ANOTHER SCHOOL/PUBLIC SHOOTING

[SIXFOOTERsez]

I think it's fucked up that he would be given a gun after already having shown he has violent tendencies.

I read that he liked shooting air soft guns. Could that gun he is holding be an air gun?

I don't have the open minded feelings about guns that I used to have. If that gun is basically a toy I think that's pretty fucked up too. I think it's fucked up that a toy would look so real. I think it's fucked up that kids are gifted toy guns so they can pretend shoot people.

I can see your point Duchess, but we have had toy guns for many many years, including my generation of kids and we did not go around actually shooting people. I think blaming toy guns for the violence today is lame. The blame goes on the parents and the media imho. The parents for obvious reasons, they simply do not teach their kids any kind of respect or common sense. Whether this is from lack of interest or the lack of knowledge or whatever, it is on them. The media for glorifying this kind of bullshit. This kids whole family sounds fucked up to me and from what has been reported especially mom, as pointed out by giving him access to weapons even after his violent tendencies were obvious.
From the pic above I can't tell if the thing is real or not, what I can tell is no one is teaching him proper gun safety, his finger is on the trigger, that speaks volums right there

[HairOfTheDog]

From the pic above I can't tell if the thing is real or not, what I can tell is no one is teaching him proper gun safety, his finger is on the trigger, that speaks volums right there

So, you think if the troubled teen had been taught gun safety (which we don't know he wasn't), it somehow would have prevented him from shooting people?

I'm pretty sure the kid wanted to kill people, it wasn't an accident attributable to unsafe handling of the gun or lack of respect/understanding for what the weapon can do.

I'm not following your line of thought here, Six. What does his finger placement in that photo speak volumes about in relation to this case?

[sally]

From the pic above I can't tell if the thing is real or not, what I can tell is no one is teaching him proper gun safety, his finger is on the trigger, that speaks volums right there

So, you think if the troubled teen had been taught gun safety (which we don't know he wasn't), it somehow would have prevented him from shooting people?

I'm pretty sure the kid wanted to kill people, it wasn't an accident attributable to unsafe handling of the gun or lack of respect/understanding for what the weapon can do.

I'm not following your line of thought here, Six. What does his finger placement in that photo speak volumes about in relation to this case?

Maybe he means that it speaks volumes about the parents. If that is a real gun then that picture just goes to show their carelessness and stupidity in the first place. If they gave their kid a real gun without even teaching him how to hold it properly then it's no surprise the kid is a little freak. Asshole parents produce asshole kids.

[Maggot]

If anyone knows their child at all they would have seen violence in his eyes on more than a few occasions before all this. I feel that they placated him in order to avoid confrontation as he was growing up. Nothing was addressed as far as toning down his anger at times and I place the blame on the parents. Its a good thing the shit didn't build a bomb or go on an arson spree.

[HairOfTheDog]

Maybe he means that it speaks volumes about the parents. If that is a real gun then that picture just goes to show their carelessness and stupidity in the first place. If they gave their kid a real gun without even teaching him how to hold it properly then it's no surprise the kid is a little freak. Asshole parents produce asshole kids.

Yeah, maybe his parents were real assholes who put themselves, their kid, and the public at risk out of negligence or apathy. I don't know how they could legally have guns in the house anyway when dad had a criminal conviction for domestic violence and drugs, unless those weren't felony convictions.

The kid used a handgun in the shootings, not a semi-automatic rifle like the one in the photo. I just read that the kid's cousin, James South, confirmed that the family did have guns at the house which they typically kept in cases. He says they don't know where the kid got the handgun he used. That's what he says.

I'm not assuming the kid hadn't any gun education due to his holding/posture of a (real or toy) gun in a photo op, but maybe he didn't. In either case, he didn't shoot/hurt himself in the process of shooting four human targets. I bet he was taught the purpose and how to hold and use a hatchet on their farm. Still, he took one to school to use as a weapon and got expelled. At newly 14, he also knew how to drive a truck well enough to make it to the school before crashing it into a fence, after he'd shot his dad multiple times while dad was lying on the couch watching tv.

Anyway, if Maggot's right that the parents stupidly taught/allowed/encouraged him to use guns because it was something that made the emotionally unstable kid feel good, I won't be surprised. That's exactly what Adam Lanza's mom did and she was the first person her son killed.

I agree that mom should be held accountable if the guns in the house were there illegally or weren't all completely locked up and inaccessible to the kid.

