxury you have by being behind your computer screen rather than in the real world situation this officer lives in every day.

 

Your very first paragraph here shows you completely misread the  situation and your assumption an individual under the influence of drugs and acting erratically is going to behave in a crrtain manner is completely naive.

 

Every cop faces danger every day of their lives and they get paid handsomely for it, but that doesn't give them a licence to act as judge, jury and executioner.

[ClutchClark]

8 minutes ago, Xircal said:

 

Every cop faces danger every day of their lives and they get paid handsomely for it, but that doesn't give them a licence to act as judge, jury and executioner.

 

Your looking at it all wrong.

 

The black guy in the video decided to commit suicide by cop.

 

I am relieved you are not a cop. Your attitude would quickly end in bagpipes for your partner.

[Xircal]

Just now, ClutchClark said:

 

Your looking at it all wrong.

 

The black guy in the video decided to commit suicide by cop.

 

 

I'm not talking about the 13 year old. I'm referring to Dylan Thomas, the guy who was driving a pickup. See post #20 on page 1.

[Strange]

9 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

But in this case, the person was not armed.

 

He had mental issues and was executed for the crime of not complying with police orders.

 

22 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

So you can tell the difference between 'on drugs' and 'mentally ill'. Really?

But to help you. The majority of countries on planet earth would not have seen police execute this man.

He was unarmed. He was executed for not following orders.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The cops had body cams. They were in the wide open. Their instructions were VERY clear. You can clearly hear it in their voice that they did not want to shoot the guy anymore. By the time the shell casing of the second shot hit the ground the officer with the shotgun was on the radio calling for emergency services. 

Its unfortunate but the suspect clearly escalated the situation so far by trying to act like he had a weapon. You can't just walk up and "take a look" and risk getting shot yourself. If they would have stayed back and behind cover the guy could have gotten back in the truck and become a threat to the public. There are endless hypotheticals.

 

Lastly, for fuks sake, it was only confirmed that he was unarmed AFTER THE FACT. The suspect was clearly trying to indicate he had a firearm to several, SEVERAL police with weapons drawn, clearly and repeatedly telling him to get on the ground. 

 

You can't just say "But.... But.... he was unarmed!" without context. 

[ClutchClark]

12 minutes ago, Xircal said:

 

I'm not talking about the 13 year old. I'm referring to Dylan Thomas, the guy who was driving a pickup. See post #20 on page 1.

 

Yes. 

[Xircal]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

 

The cops had body cams. They were in the wide open. Their instructions were VERY clear. You can clearly hear it in their voice that they did not want to shoot the guy anymore. By the time the shell casing of the second shot hit the ground the officer with the shotgun was on the radio calling for emergency services. 

Its unfortunate but the suspect clearly escalated the situation so far by trying to act like he had a weapon. You can't just walk up and "take a look" and risk getting shot yourself. If they would have stayed back and behind cover the guy could have gotten back in the truck and become a threat to the public. There are endless hypotheticals.

 

Lastly, for fuks sake, it was only confirmed that he was unarmed AFTER THE FACT. The suspect was clearly trying to indicate he had a firearm to several, SEVERAL police with weapons drawn, clearly and repeatedly telling him to get on the ground. 

 

You can't just say "But.... But.... he was unarmed!" without context. 

 

Shooting a wounded man lying on the ground two more times can hardly be considered to be justified. The guy may have been in considerable pain and incapable of obeying an order to raise his hands.

 

Go lie prostrate on the ground yourself and then try to look behind you while you're facing the opposite direction. It's almost impossible to do. Now imagine that you're lying there with two bullets in your body. Even if you had a gun, you'd be unlikely to be able to aim it properly.

 

As for the events leading up to that moment, the victim can hardly be considered to be have been a threat because he walked out into the open when he got out of the truck. Anyone with a weapon would more likely have dived for cover behind the vehicle.

 

Dylan Thomas was executed: no two ways about it. And the trigger happy cops who performed the execution need to face the full extent of the law.

 

 

[ClutchClark]

3 minutes ago, Xircal said:

 

Shooting a wounded man lying on the ground two more times can hardly be considered to be justified. The guy may have been in considerable pain and incapable of obeying an order to raise his hands.

