patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,260,870 comments by 15,055 users - FarmersWon, Onvacation, Robert Sproul online now
Boy with toy gun shot and killed by Calif. deputies
invite response
2013 Oct 23, 1:21pm 29,779 views 91 comments
« First « Previous Comments 88 - 91 of 91 Search these comments
Homeboy
2013 Oct 31, 11:11am
You seem to be missing my point.
I don't believe that I am.
Radio in
2 seconds, Get out of car
1.5 seconds, Draw gun
3 seconds, Shout commands
??? seconds, Await response ?
Even considering that you pulled these numbers out of your ass, that leaves 3.5 seconds for the suspect to turn around and point the gun at them. Had it been real gun, you could have a dead cop. If 3.5 seconds is long enough for the cop to shoot the suspect, it is ALSO enough time for the suspect to shoot the cop. So AGAIN, if you believe the police must count to ten, or count to ANY number before shooting, I don't think that makes a lot of sense. What you seem to be saying is that the cop deliberately murdered the suspect even though he didn't believe his life was in danger. What's the motive?
Only senior officer fires, rookie does nothing. Let's say 4 seconds firing time.
Well that's a separate issue. Yes, the fact that only one officer fired, and fired 7 shots, is worthy of investigation. But the timeline alone is not proof of melfeasance.
Vicente
2013 Oct 31, 1:13pm
Even considering that you pulled these numbers out of your ass, that leaves 3.5 seconds for the suspect to turn around and point the gun at them.
I didn't pull the number out of my ass, they are reasonable guesses. Once upon a time I designed practical pistol courses, so I have more than a passing acquaintance of how long various events in pistol handling take.
Bullet wounds were on the side, so doesn't appear he even completed turning.
He put 7 of 8 rounds on the kid, so he wasn't doing "spray and pray". So I would expect 3+ seconds for that which you didn't account for. Let's say 2.5 seconds to complete firing 8 aimed rounds, so back up that 10 seconds by that amount. Which leaves little time for someone to understand what is going on and react reasonably.
2+1.5+3+x+2.5=10, leaves x as 1 second.
Let me give you a simple example, quick draws. Everyone thinks they can be FAST and react immediately if they train. The fact is simply that from the moment you hear a beep even on a calm range situation, the time delays to even perceive that beep and start initiating muscle movement are significant. A really good response is ~1.5 seconds. A *really* good response time would be just under a second. That's someone who practices a LOT and has turned it into nearly muscle response very little cognition.
13-year old kids are spastic to start with. Expecting one to understand what is going on with a shout from behind and absolutely no time to take it in... well that apparently ends in death when Sgt. Farva is on the other end of the gun.
The training of police these days is IMO to shoot first and ask questions later. The citizen response ordinarily seems to be if a kid ends up dead well they must have been asking for it, so why change anything. You have a bunch of twitchy veterans and SWAT guys roaming the streets and they train to come into a room and kill everything that might "look like a bad guy", which is not good training IMO. Police death rates of ANY type on the job are not in the top 10, it is not as dangerous a job as they would have you think. Dangerous job? Fisherman!
Police death rates of ANY type on the job are not in the top 10, it is not as dangerous a job as they would have you think.
Yet Officer Friendly is always ready to escalate the violence in the name of "officer safety".
This is how they recruit the right testosterone poisoned authoritarians for the job:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/w_rKA6ROAVk
Homeboy
2013 Oct 31, 5:18pm
I didn't pull the number out of my ass, they are reasonable guesses. Once upon a time I designed practical pistol courses, so I have more than a passing acquaintance of how long various events in pistol handling take.
Oh, I didn't realize you "designed practical pistol courses". Well then, I guess everything you say must be gospel. LOL. If I had a nickel for everyone on the internet who imagined himself to be an "expert" on a subject, I would be a millionaire.
Bullet wounds were on the side, so doesn't appear he even completed turning.
Well then that would be important evidence to consider. However, you didn't mention that before. You only argued that the shooting "took place too fast", and that is what I took issue with. So don't confuse the issue.
Which leaves little time for someone to understand what is going on and react reasonably.
The issue is not whether the suspect "had time to react reasonably"; the issue is whether the officer believed his life was in danger. As I said, it takes but a second to fire a gun. It does not require an extended amount of time or contemplation. So to expect police to always wait for some "reasonable action" from a suspect who is pointing a gun at them rather misses the point. They could be dead in the time it takes them to contemplate. If the shooting was unjustified, so be it. But the mere fact that it happened "fast" does not prove that.
It's interesting that you take ONE part of the USA Today article completely to heart - the part about the 10 seconds, even though you don't really know the sequence of events. Did he get out of the car and draw his gun at the same time? Does that really need to be two separately timed events? Was the second call made AS the shooting was taking place? Does it really take 3 seconds to fire seven shots? No, it could be done faster than that. I think you make a LOT of assumptions, based on taking this vague "timeline" to heart, but then completely ignore the sentence in the article which says,
Witnesses say at least one of the deputies took cover behind an open front door of the cruiser, and one yelled twice "drop the gun."
Notice that is says WITNESSES say "drop the gun" was yelled twice. Not the cops, the witnesses. So why is ONE part of the article gospel to you, yet another part seems to be beneath your notice?
13-year old kids are spastic to start with. Expecting one to understand what is going on with a shout from behind and absolutely no time to take it in... well that apparently ends in death when Sgt. Farva is on the other end of the gun.
It's a tragedy, but was it malicious? I think you're making a lot of assumptions that haven't been proven yet.
« First « Previous Comments 88 - 91 of 91 Search these comments
Northern 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 replica assault rifle, sheriff's officials and family members said.
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/calif-sheriffs-deputies-shoot-kill-13-year-old
#crime