'Cops don't kill kids--toy guns kill kids.'

[ashw_justin]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004391165_fakeguns04.html

"It's important that a child cannot walk into one of these little convenience stores, plop down a dollar and walk out with something that can get him shot on the spot without question," Deberry said.

That's 'funny,' I didn't know you even needed a toy gun for the cops to shoot you on the spot without question.

Anything to avoid challenging a cop's right to murder out of fear and fear alone...

[Choada_Boy]

Normally, a brown wallet or a pager will suffice.

[Bug]

So let me get this straight.

You are advocating eliminating all police forces in the US?

Or are you saying you are going to become a Police officer and show us all how easy the job is?

 

Or is it just that you have issues with authority figures?

 

 

Edited May 4, 2008 by Bug

[STP]

What do you see?

 

 

You saw a couple in an intimate love position, right?

 

Interestingly, research has shown that young children cannot identify the intimate couple because they do not have prior memory associated with such a scenario.

 

What they will see, however, is nine (small & black) dolphins in the picture!

 

So, I guess we’ve already proven you’re not a young innocent child.

 

Now… if it’s hard for you to find the dolphins within 6 seconds, your mind is SO corrupted that you probably need help!

 

OK, here’s help: look at the space between her right arm and her head, the tail is on her neck, follow it up. Look at her left hip, follow the shaded part down, it’s another one, and on his shoulder..

-- source

 

 

It's hard to see the dolphins, huh?

 

WuIzwOgQ1_w

 

 

[needtoclimb]

 

 

 

 

 

The top three are real guns, the bottom one is a toy gun. Glad you are such a gun expert that you can tell the difference between them in half a second.

[billcoe]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004391165_fakeguns04.html

"It's important that a child cannot walk into one of these little convenience stores, plop down a dollar and walk out with something that can get him shot on the spot without question," Deberry said.

That's 'funny,' I didn't know you even needed a toy gun for the cops to shoot you on the spot without question.

Anything to avoid challenging a cop's right to murder out of fear and fear alone...

 

I got a problem with authority, it's true, but damn, I take a back seat to you evidently. Most police are real fine people, there are a few bad apples here and there, and the deal is to weed them out. It sounds like you need to stop reading the news or watching the evening news so much. The news tries to shock and scare you as a tactic to get their ratings and thus the ad revenue up. Must be working with you.

 

Thats that game plan anyway.

[ashw_justin]

I think you guys are missing the point. The news story is about banning toy guns, because cops might shoot kids holding toy guns. It's as if somehow the toy gun itself could be responsible for something fundamentally wrong with law enforcement--the police are trigger-happy against even the harmless, are legally totally unaccountable for it, and in fact are trained to murder immediately at the slightest hint of perceived danger. But it's the toy guns' fault.

 

Now this kind of thing is rare, and I believe that no good man wants to kill someone who didn't have to be killed. It's a hard job, and sometimes things go wrong. Even trained police officers with 16 in the clip (and one in the hole) make mistakes. It's a rough world out there and good men get taken down by really dangerous criminals. I understand why they are very ready and willing to use force to protect themselves and others. In fact I appreciate it, as long as it is just[ified].

 

But banning toy guns? Come on! How about not shooting to kill at children (or anyone for that matter) who simply might have a lethal weapon? These are trained professionals with the prerogative to use legal force, so it is imperative that we hold them to the highest standard of behavior. But I suspect that part of the professional training itself is to blame.

 

So let me get this straight.

You are advocating eliminating all police forces in the US?

Or are you saying you are going to become a Police officer and show us all how easy the job is?

 

Or is it just that you have issues with authority figures?

 

Um, no, you absolutely did not get this straight. You want to try again?

 

I got a problem with authority, it's true, but damn, I take a back seat to you evidently. Most police are real fine people, there are a few bad apples here and there, and the deal is to weed them out. It sounds like you need to stop reading the news or watching the evening news so much. The news tries to shock and scare you as a tactic to get their ratings and thus the ad revenue up. Must be working with you.

