So in your little anti-police world, would your preferred outcome have been that the kid was a gang member with a real AK-47, and he turned around and killed both of the cops? Would you prefer it if they held their fire until the bullets started flying at them? What is your solution to the situation of a teenager turning and pointing a realistic looking weapon in your direction right in the middle of gang-banger-land? Drop your duty weapon and plead for your life? Try putting your brain in gear prior to engaging your keyboard.
Objections to excessive force is not the equivalent to hating cops.
Would you prefer it if they held their fire until the bullets started flying at them?
* * *
Most people are crappy shots, especially if they’re moving (as in, turning around, as this boy was). I think they could have waited at least until there was a clear indicator he meant to shoot. All he actually did was (a) carry a long gun that appeared to be real, and (b) turn around, which is what most people do when you yell at them, to find out why you’re yelling at them.
With his back to the cops how did the cops know he had a weapon? Was it slung over his shoulder? The cops story is "he turned towards us with the barrel up"? How did they know, if the weapon was in front shielded by his body, that he had a dangerous weapon. If the ten seconds is true then they had even less time upon shouting at him and his turning. Maybe five seconds? Wow! Good judgment there.
What is your solution to the situation of a teenager turning and pointing a realistic looking weapon in your direction right in the middle of gang-banger-land?
They state the barrel was "up" not pointing at them. And, yes, I do expect the cops to wait till there is an imminent threat, like I am required by law, before shooting. Is there a less stringent definition of "imminent danger" for the cops?
I will post again my thoughts: "The blame for this is squarely on the anti gun movement. They have created an irrational, and in this case, deadly fear in minds of law enforcement. I am in no way excusing these two cops. They should go to jail for at least second degree murder. But, the true impetus behind this boy’s death are Sandy Hook anti gun nuts, Michael Bloomberg, the Brady campaign, etc.
Actually a lot of police in California do this implicitly. That's because the law allows them to presume a dangerous criminal intent by anyone who has a gun and doesn't follow police orders precisely as police training teaches the officer to expect. But you would expect that from a police state where the police are empowered by law to presume all sorts of awful things about you without needing more proof than the existence of a law. Gee, it is written in stone.
The exactly predictable consequence is the death of an innocent empowered by an exaggerated concern for police safety at the expense of public safety in the name of public safety. How ironic.
“So in your little anti-police world, would your preferred outcome have been that the kid was a gang member with a real AK-47, and he turned around and killed both of the cops? Would you prefer it if they held their fire until the bullets started flying at them? “
Apparently the police preferred to shoot the kid in the back and have people like you defend them for doing so.
You act like there is no correct middle ground, those cops apparently were overzealous, and shot before it was justified. I do not hate police, but I do not trust them, and it IS my last resort to call them always. They are more a tool of tyranny than public servants.