police shoot 12 year old

So, no one has seen the 1st part of the video @1.35 where he's walking backwards with the gun brandished at someone walking down the street?

I wonder who the other person was in the bandstand at the time before the shooting? They both seem to know one another.
 
Last edited:
mindcrime said:
Gramps, did you watch the first 3 parts of the video? He's no bored kid spending most of his time on a park bench. He's walking around the street pointing the gun at people walking by? Even when he's in the bandstand, he points the gun towards someone in the distance.
Click to expand...

A couple of times yes, well before the police arrived, I've seen kids over here do the same with toy guns.
I wonder if a UK response car would have drawn up right beside him like that, sort of weird thing to do ... I don't know how long they were watching him beforehand or if they even were ... seemed to me there was no one else present to 'protect'.
Could he have been offering up the gun?
If they had challenged him from a distance would his intentions been more evident?
Feel it would have been handled totally differently here.
 
mindcrime said:
So, no one has seen the 1st part of the video @1.35 where he's walking backwards with the gun brandished at someone walking down the street?
Click to expand...
As I noted in my previous post ;)

gramps said:
I wonder if a UK response car would have drawn up right beside him like that, sort of weird thing to do ... .
Click to expand...
I must admit that I did find that slightly strange too.
And would have thought challenging him from a distance may have been "safer"
if that was a real and loaded gun.
But maybe that's what they do in real life over there? dunno.
 
I'm having difficulty in helping some to see the difference in a witness offering a description including skin colour and a police officer asking that as a first question ... I'm beginning to lose the will to continue trying.
Click to expand...

I wish you would lose the will, because all you are doing is talking tedious rubbish. Its a standard question, not as you initially tried to make it out to be, some part of a decision making process that led to his death!

Anyway, moving on. Fake gun, I assume you've read the transcript of the conversation with the call taker? I think you'll find the informant said something along the lines of he thought it was a fake, but wasn't sure.

Also, that bit of information wasn't passed onto the officers who attended, was that right? No, obviously not, but it was what it was. So in reality what you have here, is a call to someone who's waving a gun about. What the opinion was in the minds of the officers when they turned up we don't know, but thats what matters in deciding if they were right or wrong, not your misguided thoughts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Ok Bernie you're in your own little world which isn't my world, lets agree to disagree and ignore one another :)
 
viv1969 said:
The current rioting isn't directly related to the shooting of the child who is the subject of this thread.
Click to expand...

....True. It's just an excuse which anarchists are using to riot and loot and a shield they are hiding behind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
RedRobin said:
....True. It's just an excuse which anarchists are using to riot and loot and a shield they are hiding behind.
Click to expand...

No.
The reason is a different incident.
Separate the two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
No Gramps, clearly unlike you, I was a proper Police Officer. I'll mention to Hants Police then shall I, Gramps is a little peed off you used the expressions Black and white when you asked me about the chap breaking into the car outside my house a couple of weeks ago. It's clearly unprofessional, wrong racist and lots of other things.
Alternatively Gramps, it could be you made an idiot of yourself by not considering that it was simply Police trying to get information quickly, like they do everywhere else apart from your world, and tried to make it into something it clearly isn't.

Garry, we've established your knowledge of policing is zero. It's not been used since the 1970's, it was replaced with IC a very long time ago, and yes that is still used. Along with very simple questions to get the description of a suspect quickly, what sex? what colour black/white/asian/chinese (last 2 not really needed with crime in my part of Lambeth!)?, about how old? wearing what? carrying what? etc. They are intended to get what the Police officer needs fast, especially with something like male with a firearm, where its urgent.

What no one has the time to do in those circumstances is listen to someone struggle to get over what they think police need. It often isn't, and certainly isn't in the first instance.
Click to expand...
RC3/IC3, a tiny change that makes no more difference than RTA/RTC, still racist, still perjorative
 
Garry Edwards said:
RC3/IC3, a tiny change that makes no more difference than RTA/RTC, still racist, still perjorative
Click to expand...

how is shorthand for race racist or perjorative - I don't feel discriminated against by a coloured cop using the term IC1 rather than white ? - its just shorthand , as race is an important identifying charecteristic if you are describing a perpetrator
 
Wow that video shows a kid with a gun to me.
 
Why don`t we wait for all the evidence to be produced, consider that and make an assumption from what the courts actually release to us. Then we, the "always right" public can make a decision.

Roger, Bernie,Gary, the constant bitching at each other is infantile. I kinda like all three of you, but you are not doing yourselves any favours in these sort of threads.
 
....True. It's just an excuse which anarchists are using to riot and loot and a shield they are hiding behind.
Click to expand...

