What do you guys think about this one?: California sheriff's deputies kill 13-year-old holding toy gun. "California sheriff's deputies have shot and killed a 13-year-old boy after repeatedly telling him to drop what turned out to be a toy gun. Two deputies saw the boy walking with what appeared to be a high-powered weapon, sheriff's Lt. Dennis O'Leary said. The replica gun resembled an AK-47, according to a photograph released by the sheriff's office. Deputies learned after the shooting that it wasn't an actual firearm, according to Mr O'Leary. Rodrigo Lopez identified the boy as his son, Andy, to a newspaper and said the teen was carrying a toy gun that belonged to a friend" So according to some "sources", witnesses said Andy (the teen that was shot) was walking down the street with the toy gun, which he was returning to his friend who lived down the street, the police came up behind him and were calling to him. He did not know they were calling out to him and when he turned around to look, police shot 8 times, 7 of those shots hitting him. Supposedly it all took 10 seconds from the time police saw him to when they shot and killed him. Now, opinions? I'll share mine. I can't choose a side because both were in the wrong. Andy for carrying a toy gun which didn't have the plastic orange tip which is required by law, and the police for taking action so quick on a kid. Now, I know him being a teen doesn't have that much of an effect since teens nowadays are so violent, but in my opinion, the cops shouldn't have opened fire. At least not 8 fucking shots. I mean, 1 or two NON LETHAL shots would have been enough to handle the situation, right? Or even rubber bullets. Those are enough to take a man down for a while and assess the situation. I think both are at fault, however the police kinda did act somewhat correct. With all the recent teens killing and shooting up places, they have to be on high alert. It says that Andy didn't aim the gun at them but the turning and facing them kinda set them off. Idk. They didn't give him enough time to even drop the weapon. Most cases you see on tv the guy is aiming at cops and they dont take him down then and there even with 20 cops in the area.. So what are your guys' views on this? Sorry this one's kinda long
But then again the right to bear arms comes into play... I forgot to mention that. Idk at what age it applies though....
Weather the gun had the orange tip or not shouldn't have mattered cuz if he didn't aim it at them when he turned around then he wasn't going to shoot so he should have been able to tell them it was a toy gun
Sent too early But the police shouldn't have just shot him so quickly. And if they had to shoot that quickly, they should've at least aimed at his hand or something. Not to KILL him. I feel like their reaction was way too extreme.
Wow what a tragic event? The boy, by the sounds of it, was no extreme threat and the police were completely in the wrong. Now if he had the 'weapon' up aiming and acting as a threat to their lives, things are different....but still...as someone pointed out, surely police are trained in how to disarm somebody without killing? Absolutely disgusting. His poor family.
You see a person walking down the road with an AK47, you shoot first and ask questions later. The police believed they had defused a possible catastrophe in the making. They have guidelines and I'm sure this action wasn't something they came up with on the fly. Also, the kid is a moron for carrying anything resembling a weapon (orange tip or not) down the street in plain sight.
Shoot to kill? That's disgusting. And sure the kid was completely brainless in walking down the street but that doesn't mean he deserved to die because of it. If that's how the police act, on impulse, then God help us all.
ok so when i see a police officer with a gun im shooting him no u cant coz that aint allowed so its the same the other way round
The police didn't just whip their guns out and lay waste to the kid. They had a legitimate reason to open fire. They called out and told him to disarm and when he didn't they had no choice but to fire. And personally, I'd feel much less safe if the police didn't shoot a person wielding a HIGH POWERED AUTOMATIC RIFLE with the intent to kill.
But it wasn't a actual gun was it. And from the sounds of it he wasn't 'wielding it around'. Police should know this and if the boy wasn't holding it as a threat to anyone's life....what was the need to gun him down? I just don't understand it. Why kill? Why not disarm or disable him instead? Same effect without the loss of a young boys life on your head.
They didn't know and the boy didn't respond to them. Can you please shut up and appreciate that we can have people that protect us? It's unfortunate that he wasn't a real danger but the police can't afford to walk up to someone carrying an assault rifle to check if it's real.
And if you think handguns are so easy to aim and shoot accurately, go find any soda can and a handgun. Set the soda can on a fence post and walk back 20 steps. Let us know how many rounds you go through before you hit the can. Aiming at someone's hand isn't practical when they're holding an assault rifle.
that's a damn shame cause officer's are trained to take down and not just straight kill ppl ...don't see how they couldn't tell it was fake gun i hope the family sue the pants of them fools, tho it won't bring the kid back