 

Go lie prostrate on the ground yourself and then try to look behind you while you're facing the opposite direction. It's almost impossible to do. Now imagine that you're lying there with two bullets in your body. Even if you had a gun, you'd be unlikely to be able to aim it properly.

 

As for the events leading up to that moment, the victim can hardly be considered to be have been a threat because he walked out into the open when he got out of the truck. Anyone with a weapon would more likely have dived for cover behind the vehicle.

 

Dylan Thomas was executed: no two ways about it. And the trigger happy cops who performed the execution need to face the full extent of the law.

 

 

 

I am sorry but you really don't understand a thing.

 

A man intent on shooting a cop can continue to carry out that objective when wounded.ergo, he continues to be a threat.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, ClutchClark said:

 

You are certainly allowing your bias cloud your judgement and thats the luxury you have by being behind your computer screen rather than in the real world situation this officer lives in every day.

 

Your very first paragraph here shows you completely misread the  situation and your assumption an individual under the influence of drugs and acting erratically is going to behave in a crrtain manner is completely naive.

Who are you to judge others on this. Accuse them of being biased, of not understanding a thing, when to some it will be your bias that is clouding your judgement and you not understanding.

 

We all have our opinions, and they will differ on subjects like this, but judging, no.

Edited September 17, 2016 by stevenl

[Xircal]

41 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Who are you to judge others on this. Accuse them of being biased, of not understanding a thing, when to some it will be your bias that is clouding your judgement and you not understanding.

 

We all have our opinions, and they will differ on subjects like this, but judging, no.

 

Apologies, didn't check name before posting.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Xircal
replied without checking who I was replying to.

[ClutchClark]

12 hours ago, stevenl said:

Who are you to judge others on this. Accuse them of being biased, of not understanding a thing, when to some it will be your bias that is clouding your judgement and you not understanding.

 

We all have our opinions, and they will differ on subjects like this, but judging, no.

 

And some opinions are simply wrong. 

 

Just because someone is of the opinion 2 + 2 = 15 does not make it true.

[stevenl]

22 minutes ago, Xircal said:

 

Who am I to judge you ask? Did you watch the video?

 

Anyone in their right mind who did should be outraged. There was no justification for shooting a man lying prostrate on the ground who failed to obey an order to put his hands up. We have no idea how much pain he was in from the first two shots or what was going through his mind.

 

It reminds me of the case of Charles Kinsey who was shot while lying down on the ground with his hands in the air: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/21/florida-police-shoot-black-man-lying-down-with-arms-in-air

 

My judgement is crystal clear. This was clearly a case of cold-blooded murder perpetrated by a couple of trigger-happy cops who thought they can get away with it.

No, I did not ask you. Look at the post I quoted.

[stevenl]

10 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

And some opinio s are simply wrong. 

 

Just because someone is of the opinion 2 + 2 = 15 does not make it true.

You're confusing opinions with facts.

[Xircal]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No, I did not ask you. Look at the post I quoted.

 

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No, I did not ask you. Look at the post I quoted.

 

Apologies stevenl, I've amended my original post.

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, Xircal said:

 

 

Apologies stevenl, I've amended my original post.

Thanks.

Edited September 17, 2016 by stevenl

[ClutchClark]

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

You're confusing opinions with facts.

 

Like all police shootings this one will be reviewed and in this case the decision of an independent review board will be that the shooting was "justified" for the same facts as I typed above.

 

 

[Shawn0000]

On 9/16/2016 at 7:18 AM, Mango Bob said:

With the current situation in America why would this kid carry a BB gun like a police gun and pull it out on police.  Just don't make sense.  If this is the case I support the police.  No one should have weapons other than police and military.

 

Perhaps it was because he was 13 years old, not every move a 13 year old makes a lot of sense to adults.  The simple fact is though, that throughout the world the police are occasionally threatened by a child holding what may or may not be a real gun, in civilized countries these situations rarely result in the child being fatally shot, but in America they do, and that is the "current situation", the police react too quickly and kill kids who turn out to harmless, and you support that.

[Xircal]

1 hour ago, ClutchClark said:

 

I am sorry but you really don't understand a thing.