Here's the latest from Jesse Osborne's court appearance: http://www.wyff4.com/news/teen-suspect-i...t/41894420

[Carsman]

IMO:

The tragedy of "toy guns" looking so real is that, when PO's come upon someone "regardless" of age brandishing it, for the PO's own safety, they have to assume it's "real.

And if that "gun" (toy or not, it is still a gun) is pointed in the PO's direction and or at another civilian, the PO has to react to control the situation in only a split second.

If turns out "Toy gun", just make it a bigger tragedy!

Side note: "Toy Guns" should be required to be red, green, orange,
never black, silver, on any "real gun" color, would help the situation.

[HairOfTheDog]

Would you agree, Cars, that if...

--there are no people surrounding the person who's holding a gun (whether it turns out to be real or realistic toy),
--the cops aren't responding to an active shooter call, but only a 911 call where the caller clearly states they're concerned but not certain about the person or the gun and think a PO should come to check it out...

...the cops should absolutely NOT come barreling in or roll right up on the child or adult and shoot within seconds? Do you think it makes more sense for POs to instead follow protocol and issue commands from a distance so the person (child or adult) has a chance to process WTF is going on and be given a chance to respond accordingly before they're shot dead?

In the cases of 15-year-old Andy Lopez, 12-year-old Tamir Rice, 22-year-old Johnny Crawford (and several others), that's exactly what happened (all had toy guns and didn't pull them on cops, they just moved). The cops were found to have wrongly approached in the first two, and the 911 caller in Crawford's case was charged with falsely exaggerating the situation (so he was deemed responsible for the cops' wrongful approach). In all three example cases, since the cops wrongly put themselves in a situation but were then reasonably in fear for their lives in their minds, they weren't held criminally liable.

I understand your point about making toy guns look less realistic and I agree. But, toy guns can and are altered to look realistic by people who have no intention of committing a crime with them, and altering toy guns is not a crime. I think better training and enforcement in de-escalation and non-lethal police practices would go a lot further in reducing unnecessary deaths at the hands of police than anything else. That would help save the lives of citizens who weren't intending to harm anyone when confronted by POs and help POs avoid having to live with killing someone unnecessarily, regardless of whether the person they killed turned out to be unarmed, carrying a toy gun, or legally and responsibly carrying a real gun.

[BigMark]

Tamir failed a very important intelligence test.


According to information reported to the press on the day of the shooting by Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association President Jeffrey Follmer, "[Loehmann and Garmback] pulled into the parking lot and saw a few people sitting underneath a pavilion next to the center. [Loehmann] saw a black gun sitting on the table, and he saw the boy pick up the gun and put it in his waistband."[24] Also on that date, Cleveland Deputy Chief Tomba stated, "The officer got out of the car and told the boy to put his hands up. The boy reached into his waistband, pulled out the gun and [Loehmann] fired two shots."

[Carsman]

I understand your point about making toy guns look less realistic and I agree. But, toy guns can and are altered to look realistic by people who have no intention of committing a crime with them, and altering toy guns is not a crime.

It should be made into a law, Toy Gun manufacturer's should be required to manufacture their toy guns in red, blue, green.
Thereby identifying them as "toys", so PO's don't have to guess real or toy!

And anyone altering them to appear real will then be a crime. It's not fool proof, nothing is, but most people will not alter them. Those that do alter them to look real are braking the law, and are up to no good!

[Midwest Spy]

I understand your point about making toy guns look less realistic and I agree. But, toy guns can and are altered to look realistic by people who have no intention of committing a crime with them, and altering toy guns is not a crime.

And anyone altering them to appear real will then be a crime. It's not fool proof, nothing is, but most people will not alter them. Those that do alter them to look real are braking the law, and are up to no good!

Cars are you insinuating that someone would alter a gun for nefarious purposes?

If so, you are condemning an entire race, because everyone knows only black and brown people would do something like that.

You sir are an ignorant bigot.

[HairOfTheDog]

Tamir failed a very important intelligence test.


According to information reported to the press on the day of the shooting by Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association President Jeffrey Follmer, "[Loehmann and Garmback] pulled into the parking lot and saw a few people sitting underneath a pavilion next to the center. [Loehmann] saw a black gun sitting on the table, and he saw the boy pick up the gun and put it in his waistband."[24] Also on that date, Cleveland Deputy Chief Tomba stated, "The officer got out of the car and told the boy to put his hands up. The boy reached into his waistband, pulled out the gun and [Loehmann] fired two shots."