Viv's right the 2 things are separate. As are those who peacefully protesting in Ferguson to those who are rioting.

The big issue here is that, no matter what there are some with an agenda who'll leap on an incident for their purposes, and use it as an excuse. Just like they do here, the Duggan incident is a good example.

The US and UK are both now looking at using body cams, so hopefully that will put an end to the use of police shootings as an excuse for a shopping and burning trip.
 
Bernie174 said:
Viv's right the 2 things are separate. As are those who peacefully protesting in Ferguson to those who are rioting.

The big issue here is that, no matter what there are some with an agenda who'll leap on an incident for their purposes, and use it as an excuse. Just like they do here, the Duggan incident is a good example.

The US and UK are both now looking at using body cams, so hopefully that will put an end to the use of police shootings as an excuse for a shopping and burning trip.
Click to expand...

I am sad to sat that they will always find an excuse - look at the last student demo - hijacked by the thugs
 
I am sad to sat that they will always find an excuse - look at the last student demo - hijacked by the thugs
Click to expand...

This is true, but to prevent disorder, it's best to remove the cause.

We can't remove the prospect of people being killed by Police officers. It will always happen. When it does there are always going to be those that will default to "It was the Police's fault, and they are lying if they say otherwise".

We then get, as we did in Ferguson, those who trot out statements they can't support, the suspect had his hands up when shot being the one there. Now the physical evidence doesn't support that, nor do a lot of other witnesses, which is why the authorities released the evidence put the the Grand Jury. Not that it will make any difference, the family only want the Officer convicted, they don't care that there's no evidence to support that, and a large number of others want a new TV for xmas.

We had the same thing here when Duggan was shot, various stories went round, he was 'executed', he didn't have a gun etc. The writing was on the wall for what followed, but weak leadership in the Met meant it escalated to silly proportions, 99% of those involved didn't give a toss about Duggan, they just wanted to go shopping.

In theory, it should have been the same in Cleveland, although the US press seem to have seen sense over the the question of colour, Gramps concludes because a question was asked he doesn't like, it must be a black thing, not the more likely, it's because he has a gun thing. But if a reasonably bright chap like him can come to a conclusion, no matter how unreasonable that is, then it's no great surprise that the less well educated locals do the same thing. But what is interesting is, in Cleveland it hasn't been followed by disorder, yet. Would this be because there's more to it in terms of what witnesses saw? No one seems to be screaming Police wrongdoing, well, not in Cleveland.

Obviously whats happened has happened and nothing will change that, but going forward, body cams will instantly remove a lot of the instant screams of police wrong doing. Afterall, if you know you are going to be shown to be stirring up hatred on everyones TV, making the allegations is only going to make you look like a dick.
 
fracster said:
Roger, ... , the constant bitching at each other is infantile. I kinda like all three of you, but you are not doing yourselves any favours in these sort of threads.
Click to expand...

You are right Ade and I apologise.
I have taken steps to ensure that there is no further interaction.
 
gramps said:
I'm having difficulty in helping some to see the difference in a witness offering a description including skin colour and a police officer asking that as a first question ... I'm beginning to lose the will to continue trying. :)
Click to expand...


I have to say I see no problem with the question as stated. I'd only expect people to take issue if it was weighted towards either option.
 
Bernie174 said:
This is true, but to prevent disorder, it's best to remove the cause.

We can't remove the prospect of people being killed by Police officers. It will always happen. When it does there are always going to be those that will default to "It was the Police's fault, and they are lying if they say otherwise".

We then get, as we did in Ferguson, those who trot out statements they can't support, the suspect had his hands up when shot being the one there. Now the physical evidence doesn't support that, nor do a lot of other witnesses, which is why the authorities released the evidence put the the Grand Jury. Not that it will make any difference, the family only want the Officer convicted, they don't care that there's no evidence to support that, and a large number of others want a new TV for xmas.

We had the same thing here when Duggan was shot, various stories went round, he was 'executed', he didn't have a gun etc. The writing was on the wall for what followed, but weak leadership in the Met meant it escalated to silly proportions, 99% of those involved didn't give a toss about Duggan, they just wanted to go shopping.

In theory, it should have been the same in Cleveland, although the US press seem to have seen sense over the the question of colour, Gramps concludes because a question was asked he doesn't like, it must be a black thing, not the more likely, it's because he has a gun thing. But if a reasonably bright chap like him can come to a conclusion, no matter how unreasonable that is, then it's no great surprise that the less well educated locals do the same thing. But what is interesting is, in Cleveland it hasn't been followed by disorder, yet. Would this be because there's more to it in terms of what witnesses saw? No one seems to be screaming Police wrongdoing, well, not in Cleveland.