 

Thats that game plan anyway.

Interesting, so you think that the article was a meant to shock people? Well, feel free to start another thread about media propaganda systems and how they make you not want the police to kill you for, say, trying to turn off your i-pod. This thread is about how banning toy guns is a completely ridiculous denial of a much more fundamental problem.

 

...which is that if kids were packing for real then cops might think it dangerous to open fire on just anyone, and hence might more receptive to a more peaceful resolution.

 

ps. You guys have no f'ing sense of humor or irony. Where is the appreciation for the title of this thread???

[STP]

Officer Micheal Hoover knows a fair amount about guns as a sniper instructor for a Tennessee SWAT team. He recalls the night two years ago when a car pulled up beside him on a highway and the passenger waved what looked like an Uzi.

 

Tennessee lawmakers are considering a proposal by state Rep. John Deberry to make it a misdemeanor to intentionally display or expose "an imitation firearm in a public place in a threatening manner."

 

In Florida, state Sen. Gary Siplin has a bill that would prohibit individuals from carrying a paintball gun in a vehicle. He said he had been told about youngsters brandishing such guns while driving. He said if they're bold enough to do that they might use the fake weapon to commit a crime.

 

So is it the way the prop is displayed or handled that causes the problem? Or, is it the mere sight of a weapon that is perceived as a threat? Should the presence of a weapon alone cause undue alarm in people?

 

It's as if we've been conditioned to fear the sight of a weapon in the hands of someone especially after the recent shootings in the malls and schools.

 

On a different matter, what about the recent talk surrounding the relaxation of gun laws restricting the carrying of concealed weapons on national park lands? Doesn't it make sense for someone with a CWP to pack a weapon if he knows he's in an area where the nearest police would not arrive in time to help him?

 

 

[ashw_justin]

To not limit this to the brandishing of nonlethal objects,

True or False: the police { can, are trained to, and are legally protected if they } shoot you for any reason, as long as they swear that this reason is that they 'felt threatened,' regardless of the circumstances (quotes because an officer's mind state upon firing is completely subjective and completely unprovable).

 

To break that up into three parts:

can? yes

are trained to? it seems so

are legally protected? Amadou Diallo (41 bullets), Sean Bell (50 bullets), Roger D. Holyfield Jr. (tazered repeatedly while handcuffed?)...

[builder206]

On a different matter, what about the recent talk surrounding the relaxation of gun laws restricting the carrying of concealed weapons on national park lands? Doesn't it make sense for someone with a CWP to pack a weapon if he knows he's in an area where the nearest police would not arrive in time to help him, e.g., the northwest part of Rainier NP?

 

Carry permits are issued by the state. They would have no bearing one way or the other on carrying a firearm on federal lands. The constitutional relation between state and federal gov't being what it is, it is not legally possible for a federal agency to recognize a state-issued permit. The rules of the federal agency managing a given land unit trump a state-issued carry permit.

 

Anyway, the proposed change would not "relax laws." The prohibition against firearms in national parks was a rule-making activity by the Interior Secretary, not legislation. The proposed change simply removes the prohibition on having firearms in national parks, returning conditions to those that existed before 1983.

 

Before 1983, there were no rules about type of weapon (pistol or rifle) or method of carry (concealed or exposed). If you imagine you could stop a bear with a handgun, you wouldn't want it covered under a jacket. You'd carry it holstered out in the open, like cops do, to make it easy to get at. There's nothing in the federal code that say anything about concealed or open carry.

 

One motivation behind the proposed change on National Park lands is that in 1982 only 6 states allowed private citizens to carry a pistol. Now 48 states allow handgun carry for citizen defense. Of them, 46 have some sort of process for issuing a carry permit and 2 states allow carry without a permit at all. The reasoning is that now citizens have an increased or heightened expectation that they can defend themselves than they did in 1982, so the prohibition in national parks is out of step with the national trend toward expanding the capacity of individuals to use firearms to defend themselves.