Jesus Christ, Biggie. Get a clue.

What you copied and pasted is old news, complete bullshit, and it's been debunked for years already. It's YOU who failed the intelligence test here today.

Follmer made those false claims on behalf of the two officers in order to justify the shooting BEFORE the park surveillance video (which neither Follmer nor the cops knew existed) was released. Tamir was, in fact, all alone in the pavilion and the toy gun was not on the table, nor was it being brandished, when the cops rolled up. That's fact, not debatable, captured on video, and acknowledged in the $6,000,000 settlement Cleveland PD paid to the Rice family.

After Follmer's false narrative was busted open by the surveillance video, the cops changed their story and explained the improper approach by saying the grass was slippery and they didn't mean to roll right up on him. But, once they did, 12-year-old Tamir made the wrong movements and failed to properly follow commands in under 2 seconds (we don't have audio to know what, if any, commands he received from the rolling police car). The cops were thus deemed reasonably in fear for their lives in their minds.

If you would like to educate yourself and discuss the Tamir Rice case further, please take it to the dedicated case thread, Biggie. You can find it here: http://mockforums.net/showthread.php?tid...tamir+rice

Also, citing or linking your sources when you copy and paste in LC's Cell Block is not optional, it's absolutely required. Please don't be lazy or unethical with such a simple and common sense requirement in here; we respect LC's rules of the crime forum. (On the rest of the board, proper attribution adherence is up to Duchess, Mags, and Username).

[BigMark]

Yup, you're right.

[HairOfTheDog]

I understand your point about making toy guns look less realistic and I agree. But, toy guns can and are altered to look realistic by people who have no intention of committing a crime with them, and altering toy guns is not a crime.

And anyone altering them to appear real will then be a crime. It's not fool proof, nothing is, but most people will not alter them. Those that do alter them to look real are braking the law, and are up to no good!

Cars are you insinuating that someone would alter a gun for nefarious purposes?

If so, you are condemning an entire race, because everyone knows only black and brown people would do something like that.

You sir are an ignorant bigot.

You, sir, doth protest too much. You are the only person here who has made any reference to race or bigotry in this discussion. Just you, MS, for no apparent reason outside your own conscience.

We were discussing the case of a white kid who shot multiple victims using a real gun when the danger of toy guns became the focus, for some reason.

When it comes to kids (and some adults) using toy guns that look real (or are altered to look real), they're white, hispanic, black, Asian and every other race and it's false to imply that their reasons must be "nefarious."

[HairOfTheDog]

Yup, you're right.

Thank you, Biggie.

[Carsman]

I understand your point about making toy guns look less realistic and I agree. But, toy guns can and are altered to look realistic by people who have no intention of committing a crime with them, and altering toy guns is not a crime.

And anyone altering them to appear real will then be a crime. It's not fool proof, nothing is, but most people will not alter them. Those that do alter them to look real are braking the law, and are up to no good!

Cars are you insinuating that someone would alter a gun for nefarious purposes?

If so, you are condemning an entire race, because everyone knows only black and brown people would do something like that.

You sir are an ignorant bigot.

You too are trying to put "your words" in my mouth!

Since when does the word "anyone" translate into black or brown people, (your words) not mine mr. bigot!

[HairOfTheDog]

Hey Cars, when you say "anyone" and I interpret that to mean "anyone" (regardless of color, mental capacity, age, gender, or anything else), that's me taking you at your word, not me putting words in your mouth.

However, when MS limits your "anyone" to "people of color", you are justified in reading him the riot act. He's not taking you at your word, he's projecting his words into your mouth.

C'mere MS, I'm gonna whip your lily white ass into shape!

[Duchess]

He's going to love that.

[HairOfTheDog]

He's going to love that.

I hope so, but doubt it.

MS seems more like a guy who'd want to be the dominant one in an S&M situation.

I like the idea of whipping his ass sometimes though.

[Duchess]

I hope so, but doubt it.

He got a boner just thinking about it. *nods*

Good thing I proofread. I typed I rather than he.

[Midwest Spy]

Cars (and Ladies), I was simply posting something that the PC crowd would say in response to what Cars posted.

People that are uptight often jump to conclusions and put words in peoples' mouths.

As Aaron Rodgers once said, "Everyone just R-E-L-A-X.