Obviously whats happened has happened and nothing will change that, but going forward, body cams will instantly remove a lot of the instant screams of police wrong doing. Afterall, if you know you are going to be shown to be stirring up hatred on everyones TV, making the allegations is only going to make you look like a d***.
Click to expand...
I agree with just everything you say (in this post) but consider this:

Throughout history, the have-nots have always been manipulated, lied to and kept in their place by those that have.
In its simplest form, this has always been the rich exploiting the poor, and those who have power exploiting and suppressing the powerless, e.g. the government keeping the peasants in their place.
And the police are an arm of government.
Things have changed a lot in my own lifetime, the police for example have undoubtably changed out of all recognition, but the fact remains that historically the police have been corrupt, racist and sexist and a lot of the public have good reason to know that, to their cost. I think that nothing started to be done about sexism until the Sex Discrimination Act came in and forced the issue, nothing was done about racism until after the Lawrence enquiry, and nothing was done about corruption until Robert Mark became Metpol Commissioner - and all this is well within the memory, if not of the people who take part in riots, at least of the parents who have influenced their attitudes.

And don't forget the police violence - the miners strikes, the notorious Special Patrol Group (think Blair Peach) and the cover ups that followed.

Changes take time to become complete within organisations, and it takes just as long for the public to learn to trust those organisations too.
 
I think you need to replace "The Police were" with some Police might have been.

There's a difference between an impression given and the reality.

My service started at the end of the 70's, and no, there wasn't any corruption in the Uniform Branch. The odd CID officer may have been, but I never saw any of that. I also remember the allegations of racism for example, which was a little hard to reconcile with for example the Deptford fire, where along with a lot of other Police officers, some off duty were giving first aid to the victims who were all black, many of who lived because of our efforts. Although the one I worked on died. I kind of resented, and do resent the stupid comments like yours on the subject of race as a result.

I also remember the Brixton Riots, which started off, with 2 Police Officers saving a DJ's life by putting him in a police car and taking him to hospital, rather than waiting for an Ambulance and him bleeding to death. That being the incident that sparked the riots, but a great example of people seeing one part, and assuming, wrongly the rest!

Of course, you'd not know that, nor that a large proportion of the people in Brixton wanted Swamp 81, the SPG operation that at the time was going on, and had reduced street crime from horrendous proportions, to almost zero. Of course there were locals who didn't want it, it was their living that was being disrupted!

Did the SPG cover anything up over Blair Peach? No, I know a few ex SPG who were there. Yes, their method of policing was zero tolerance, but corrupt they were not.

So, for all the bad stories, there were good, but like everything, people remember the bad, and like you, assume that everything was sexist, racist and corrupt. It wasn't.

Also on the plus side, we got things done, crime was far lower, there were Police on the Streets, people did get a Policeman come round and at least make the right noises at Burglaries. It was explained (to link up with another recently discussed topic) why we were not going to fingerprint their car when they'd had their Harry Moss Stereo stolen, we at least knocked on a few doors, and got a "I saw nofink".

Compare that with the politically correct, and politically guided policing of today, is it any better? No.
 
perhaps those who feel that the police are corrupt, racist and sexist should go somewhere where the police are all those things (aghanistan may be) or may be somewhere where the rule of law isnt enforced at all, and see if they like that better

imo the police have a difficult nasty job to do protecting society from its worse elements - they arent the stasi holding down the workers with an iron fist

and while not forgetting police violence during the miners strike, lets also not forget the (potentially russian sponsored) trouble makers provocation of much of the trouble, flying pickets and such if you go looking for a fight you can't be suprised when you find one.
 
I'm not suggesting that our police are the worst in the world, very far from it. What I am suggesting is that some people may be too ready to believe that the police have acted wrongly based on the past actions of the police.

I won't comment publicly on Bernie's post, but will send him a PM with details that I can't put in a forum post.
 
big soft moose said:
perhaps those who feel that the police are corrupt, racist and sexist should go somewhere where the police are all those things (aghanistan may be) or may be somewhere where the rule of law isnt enforced at all, and see if they like that better
Click to expand...

Try SA, their police farce tick all of these boxes, and offer mind boggling incompetence as well!
 
Garry Edwards said:
And don't forget the police violence - the miners strikes, the notorious Special Patrol Group (think Blair Peach) and the cover ups that followed.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how the miners strike shows police violence? My dad was in Merseyside police for 30 years until 1995 and spent time covering the miners strike and what I remember most is him coming home looking battered. At one point, one of the many supposedly peaceful strikers attempted to stab him in the stomach but she luckily managed to hit his belt buckle. Of course, it's only the Police who are stated as being violent.