 

For perspective on the national park thing, there have never been any prohibitions against firearms on lands managed by the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management.

[rob]

True or False: the police { can, are trained to, and are legally protected if they } shoot you for any reason, as long as they swear that this reason is that they 'felt threatened,' regardless of the circumstances (quotes because an officer's mind state upon firing is completely subjective and completely unprovable).

 

Dude, you're so full of shit it must be seeping out your eyes. Sure, police brutality is real and I'm no fan of the swine, but you are so way over the fucking top you sound like a total asshat.

 

Regardless of the circumstances? You actually believe that? So, you believe a cop could walk up to a 5 yo girl at a school crosswalk, and for no reason at all fire 50 bullets into her head, and he would be legally protected, REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES?

 

Fucking hyperbole

Edited May 5, 2008 by rob

[pink]

rob, i thought you were the peaceful liberal type.

[rob]

Like, cops have NEVER been charged with battery, manslaughter or other criminal offenses linked to police brutality. They ALL just get a free pass, REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES!!

 

[olyclimber]

try to catch me riding dirty

 

[olyclimber]

8n7ncJEFuSw

[olyclimber]

-xEzGIuY7kw

[rob]

wow porter, that must be some video, it's already unavailable....

[STP]

try to catch me riding dirty

 

 

Man, I love Texas. It should be a country of its own.

 

Is that lady(?) wearing a picnic tablecloth?

[STP]

Builder, you are MR. GUN LAW. No question there. BTW, do you favor the push by Congressman Crapo (R-Idaho)?

[ashw_justin]

True or False: the police { can, are trained to, and are legally protected if they } shoot you for any reason, as long as they swear that this reason is that they 'felt threatened,' regardless of the circumstances (quotes because an officer's mind state upon firing is completely subjective and completely unprovable).

 

Dude, you're so full of shit it must be seeping out your eyes. Sure, police brutality is real and I'm no fan of the swine, but you are so way over the fucking top you sound like a total asshat.

 

Regardless of the circumstances? You actually believe that? So, you believe a cop could walk up to a 5 yo girl at a school crosswalk, and for no reason at all fire 50 bullets into her head, and he would be legally protected, REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES?

 

Fucking hyperbole

 

Wow, I see that I am really reaching people here. I don't even have kids, but if I did, 1) I wouldn't buy them toy guns (or real guns), 2) but hypothetically if I did, and the cops shot them just because they had a toy gun, and then were able to use their schizophrenic fear as a legitimate defense, I feel that justice would not have been served.

 

The critical part of this that I take issue with is the implication that, assuming there is a true problem here, that the solution to a potential misuse of force does not include rectifying police training to take this possibility into account. Just what is the current standard protocol for deciding when it is justified to shoot?

 

I think this is a slippery slope because the very situation you describe* is hypothetically possible if the sole basis for the use of lethal force is that a cop simply feels threatened. And you may disagree with me but I think that the direction in which things are heading, highlighted particularly by weird laws attempting to ban inanimate, harmless objects simply because they might frighten police who are trained to shoot at the slightest provocation.

 

(*although you failed to include the critical trump card that the law enforcer can play if they can claim to be threatened somehow by the 5yo)

 

In high school I had guns drawn on me by police out of the blue for walking down the sidewalk with my friends while simply holding paintball guns non-threateningly. We simply walked normally past a cop working on his lawn, and the next thing we know there is a three car response and we're three hair triggers away from death. Luckily no shots were fired as we were quite obviously nonthreatening. But it made me wonder--what if I had sneezed, or tripped or something? Would I be writing this right now?

 

I don't hate the police. Most of my interactions with them have been positive, and I believe that they are mostly honest, and do their best to protect me and everyone else. But that doesn't mean I think they are infallible, or that they should be immune from scrutiny.