 

A man intent on shooting a cop can continue to carry out that objective when wounded.ergo, he continues to be a threat.

 

Don't be ridiculous. Noble was never intent on shooting anybody. He was just an innocent teenager who was afraid of being nicked for being over the drink driving limit and was perhaps a little foolish for thinking he could talk his way out of it.

 

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, Xircal said:

 

Shooting a wounded man lying on the ground two more times can hardly be considered to be justified. The guy may have been in considerable pain and incapable of obeying an order to raise his hands.

 

Go lie prostrate on the ground yourself and then try to look behind you while you're facing the opposite direction. It's almost impossible to do. Now imagine that you're lying there with two bullets in your body. Even if you had a gun, you'd be unlikely to be able to aim it properly.

 

 

Yes, the guy MAY have been in considerable pain. The guy also MAY have been simply grazed and in no pain. Furthermore, the suspect was under the influence of drugs...this is readily apparent to anyone with a shred of intelligence on such matters. Drugs can have a significant effect on blocking signals of pain and it has long been known in law enforcement circles that a suspect under drugs not only can act irrational but can also display much greater strength and resiliance to pain compared to a sober person. 

 

As for the number of shots fired by the officer, you are living under a fallacy if you think two shots is unjust.  

 

100% of the outcome of this suspects shooting lie with the decisions made by the suspect...every decision he made was the wrong decision IF his goal was to remain alive. That would be equally true if you had made the same decisions in the same circumstances.

[ClutchClark]

34 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Perhaps it was because he was 13 years old, not every move a 13 year old makes a lot of sense to adults.  The simple fact is though, that throughout the world the police are occasionally threatened by a child holding what may or may not be a real gun, in civilized countries these situations rarely result in the child being fatally shot, but in America they do, and that is the "current situation", the police react too quickly and kill kids who turn out to harmless, and you support that.

 

The police were not threatened by the teenager. They were threatened by the weapon in the teenagers hands and the refusal of the teenager to follow a police order which would have de-escalated the threat.

 

I can assure you many teenagers of 13 are very good marksman. 

 

Please name the multiple countries where a 13-year old can brandish a firearm at the police and not risk being shot. You state "rarely" so just 3 similar incidents will fully support your claim.

 

Thanks

[Xircal]

4 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Yes, the guy MAY have been in considerable pain. The guy also MAY have been simply grazed and in no pain. Furthermore, the suspect was under the influence of drugs...this is readily apparent to anyone with a shred of intelligence on such matters. Drugs can have a significant effect on blocking signals of pain and it has long been known in law enforcement circles that a suspect under drugs not only can act irrational but can also display much greater strength and resiliance to pain compared to a sober person. 

 

As for the number of shots fired by the officer, you are living under a fallacy if you think two shots is unjust.  

 

100% of the outcome of this suspects shooting lie with the decisions made by the suspect...every decision he made was the wrong decision IF his goal was to remain alive. That would be equally true if you had made the same decisions in the same circumstances.

 

Not MAY, was. The autopsy report confirms he was hit with injuries to his small and large intestines, his right lung, kidney and liver. I think it's safe to say he was in pain.

 

Also, had he just been 'grazed' as you suggest it's hardly likely that he would have fallen to the ground and instead would have clutched at the wound in the same way that anyone does when suddenly confronted by pain in a part of their body.

 

The autopsy also revealed he was over the drink driving limit and had traces of cocaine in his system. But that wouldn't have been apparent to the officers who shot him since they didn't perform a breathalyser test and were never near enough to him to have been able to smell alcohol on his breath.

 

Also, it wasn't two shots, but four. You need to watch the video again if you think otherwise.

[ClutchClark]

Just now, Xircal said:

 

Not MAY, was. The autopsy report confirms he was hit with injuries to his small and large intestines, his right lung, kidney and liver. I think it's safe to say he was in pain.

 

Also, had he just been 'grazed' as you suggest it's hardly likely that he would have fallen to the ground and instead would have clutched at the wound in the same way that anyone does when suddenly confronted by pain in a part of their body.

