California police kill 13-year-old for carrying fake assault rifle
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: California police kill 13-year-old for carrying fake assault rifle

  1. California police kill 13-year-old for carrying fake assault rifle

    California police kill 13-year-old for carrying fake assault rifle
    Wednesday, October 23, 2013 22:55

    don't find many 13 year olds carrying a fake ak47 and having a fake pistol in his waist band to begin with unless he's copying
    the local gangbangers.
    but my first thought was why the LEO's fired 7 times at the kids back
    bad judgement on the kids part cost his life and you can't convince me he didn't understand what was going on.
    but 7 shots (at least that many were counted) to stop him from what??????:

  2.   
  3. Most LEO's understand and are comfortable with citizens carrying guns, but even in the most gun friendly areas there are gonna be those that freak out about it. Especially if the only exposure they've ever had to guns was during their training. I imagine that it made this occurrence much more likely being in California where the whole atmosphere is to minimize familiarity with guns and even instill fear of them.

    I can't believe that that the boy would be copying gangbangers by carrying an "assault" rifle. I don't hang out where gangs are prevalent, but an AK is not the stereotypical weapon of choice.

    Regardless of where he was or what he was carrying, nobody, including law enforcement, has any right to shoot anyone in the back unless there is an immediate and imminent threat to someone else. I can only chalk it up to a lack of training or air of fear about those types of weapons. But that is zero excuse for the LEOs not getting all of the facts and acting irrationally. Hopefully the officers involved get charged with at least manslaughter, because from the sound of it the shooting was completely unjustified. If nothing happens, the public's ignorance and disdain for any kind of weapon, even toys, will just be reinforced.

  4. #3
    In Texas it's illegal to shoot someone in the back, yet repeatedly LEO and average Joe's have gotten away with it. It seems to me that if you shoot someone in the back, how do you justify a threat? Isn't the whole idea to stop a dangerous situation? If someone is running from me there is no threat, so, why shoot them? Just like someone in my driveway trying to break into my car. Why wouldn't I just stay in the house with my gun cocked and locked and call 911. Do I really need to go outside and shoot him/her over my vehicle? Isn't that why I pay such ridiculous rates for my insurance? let the police do their job, after all, that's what they're trained for. I see no need to kill someone over my car, and I value it very dearly!

  5. shooting a kid---- BAD
    shooting him in the back --- very BAD
    taking 7 shots---- ?????????????
    same thing happened to that piece of trash that was involved in the boston bombing.
    shooting him --GOOD
    but if my memory is correct, they fired 34 times ???????????

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by canislupus View Post
    shooting a kid---- BAD
    shooting him in the back --- very BAD
    taking 7 shots---- ?????????????
    same thing happened to that piece of trash that was involved in the boston bombing.
    shooting him --GOOD
    but if my memory is correct, they fired 34 times ???????????
    In a fire fight there are going to be a lot of shots fired, and LEOs should continue to fire until the threat is neutralized. And 34 shots wasn't that many considering how many LEOs were involved in that fire fight.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    Quote Originally Posted by docmath View Post
    In Texas it's illegal to shoot someone in the back, yet repeatedly LEO and average Joe's have gotten away with it. It seems to me that if you shoot someone in the back, how do you justify a threat? Isn't the whole idea to stop a dangerous situation? If someone is running from me there is no threat, so, why shoot them? Just like someone in my driveway trying to break into my car. Why wouldn't I just stay in the house with my gun cocked and locked and call 911. Do I really need to go outside and shoot him/her over my vehicle? Isn't that why I pay such ridiculous rates for my insurance? let the police do their job, after all, that's what they're trained for. I see no need to kill someone over my car, and I value it very dearly!
    Not that I have thoughts of doing this, but in SC there is a law on the books concerning citizen's arrest. In very clear and unmistakable language--if you presume a felony is being committed and attempt to perform a citizen's arrest AT NIGHT--ONLY AT NIGHT--and the BG attempts to flee and evade your citizen's arrest you may use any means possible including death to stop the evasion from your citizen's arrest--ie: you can shoot him in the back. It is very clear and case law backs this up. Not for me, but just let you know that there are laws on the books that not only allow shooting someone in the back but it can be done over a burglary of stuff and not imminent danger. How, when and why this law got on the books, I do not know--but it is there and it is very real in SC.
    As far as this thread case goes, it surely sounds like excessive use of firearms are in the mix--then again do any of us really know all the facts here? Shots in the back and many shots in the back, though, defy common sense and call into question LEO training in this case.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    2,072
    Quote Originally Posted by docmath View Post
    In Texas it's illegal to shoot someone in the back, yet repeatedly LEO and average Joe's have gotten away with it. It seems to me that if you shoot someone in the back, how do you justify a threat? Isn't the whole idea to stop a dangerous situation? If someone is running from me there is no threat, so, why shoot them? Just like someone in my driveway trying to break into my car. Why wouldn't I just stay in the house with my gun cocked and locked and call 911. Do I really need to go outside and shoot him/her over my vehicle? Isn't that why I pay such ridiculous rates for my insurance? let the police do their job, after all, that's what they're trained for. I see no need to kill someone over my car, and I value it very dearly!
    Funny, haven't heard or read anything about any "average Joes" getting away with shooting somebody in the back. See a lot more stories about "average Joes" getting arrested in legitimate self defense cases. Other than that little tidbit, pretty much agree with your post.


    I used to be a government-educated stooge. By the grace of God, I repent. -Robert Burris

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by bo_leggs View Post
    In a fire fight there are going to be a lot of shots fired, and LEOs should continue to fire until the threat is neutralized. And 34 shots wasn't that many considering how many LEOs were involved in that fire fight.
    Regardless of your argument, 7 shots in the back of a 13 yo kid that poses no threat and isn't trying to return fire (since he can't) is an inordinate display of jack boot thuggery!
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  10. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    Regardless of your argument, 7 shots in the back of a 13 yo kid that poses no threat and isn't trying to return fire (since he can't) is an inordinate display of jack boot thuggery!
    Nice attitude, but if you bothered to look at my comment as it was written you should have seen that I wasn't commenting about 7 shots in the back, I was commenting about the 34 shots by LEO in the fire fight with the Boston bombers. I agree that no one should ever be shot in the back unless it is your only shot at stopping a crime, not an escape. A 13 year old carrying a toy gun should not be seen as committing a crime.

  11. #10
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by kelcarry View Post
    Not that I have thoughts of doing this, but in SC there is a law on the books concerning citizen's arrest. In very clear and unmistakable language--if you presume a felony is being committed and attempt to perform a citizen's arrest AT NIGHT--ONLY AT NIGHT--and the BG attempts to flee and evade your citizen's arrest you may use any means possible including death to stop the evasion from your citizen's arrest--ie: you can shoot him in the back. It is very clear and case law backs this up. Not for me, but just let you know that there are laws on the books that not only allow shooting someone in the back but it can be done over a burglary of stuff and not imminent danger. How, when and why this law got on the books, I do not know--but it is there and it is very real in SC.
    As far as this thread case goes, it surely sounds like excessive use of firearms are in the mix--then again do any of us really know all the facts here? Shots in the back and many shots in the back, though, defy common sense and call into question LEO training in this case.
    In Michigan the fleeing felon rule places no restrictions on the time of day during which we can shoot a felon in order to keep him from fleeing the scene of the crime, and there is nothing in our fleeing felon rule that limits where on the bad guy's body we can shoot him. When this happened several months ago, the good guy unloaded a couple .40 caliber rounds into the bad guy's tukus.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast