12-Year-Old Boy Dies After Police in Cleveland Shoot Him

we don't KNOW if the dispatcher told the cops that it was probably a toy. we only have the COPS word for it that the kid reached for the gun, but we DO know that people called, saying that the kid was pointing a gun at people, so he DID contribute to his own death. However, the cops handled this REALLY badly.

 

We have alternatives, but when the situation involves a potential for real guns, police are not going to pull a baton as their weapon of choice. They'll meet the threat level, as happened here. Had the kid just raised his hands, as orderd at gunpoint, the force that would have been used would have been handcuffs. That's far from being lethal force, but the kid upped the situation to full gun vs. gun by his reaction to the officer.

 

The police are under no Constitutional obligation to protect the public.

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) a District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police did not owe a specific duty to provide police services to the plaintiffs based on the public duty doctrine.


Also...

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

At best we can regard law enforcement as an auxillary deterrent.

I have no idea why so many on this thread insist are defending them (law enforcement) ..when they have no legal obligation or duty to protect you. The court's have established this.

 

The cop has reasonable grounds to believe his life was in danger, you know, given that someone was pointing something at him which is totally indistinguishable from a real gun and also had the safety features removed (or covered over).

In that situation, he is perfectly justified in shooting to kill.

 

I'm not talking about the Constitution, I'm talking about the general public calling the police, wanting help.
If they pull out pepper spray to take on someone in a public park pulling a gun from their waistband, as people here have suggested... I would be pissed.

Otherwise, when the public call the police, asking for help... the dispatcher should read the legislation you provided.
Then watch gun ownership skyrocket.

 

These cops see almost daily young kids committing horrible crimes.
These cops are trained not to hesitate.

 

Doesn't matter if you're "pissed" or not...the police have no legal duty to protect you. I have no idea why you insist on defending them. Understand the law, and you'll know why many view law enforcement with suspicion...rather than just blindly assume they can do no wrong or have a duty to protect the public.

They do not have a duty to protect the public. The U.S. Supreme Court has backed them up on this. So why defend them...when they certainly have no duty to defend you.

 

Then why do you keep arguing with me?

 

I stated the law. I'm not arguing.

The police officer was defending himself from what he thought was a boy about to pull a gun on him. Seems like a clean shoot to me....

However to think this police officer had some sort of "duty" or obligation to protect those in the public park is simply incorrect. They have no legal obligation to protect you or me from a criminal. They are strictly an auxillary deterrent...it is up to us to defend ourselves...and let the police defend themselves.

 

Yes and then again for U.S. citizens the draconian rules for permissible fishing in Scottish streams seems very strange and illogical; especially the passion that the Scots evince when the issue arises. So it's for the best to discover some of the cultural and legal ins-and-outs before exiting the passenger plane. Inside the United States, convincing a youngster that it's a really, REALLY bad idea to point anything resembling a hand gun or rifle or shotgun at a law enforcement officer is just part and parcel of common sense parenting.

 

In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors."

Basically, the Due Process Clause (14th Amendment) does not provide an affirmative right to government aid, "even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual."

Law enforcement does not have your back, so why do some insist on having theirs?

This appears to be a clean shoot in this example...the officer had no idea if the gun was real...however the officer was protecting his own life.

It's assumed law enforcment acts in the best interest of the public.

Law enforcement acts in the best interest of law enforcement.

The sooner you recognize you're on your own in terms of defending your own life....you'll be a long way into understanding how this Republic functions.

 

This is true.
But, at age 12, I think "street" knowledge should have taught him that. Don't point a gun at the police.
Unless he had mental issues (which we would have heard about by now), he had to have known better.


If a cop tells me to put my hands up....I'm gonna listen.

I'm not gonna pull out my cellphone and tape him, I'm not gonna tell him he has no Constitutional right to make me do that, and I'm not gonna pull a toy gun assuming he will wait until I take the first couple shots..... as some here say he should.

 

Whoever bought this toy gun for the 12 yr old should be horse whipped. Unless you've ever had an automatic weapon pointed at you and lived, you shouldn't judge the cop.