He also spent most of the Toxteth Riots attempting to protect those who weren't being stupid by burning their own houses. The underlying plan for the police was to circle the riots to ensure those causing fire and damage couldn't cause the same vandalism outside of their estates. Again, the police are painted as being the violent ones.

The police really can't win whatever they do.

Cheers
Steve
 
Also, in regards to the OP. Having watched the video, regardless of his age the kid was pacing around pointing what appears to be a handgun at various objects/people. When the police arrived, he appeared to go for the gun so understandably the police reacted.

Until people start to take responsibility for their own actions these kind of follow up complaints/blame culture will continue. The kid was walking round with a handgun and was dealt with by the police according to their training. His parents should be the ones taking the blame, not the police who are expected to deal with him instead.
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
Also, in regards to the OP. Having watched the video, regardless of his age the kid was pacing around pointing what appears to be a handgun at various objects/people. When the police arrived, he appeared to go for the gun so understandably the police reacted.

Until people start to take responsibility for their own actions these kind of follow up complaints/blame culture will continue. The kid was walking round with a handgun and was dealt with by the police according to their training. His parents should be the ones taking the blame, not the police who are expects to deal with him instead.
Click to expand...

Good post, I fully agree other than this. Whilst they bought him a toy gun, they cannot be, and shouldn't be accoutable for this. IMHO this is a blameless thing, other than with the child. 12yrs old is sufficient to understand the police, and what pointing a gun at folk will make them think and do.

When someone dies, blame doesn't need apportioned in all cases, this inho is one of them
 
I do believe the parents should take responsibility or at least the blame that's being apportioned to the Police. I have two children myself and whatever they do in their lifetime, I still have a responsibility as their parent. My kids are only 7/4 but I don't see that changing as they get older.
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
I do believe the parents should take responsibility or the blame that's being apportioned to the Police. I have two children myself and whatever they do in their lifetime, I still have a responsibility as their parent. My kids are only 7/4 but I don't see that changing as they get older.
Click to expand...

Whilst I respect that view, children are sentient beings capable of independent thought. Whilst you have a massive bearing on those thoughts, I cannot fathom a 12yr old not to understand the reactions of the police and public to such behaviour which would cause alarm.
 
Although not related to this thread, I feel the same about the current riots in Ferguson. I think it's been pretty clearly shown that the 'kid' who got shot had previously been a thug and stolen cigars (nobody's making a fuss about how he terrorised the shopkeeper). The judicial process have seen all of the evidence and not just the usual Facebook comments and decided that the policeman acted in self defence. If the 'kids' parents took some responsibility for their son being a thug regardless of his race, there might not be the same rioting and violence.

Seeing his parents doing the rounds of talk shows blaming everyone but themselves is hard to take.

I was born and brought up in Norris Green in Liverpool (as seen on the Ross Kemp program) so saw my fair share of parents blaming the police for 'terrorising' their poor innocent child who was "just minding their own business burgling those houses". At the end of the day, some people accept the laws of their country and others are just sh**s who will always blame someone else for their own actions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
neil_g said:
wow this went downhill since page 1, even st4 is making more sense in here than gramps.

*goes for a lay down*
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your view.
I assume that you believe the police in this case could make a considered judgment by drawing up alongside the kid and blasting him out of the window ... obviously they would immediately be able to tell if he was autistic, deaf, otherwise challenged?
I cannot believe the number of people here who can see a young bored kid get shot and think "so what", "he deserved it" ... "parents fault" ... I hope none of you have a young child/grandchild who ever makes a bad decision in life and gets shot for it!
Anyway I'm out, I'll leave it to all you gung-ho types.
 
I didn't say he deserved it, I said he's a person (the policeman actually stated that he looked around 20 on the audio shared) who was brandishing a handgun on the street and the police were called.

Surely the priority for the police is to protect everyone else around, not the person who is holding the gun? The fact he appeared to go to draw the gun after being asked to put his hands up means he made his own decision.

If you came across someone in your town doing the same would your first thought be to give him a cuddle or do your job? Again, people of all ages should accept their own decisions, as should their parents in the case of minors.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
donut said:
because getting shot by someone with autism , or a deaf person , or someone who is otherwise challanged dosent kill does it
Click to expand...

Or it's ok for 12yr olds to shoot people because they're young the police should take the bullets rather than the 12yr old.