 

I never actually said it, so I will now: toy guns don't kill people! That is what I started this thread. The rest is spray. Obviously.

[rob]

I don't think the sole basis is if the cop feels threatened. I think that's a total oversimplification of the laws governing the use of deadly force by police officers.

 

A quick google search confirms that most states/cities have their own regulations on this, and almost ALL of them state (pretty specifically) that deadly force is only authorized if the officer's or another's life is in danger, or to stop certain crimes (homicide, kidnapping, etc.) So, what it really comes down to, is if the prosecutor decides the cop was justified in feeling like his or someone else's life was justified.

 

Or, in many cases, as many of these police ARE charged (despite your apparent belief that they never are) -- the jury has to believe if they were justified in feeling so threatened.

[builder206]

Standards for justifiable use of lethal force differ from state to state and have a strong case law component. It is not possible to easily detail a full & proper answer to your question in this forum. In sum, though, in Washington lethal force is justified if a person reasonably is in fear of his or life, or reasonably in fear that he or she will suffer serious harm (like a person raising a brick to throw at you from close range), or to protect someone else from either of those outcomes. But as I said, it is much more complex than that and my statement here is an oversimplification.

 

Imagine a person points a real gun at you but it is not loaded. You certainly would not be prosecuted if you killed that person. It’s a gun, it very possibly could be fired at you in mere seconds without warning. There is nothing reasonable in expecting you to ask or wait to see if it is loaded.

 

What if it is a toy that looks convincingly like a real gun? Same thing. It is unreasonable to expect you to wait and deduce all possible facts at the risk of your life.

 

A person ordered by cops to drop a weapon and who does not do so, yet does not point the weapon at anyone, eventually might be shot. Case law has developed that judges this a reasonable outcome under some conditions, and many mentally ill people use this to commit what is called “suicide by cop.” In fact, it is so common that one excuse taser makers first used to get tasers into police hands was that they are a “less-than-lethal” solution to this very problem.

 

You *do* know, don’t you, that self-defense includes the right to kill or disable someone *before* they kill or attack you, right? Do you think that a victim must first be attacked before responding? A person who is waving around anything gunlike (or any other serious weapon, like an axe or a baseball bat) can be shot and killed without anyone having to be harmed first in order to evaluate the threat.

 

Police operate all the time in a high threat environment. Many more people want to kill them than want to kill you or me. For this reason, slow movements and telling police what you are doing or reaching for are appreciated by cops and show that you are a sane and cooperative person. Doing anything with a realistic toy gun in your hand might work against this impression.

 

Sorry to hear about your paintball incident. Sounds like it was bad.

[builder206]

do you favor the push by Congressman Crapo (R-Idaho)?

 

No. I give the greatest weight to the Park Service argument that it will lead to more poaching and other wasting of animals. Hunting is prohibited in National Parks, and there are much better ways to avoid bear problems than being macho man with a .44 on your hip.

[lancegranite]

Brandishing any weapon/ sim weapon pubicly or in the presence of a LEO is a very serious mistake. Your local law enforcement officer deals with all kinds of crazy shit 9-5 every day, identifing and managing potential threats to his very life.

They constantly have to think about the one thing that strikes every cop cold: getting supprised with deadly force.

Many of them know of a fellow cop who got supprised, shot or killed by some guy with a gun. All vow not to let that happen to them.

 

Responding to a brandishing call means serious business.

What would you do if someone flashed a gun at you?

 

Ten and two, hands stay on the wheel, carry your wallet and proof of insurance in the visor.

 

 

[archenemy]

Tennessee lawmakers are considering a proposal by state Rep. John Deberry to make it a misdemeanor to intentionally display or expose "an imitation firearm in a public place in a threatening manner." Exceptions include justifiable self-defense, lawful hunting, and displays such as a museum collection.

 

I saw that someone quoted the first part of this; but cut off the second part. I'm just curious about these exceptions--how does someone lawfully hunt with a plastic play toy gun?