I can't attach criminality to the cops in the shooting of the 12 year old, they were told black male pointing gun. My point is this, in most cases you know someone is pointing a gun, seldom do you go flying in like that where the crime is being reported, leaving them no option other than the one they had. There were no reports of shots fired and they should have drove up on the situation slowly until they had visuals on the threat. Had that been a grown male with a real gun with intent to kill, that cop would've probably died because of the mistake made to come charging in...

I think you should watch the video again. Officer in passenger seat shoots before driver gets out of car. Approximately 2 seconds. How they could think they are in danger has to be addressed. To me there seems to be many ways this could have been handled but this was the worst way. I don't understand.

As I said: the reason why they rushed in by car like this needs examination. Everything after that looks like logical consequence to me.

Either they had a good reason to rush in, or they had not. Needs to be clearified.

There seems to be no logical reason. No shots were fired, no attempt was made to talk to the victim and it does not seem like they attempted to gauge the situation from a distance. The only other mistake they didn't make was to run over him.

I guess so, if shooting someone 2 seconds after arriving on scene is logical.

C'mon, there is no logical reason to rush in charging like that. Heck, even when someone is gunning down kids in a schools, police don't go charging in..

Damn poor protocol.

He doesn't seem to have the gun on his hand, but he grabs it from his waist when the cops arrive. I don't know why he does that, maybe he panicked or something, but I can see why a cop would make a "split-second decision" in that situation.

Tragic nevertheless. :-?

When somebody, kid or not, holds in his hands what you see is as a firearm - you would wait until he has fully aimed it at your head and pulled the trigger, yes?

"Talking to the victim", you said. All nice as long as there is still time to talk. In that situation, when assuming the firearm was a live one, there was no time, not even one second.

The case stands and falls with the reason why they thought they must rush onto the scene like that. I would like to hear their reasons before judging the event.

Indeed, other video footage they released showed him having walked with the pistol in his hand, pointing it at people.

OT, but when people are being killed just because of metadata, what do you expect from the police ? After all it is one nation, and way of thinking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV2HDM86XgI#t=1080

:hmmm:

Again I will ask, why are they approaching a person who has not fired a shot in a manner like this???

From the video it is obvious that they did not take the time.

I agree but since no one was shot, no shots were fired and appraising the situation from a distance would have revealed that this was a 12 year old child, I think the outcome would have been different. Surely Police officers are better trained than this.

For the THIRd time now, u_crank:

1. I said the reasons why the car approached the suspect the way it did, needs examination.

2. we agree, they did not take the time to talk. Which, different than for you, for me is no surprise since the video showed the suspect drawing a weapon (or what the cops needed to take for a weapon).

3. If the child would have obeyed the police's order (police says that the officers asked the boy to raise his hands) instead of "playing" on and drawing the toy-weapon, apparently the cops would not have fired. It was a split-second decision the cops had to make. The boy did probably not realise how dangerous situation was when the police called him, his mind fantasizing his game world instead.

Media also say that an orange marker that seems to be glued onto american toy weapons, had been scratched off the boy's toy pistol, which made it even more difficult if not impossible to recognise the toy as a toy. A toy that was designed to look like the real thing. ;)

Now lean back, take a deep breath, and think about it before answering once again to me as if I would have said nothing until here. ;)

Possibly the media sooner or later will tell us why the car was driving like it did. The cops' motive for driving like that is what decides this case. But note: the police speaker says that the cops had time enough to demand the boy to raise his hands - and instead he immediately drew his toy-weapon without that orange marker identifying it as a toy instead. That'S what the media currently report.

:D

Yes it does.

When did they give this order? The officer shoots immediately. Did they give this order from a distance? If so why then did they then drive up to his location? Makes no sense as if they thought they were in danger they would have taken cover, not go closer to the danger.

From the linked article.

This statement was obviously made before the video was released. Child was shot on Saturday. Video was released Wednesday. Try to keep up.:O:

Okay, I have. My advice to you is to get all the facts in order first.:03:

Police clearly didn't follow protocol....and clearly they didn't give warnings to get hands up in one second.

Definitely a possibility. On the other hand we can't have our police forces making that their default assumption.

Who knows, kid probably was gonna grow up in the hood and end up the thug, but could've been the CEO of his own company....We'll never know because of the poor protocol used by the officers...