 

I am going to wait and see on this one. It is a tragedy for the cop in either case, unless he is one of the few true monsters out there. No one really wants to kill a kid. And of course the kid is dead, so the family is destroyed. Actually the best this one can turn out is a terrible tragedy that destroyed many lives, no matter what.

 

Crazy how people always call the cop bad, long before any details are out.

"He should have done this..!"
"He should have known that..!"

While they sit safely in front of a computer constantly complaining about how cops should do their jobs.

 

Yeah, that would never happen.

 

The Supreme Court has generally declined to find that the Constitution imposes affirmative obligations on the government to help citizens.

These implications are far reaching and I'm not sure if the average citizen even understands the depth of this legal interpretation.

There is nothing to prevent law enforcement from simply abandoning their jobs...we saw it in New Orleans, LA during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Off duty officers ignoring the looting, not even attempting to restore law and order. Why should they? The court's have their back.

So we see these shootings, like this one...or closer to my own home a Ferguson police officer shooting an 18 y/o.

Right away, ...oh well he's a police officer they were acting in the line of duty, defending innocent civilans. The fact is, they have no obligation or duty to protect the life, liberty or property of the citizenry. So when one of them gets rung up the flag pole...I am indifferent to this. They would just as easily walk away from my hour of need...

They don't care, in other words.

The days of a cop walking a beat, getting to know business owners, getting to know citizens, stopping and chatting with kids playing in the street...are gone. Long gone. Oh sure, they do have to deal with the criminal element...daily, and they do put their lives on the line in doing so...however the vast majority of crime goes unsolved....and the vast majority of violent crime is not prevented by law enforcement directly. They are typically called upon after the fact. In this specific instance, they were called about a 12 y/o waving what appeared to be by all acounts a real gun. The boy did not comply to orders given by the officers and was subsequently killed. For all intents and purposes, the police did their job here...really no different than if it was an average citizen shooting someone who waved what they thought was a gun. The police were defending their own lives and I don't begrudge them that..but if it wasn't a clean shoot, I certainly care no more about the consequencs of what happens to a police officer as a victim than they care about us.

The fact is....most don't care. It is a paycheck and a pension regardless if the citizenry is actually protected or not..it isn't their duty to protect.

 

I don't have quite the sinister view of it, but I agree the cops are more concerned for their own safety than yours. It's their duty to enforce the law, not to protect and serve.

 

We had a second grader bring a gun to school last year to show off to his friends. It was loaded.

 

"The kid needed to die because he behaved foolishly," just doesn't justify the frequent tragedies of this type.

And I'm thinking of the effect it must have on the cop as well.

A technology needs to be developed to solve the problem.

 

I agree with you in part, so the question is, is it safe to give children toy guns, especially if cops are going to be around?

.

 

That child did not have a toy gun. A Airsoft gun looks identical to a real one and can cause harm. If we are talking a nurf gun then I would give it to you. But these are not the same. Also they had a reason they thought the gun was real and he went for it.

 

actually even the faller said it was most likely fake, but the point it, that fake gun got this child killed, are fake guns a danger to our children?

what if someone walking down the street felt as threatened as the cops, could they shoot the child too?

 

Yeah but... they say since some unknown "caller" said it was "probably fake"... then they should have just walked up and took it from him.

Of course, then they'd be called bullies and scolded for stealing.


Calling it a "toy" is just their way of reminding everyone this was a child.

 

Aw come on, our draconian rules do not seem strange and illogical to Americans, you have plenty to stock preservation measures in your own country regarding your vast range of wildlife.

It is common sense to advise youngsters so in any country in the world - that does not mean that if, being young they still should do so that they are in danger from these law enforcement officers given the expertise of the those officers. So Im asking you what is the logic here of merely accepting this state of affairs.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean it was in his hands and reached to remove it or do you mean he reached for it in order to aim and fire?

- - - Updated - - -

No no no youve got it wrong, your police, when they feel threatened, are a danger to your children. Much like well trained aggressive dogs, loveable and dependable when threatened they will nevertheless injure or kill.