Aye...okay. Police thought he had a gun. He didn't respond. Brandishing it in public presents a real risk. They had to do it
 
And I think the last few views are the crux of the matter, and why there's not be the rioting we have seen in other cases of Police Shootings even though the consequences of this one maybe worse due to the age of the person killed.

It's all very well doing the outrage by proxy thing, but it's not based on the facts. This isn't suburban middle class England, and it isn't a 3 foot skinny kid with a cowboy hat on. The commentary from the Police officers gave their estimate of age, wrong it may be, but a truthful assessment it most likely is. Again that lays to rest the angelic school boy image some seem to want to base their assessment on.

However with all these things, people are swift to leap to conclusions, without evidence, and equally quick to lay blame where it does not seem to apply using irrelevant factors.

Thats the curse of the internet, you can safely make these comments in front of a screen, in the certain knowledge you'll never had to make that decision, and safe from the consequences one way or another of having to do so.
 
Bernie174 said:
However with all these things, people are swift to leap to conclusions, without evidence, and equally quick to lay blame where it does not seem to apply using irrelevant factors.

Thats the curse of the internet, you can safely make these comments in front of a screen, in the certain knowledge you'll never had to make that decision, and safe from the consequences one way or another of having to do so.
Click to expand...

....Too many people are far too quick to leap to these conclusions, as you say, but these same people do so without any help from the internet. They literally are prejudiced - They make judgements before knowledge of, and even in spite of, the facts.

Quite frankly I think that many people are plain stupid and are incapable of being truthfully objective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
The difference these days bernie is the easy recording and distributing of media.
Back in the miners strike you only had a few photographers and TV crews, plus reporters, same for the wapping printing dispute.

Move forward to say the g20 protests and you've video of officers with no identification, a man dead after a violent interaction with an officer, another officer assaulting a protester with a baton and the infamous backhander slap. Lots of videos of kettling etc and the media (or control of the media) aren't now telling the story.

Now, is this the reason for the change in attitude to the police, the new forms of news available, or are there other factors. The criminalisation of a large proportion of the population through speeding charges perhaps, or the lack of resources to deal with petty crimes that actually are the ones that most people are exposed to.

What is interesting is that there is now a large proportion of the population that wouldn't instantly say they support the police, against say 30 years ago, when a significant number would have said they did.

Modern policing changes, the lack of the friendly bobby on the beat, response and performance driven policing and the changes in policing requirements. We get the police force we'll pay for, so it's watered down with civilian posts, pcso's and other non uniformed roles.

There's always bad apples (Derek smellie anyone?) but there are human too with all those human failings. Generally I still think we have the best police force, doing a difficult job with limited resources in a changing world.
 
There was plenty of TV coverage of both Wapping and the Miners Strike. I'm not sure they showed a very balanced view of either, having been at both. Today I thgink with the need to feed 24 hour TV News, I would hope that it would be more balanced.

It's interesting the perception that people wouldn't instantly say they support Police. My circle of friends and acquaintances would say that, and do often that they do support Police. No they don't like being hit with speeding fines, but they also know that my feeling is that if they can't see a big yellow box in a road marked with warnings of speed cameras they shouldn't be driving at, let alone above the limit!

Now, I'm sure that not every circle of friends isn't necessarily reflective of the population, mine included, so looking for something that supports, or debunks your theory, I found this

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116417/hosb1011.pdf

Try page 88, where it shows increasing confidence in Police, not declining. It doesn't go back 30 years, because annoyingly they changed the questions in 2004!

If you mean PS Smillie, please remember he was acquitted of assault, as was ex PC Harwood of manslaughter. In fact most police officers charged are acquitted. Now that should tell people that most are in fact innocent of the wrongdoing they are all too often accused of. But by the time it gets to the case getting chucked the damage is all to often done.

Oh sorry, I forgot, Bobbies walking beats. I honestly can't recall the last time I saw one of those, yet there are far more PC's than there were when I walked the streets. Its wrong, very wrong, but the blame isn't entirely with Police Officers for that. Some is granted, but not all.

FDor example cuts in other services mean that the only one left is often the Police, they are the catch all. So take mental health, they should be in the care of the NHS, they don't take very good care and they go on the trot. Police get involved and that requires manpower, often 2 PC's tied up for hours waiting for the NHS to take them back in. Or sitting there doing 24 hours watches on someone who because no one else will take them has to go to a place of safety and that has to be a police station.

Doing 'welfare' visits on people at risk, because the NHS wont. investigating rubbish, like "She called me a slag on faceache". the list goes on. But instead of complaining to Government, or the daft PCC's, people just moan, "Oh we never see a Police Officer anymore".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top