 

The autopsy also revealed he was over the drink driving limit and had traces of cocaine in his system. But that wouldn't have been apparent to the officers who shot him since they didn't perform a breathalyser test and were never near enough to him to have been able to smell alcohol on his breath.

 

Also, it wasn't two shots, but four. You need to watch the video again if you think otherwise.

 

My point exactly. 

 

The Autopsy Report. 

 

The officer made split second decisions (which is how long it takes to get shot) based on the "knowns" and "unknowns" in the field. Anyone with even a shred of experience can see the toxicology report would come back positive. Even if it didn't, the suspects erratic behavior was sufficient grounds to increase the threat risk.

 

The autopsy has absolutely nothing to do with the real time decisions made in the field. YOU ARE MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACKING.

 

And it could have been 15 shots...it does not matter in the least the number of shots it takes to nuetralize a threat.

[Shawn0000]

14 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

The police were not threatened by the teenager. They were threatened by the weapon in the teenagers hands and the refusal of the teenager to follow a police order which would have de-escalated the threat.

 

I can assure you many teenagers of 13 are very good marksman. 

 

Please name the multiple countries where a 13-year old can brandish a firearm at the police and not risk being shot. You state "rarely" so just 3 similar incidents will fully support your claim.

 

Thanks

 

OK, in England and Wales last year, the police drew their guns 14,753 times but they shot them only 7 times, the other 14,746 times they manages to defuse the situation with words.  The Boston police dept has been having some training recently by the Scottish, who have only shot two people in 10 years despite having some of the highest levels of violent crime in Europe, they have succeeded in this through learning how to not escalate a situation and in developing negotiation skills, skills the American police just don't have, they go in shouting, making orders and shoot to kill if they fail to obey.  Their skills would be laughable if they weren't killing people, they are going into a situation where someone is often very agitated and further increasing their agitation, they are approaching people who are not thinking clearly due to adrenaline, intoxication or mental instability, and barking an order at them that if they fail to register, realize the consequence of, or accurately understand, killing them.  It is a completely ludicrous situation and you only have to look to other countries to realize that, in other countries they train their police properly and do not give them a license to kill if someone comes within 21 feet of them and they "feel" threatened.

[ClutchClark]

2 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

OK, in England and Wales last year, the police drew their guns 14,753 times but they shot them only 7 times, the other 14,746 times they manages to defuse the situation with words.  The Boston police dept has been having some training recently by the Scottish, who have only shot two people in 10 years despite having some of the highest levels of violent crime in Europe, they have succeeded in this through learning how to not escalate a situation and in developing negotiation skills, skills the American police just don't have, they go in shouting, making orders and shoot to kill if they fail to obey.  Their skills would be laughable if they weren't killing people, they are going into a situation where someone is often very agitated and further increasing their agitation, they are approaching people who are not thinking clearly due to adrenaline, intoxication or mental instability, and barking an order at them that if they fail to register, realize the consequence of, or accurately understand, killing them.  It is a completely ludicrous situation and you only have to look to other countries to realize that, in other countries they train their police properly and do not give them a license to kill if someone comes within 21 feet of them and they "feel" threatened.

 

Those statistics are meaningless without a report of how many of those instances included the suspect being armed with a firearm.

 

Are you honestly of the belief that you can disarm a guy with a gun pointed at you with words? Seriously?

 

If so, then I will need to end this conversation right now because it is too incredulous to even contemplate finding any way to communicate with you from my position here on earth. 

 

Best wishes Shawn. I hope you never have to put your principles to the test.

[ClutchClark]

3 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

So you can tell the difference between 'on drugs' and 'mentally ill'. Really?

But to help you. The majority of countries on planet earth would not have seen police execute this man.

He was unarmed. He was executed for not following orders.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Whether an apparent armed individual is refusing to follow police order and behaving erratically as a result of drugs, mental illness or from eating an ice cream cone does not matter at the point he aggressively approaches the police and reaches behind him in a manner that fully appears to indocate he has a firearm and he intends to use it rather than follow the police order to stop.

 

Seriously though, are you guys just screwing with me? Are you just having fun trolling  to get my heart rate up? please tell me you don't really believe what you are posting 

 

OK...you guys win. I am signing off.