Shooting incidents in the news.

[BLR]

Young teen killed for "carrying a toy gun and not following instructions" is a loaded phrase.


The writer can, by choice and order of words, influence the mood and opinions of the reader.

"13 yr old shot by deputies..he was carrying a toy gun and not following instructions"
"Deputies forced to shoot man who refused to drop 'assault rifle' when challenged"

Both tell the same story, no?

Nope. Not even close. 13yr old boys are not men. Hell, I've have been described as totally juvenile. The second is not even close - no "man" and no "assault rifle."

However loaded as it may be, Young teen killed for "carrying a toy gun and not following instructions" .
is accurate. That doesn't indict the police, nor does it fully describe the situation. But it is factual and accurate to the extent that it describes the situation.

But it leaves out most of the pertinent details.

[BaiHu]

Both tell the same story, no?

You'll be my official editor from now on. If you'll notice in my profile, nowhere do I mention wordsmith or master of my own thoughts to pixels

I'm just a copy/past junky of newsbitz that intrigue me and sometimes I'm guilty of unintentional click baiting (despite the fact that I don't get paid for it), but I think you ascribe too much 'design' into my title manufacturing business.

As for the movement of the toy gun in the kids hands, I'm guessing that played a major factor, but w/o the video or more tidbits from the deputies, we're SOL.

[Tamara]

You'll be my official editor from now on. If you'll notice in my profile, nowhere do I mention wordsmith or master of my own thoughts to pixels

I'm just a copy/past junky of newsbitz that intrigue me and sometimes I'm guilty of unintentional click baiting (despite the fact that I don't get paid for it), but I think you ascribe too much 'design' into my title manufacturing business.

Not trying to impugn you, dude, just telling you how that choice of words comes across. I have no idea whether it was intentional or not.

Notice how the p-f.com jury, based on the evidence in your title, is voting on the case.

[BaiHu]

Not trying to impugn you, dude, just telling you how that choice of words comes across. I have no idea whether it was intentional or not.

Notice how the p-f.com jury, based on the evidence in your title, is voting on the case.

This thread just got way too serious about how it was posted than the information in said post is all and I'm just trying to whistle past this graveyard unnoticed, but apparently it sounded more like this:

[Shellback]

However loaded as it may be, Young teen killed for "carrying a toy gun and not following instructions" .
is accurate. That doesn't indict the police, nor does it fully describe the situation. But it is factual and accurate to the extent that it describes the situation.

But it leaves out most of the pertinent details.

I'm not intentionally trying to stir the pot but you're making assumptions about the material presented in an online news article and stating that the material is factual, when in fact, it may not be. I think a lot of us are guilty, myself included, of using news reports when they support our position and condemning them as inaccurate when it doesn't. We all know the media gets it wrong all the time.That's why I stated earlier I'd like to see video/audio if it were in fact available before passing judgement either way.

For all anyone knows, other than the police present and the deceased, they may never have issued any warning, got scared seeing a "rifle", and put rounds on COM. Or, they may told him 15 times to put the "gun" down and he may have shouldered it and pointed it at them; which, in that case, burn him down. The assumption is that the kid wasn't "following instructions". Again, not attacking you, but no facts have been presented.

[Tamara]

Excellent point. Although I tend to assume a certain amount of wind drift from the left in most media articles.

Or, they may told him 15 times to put the "gun" down and he may have shouldered it and pointed it at them; which, in that case, burn him down.

FWIW, I'm not sure I need to wait for someone to point the gun at me before I shoot. I think a reasonable, articulable fear that they are about to do so is what's required for me, but I'm not the police.

[BLR]

I'm not intentionally trying to stir the pot but you're making assumptions about the material presented in an online news article and stating that the material is factual, when in fact, it may not be. I think a lot of us are guilty, myself included, of using news reports when they support our position and condemning them as inaccurate when it doesn't. We all know the media gets it wrong all the time.That's why I stated earlier I'd like to see video/audio if it were in fact available before passing judgement either way.

For all anyone knows, other than the police present and the deceased, they may never have issued any warning, got scared seeing a "rifle", and put rounds on COM. Or, they may told him 15 times to put the "gun" down and he may have shouldered it and pointed it at them; which, in that case, burn him down. The assumption is that the kid wasn't "following instructions". Again, not attacking you, but no facts have been presented.

I was working in the microcosm of the descriptor in question, not the factual accuracy of the tragedy. I made the assumptions that he was 13 years old, and was killed by the police. No more than that.

[Shellback]

FWIW, I'm not sure I need to wait for someone to point the gun at me before I shoot. I think a reasonable, articulable fear that they are about to do so is what's required for me, but I'm not the police.

How about evidence of hostile action or hostile intent? I think he was maybe gonna point it at me isn't justification in my eyes.

[Dagga Boy]

This is a serious issue. Several years ago I was sent with a young officer to a "Fight with several gang members with guns". I arrived to find 5-6 black male teens wearing "hip hop hoodlum fashion" clothing all armed and running around cars with modern semi auto pistols. I could tell that they were Airsoft, BUT, I was a little more informed about this stuff being I worked with the Japanese guys who do the Japanese airsoft magazines. They were crappy about directions, and when my young back up arrived, if I hadn't yelled to him not to shoot the idiots, he told me later that he had made a shoot decision on them. Once settled down, I was lucky that their parents were stand up folks, had no idea that their idiots had the guns, and did not appreciate their kids pulling the "thug" b.s. with us and acting like idiots because "the guns weren't real". One kids dad looked at the Beretta 92 look alike his kid had, and thanked me, because he said he would have shot his kid based on how he was dressed and the realism of the airsoft pistol.

A couple years later, one of my trainees shot a teen with his patrol rifle on a very similar type of call and was fully cleared. From first hand experience, many teens are acting like complete asses when "armed" with their airsoft guns. This also includes with police officers who encounter them.

[Tamara]

How about evidence of hostile action or hostile intent? I think he was maybe gonna point it at me isn't justification in my eyes.

I could swear I said "reasonable, articulable fear".

So, anyhow, hypothetically speaking:
Person "A" says "Drop the AK!"
Person "B" does not do so.
Now what?

Say Person "A" is you on your front lawn. Person "B" is some dude you don't know on your front lawn with what appears to be an AK. You tell him to drop the gun. He doesn't. Now what do you do?