3 ms·

A tragedy, but a fair outcome. The officer had no idea if the 12 year old had a fake gun or a real gun (the orange tip was ripped off the end of the gun). In

A tragedy, but a fair outcome. The officer had no idea if the 12 year old had a fake gun or a real gun (the orange tip was ripped off the end of the gun). In an article here: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/23/cleveland-police-shoot-dead-12-year-old-boy-carrying-fake-gun http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/23/cleveland-pol... "The boy did not make any verbal threats but grabbed the replica handgun after being told to raise his hands" The officer's life could have potentially been in danger and he acted accordingly. If it would have been a real gun and the officer waited a second too late, he would have been killed or wounded and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

kup0 11y ago
Would there have been a non-lethal alternative protocol for the officer to follow, such as a different placement of the initial shot? Is it possible the situation could have been stopped without killing the child? I ask this question sincerely. Let's even pretend for a moment the kid was playing with a real gun, I still ask the same question, especially if the kid did not have it raised or pointed at anyone once confronted. Maybe not. I freely admit I am not in a position where I have to put my life in danger on a daily basis, so maybe there's only so much officers can do in instances like this, it just seems like there could have been a different outcome altogether, but maybe that is wishful thinking.
- bobby_9x 11y ago
  I honestly don't think the officer had time to find out or use non-lethal force. Anything besides a gun would not have had the range nor the stopping power in this situation. To me, the moral of the story is to think twice before aiming a deadly weapon (fake or not) at a police officer. I just wish there were more parents in this country that would watch their kids and give them a little more education beyond just plunking them in front of the TV. I'm glad the courts came to the same conclusion as me. The system isn't completely corrupt.
- DrScump 11y ago
  "Would there have been a non-lethal alternative protocol for the officer to follow, such as a different placement of the initial shot?" Shoot to wound, you mean? That's only used on TV. The problem is, an officer can use deadly force only when facing imminent danger of immediate serious injury or death (including risk to bystanders, hostages, etc.). If an officer feels the luxury of shooting only to wound, then by definition the imminent-threat-of-death condition isn't there. I believe that tort cases have been won on this concept. Instead, that's where nonlethal weapons come into play (tasers, beanbag rounds, water cannon, rubber bullets, etc.). Most urban LEOs are adding tasers, but this means the added complication of carrying two sidearms with mutually exclusive usage profiles.

kup0 11y ago

Would there have been a non-lethal alternative protocol for the officer to follow, such as a different placement of the initial shot? Is it possible the situation could have been stopped without killing the child? I ask this question sincerely. Let's even pretend for a moment the kid was playing with a real gun, I still ask the same question, especially if the kid did not have it raised or pointed at anyone once confronted. Maybe not. I freely admit I am not in a position where I have to put my life in danger on a daily basis, so maybe there's only so much officers can do in instances like this, it just seems like there could have been a different outcome altogether, but maybe that is wishful thinking.

bobby_9x 11y ago
I honestly don't think the officer had time to find out or use non-lethal force. Anything besides a gun would not have had the range nor the stopping power in this situation. To me, the moral of the story is to think twice before aiming a deadly weapon (fake or not) at a police officer. I just wish there were more parents in this country that would watch their kids and give them a little more education beyond just plunking them in front of the TV. I'm glad the courts came to the same conclusion as me. The system isn't completely corrupt.
DrScump 11y ago
"Would there have been a non-lethal alternative protocol for the officer to follow, such as a different placement of the initial shot?" Shoot to wound, you mean? That's only used on TV. The problem is, an officer can use deadly force only when facing imminent danger of immediate serious injury or death (including risk to bystanders, hostages, etc.). If an officer feels the luxury of shooting only to wound, then by definition the imminent-threat-of-death condition isn't there. I believe that tort cases have been won on this concept. Instead, that's where nonlethal weapons come into play (tasers, beanbag rounds, water cannon, rubber bullets, etc.). Most urban LEOs are adding tasers, but this means the added complication of carrying two sidearms with mutually exclusive usage profiles.