Posted on 05/03/2008 4:35:37 PM PDT by Redcitizen
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Concerns that realistic-looking toy weapons are confusing police and threatening safety have led 15 states to try going beyond gun control and cracking down on fake firearms.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
OK!! I give up. You win. =)
“Deberry said he wants to prevent incidents like one last year in which a 12-year-old boy was killed in West Memphis, Ark. DeAunta Farrow was shot by a police officer who said he thought the boy was carrying a gun and that the youngster refused to obey orders to halt. Investigators later said DeAunta had a toy gun.”
Almost happened to my kid. There at least needs to be an age limit.
Before passing new laws they should check the existing laws already on the books. In Canada, if you point a fake gun at somebody you can be charged with “pointing a firearm”, because in the eyes of the law if your intention is to make people believe you are armed then you are armed.
I can believe it. Back when I was doing security work, some joker asked me what I would do if he pulled a gun, then he reached into his jacket where he had a water pistol in the pocket. The moron then complained to the cops about me drawing my sidearm, and they none-too-politely informed him that he was lucky to be alive.
Banning toy guns is not enough.
We must ban rubber knives that look realistic as well.
Zero tolerance must be the rule.
Life terms for little kids playing cops and robbers with toy guns in the yard. Or cowboys and Indians.
Also, all kitchen knives must be banned. If it saves just one life....
So, we got to ban cars asap!
Did you speak with your child about what almost happened?
“There at least needs to be an age limit.”
There is an age limit, its called the parent telling the kid not to play with things like that. I don’t mean to point fingers but we don’t need any more govt involvement in this.
“Did you speak with your child about what almost happened?”
After the cop and his father. I took bigger chunks out of his butt than they did. He also lost all privileges of any kind for a month. He made the decision to confine his activities involving Air Soft guns to the back yard himself.
The point is, these toy guns are dangerous in more ways than one. And despite limits established by parents, things can happen.
That said, I’ve never forbidden my sons or my daughter for that matter from playing with toy guns. I did however make sure that they understood they were toys, suitable for make believe play, not something to run around waving as if they were the real thing.
And yes, for the doubters, the AirSoft guns do look real after dark. If they think they can tell the difference I’d be interested in hearing how.
theres a local airsoft place here in nm. Its customer base consists of alot of kids and some adults. I wouldn’t trust some of those kids with a .22 rifle.
I took some friendly fire to say the least. But it was good to play those airsoft games.
Dingbat liberal females will support the banning of toy guns by 99.9999%.
There are some things liberal females should not be allowed to do - No. 1 is raising kids. No. 2 is voting.
“Deberry said he wants to prevent incidents like one last year in which a 12-year-old boy was killed in West Memphis, Ark. DeAunta Farrow was shot by a police officer who said he thought the boy was carrying a gun and that the youngster refused to obey orders to halt. Investigators later said DeAunta had a toy gun.”
Gee...a kid...with a toy gun?
How about we dont go around shooting kids with toy guns....unless one actually takes a shot at you...
“I did however make sure that they understood they were toys, suitable for make believe play, not something to run around waving as if they were the real thing.”
How does one pretend to have a gun....and NOT run around waving it as though it was the real thing?
Isnt that what kids do?
I know we did...
Hell...we even used to yell “BANG”...
I dont recall one kid ever getting shot by a cop....
“Before passing new laws they should check the existing laws already on the books. In Canada, if you point a fake gun at somebody you can be charged with “pointing a firearm”, because in the eyes of the law if your intention is to make people believe you are armed then you are armed.”
Please dont use Canada as a reasonable example of anything...
“I dont recall one kid ever getting shot by a cop....”
Have you actually SEEN some of the “toy” guns available today?
And if so, could tell IN THE DARK whether they were real or not? Or even in the daylight. These aren’t cap pistols we’re talking about.
“”Have you actually SEEN some of the “toy” guns available today?””
Yes...I have also seen many of the real ones available...
“And if so, could tell IN THE DARK whether they were real or not? Or even in the daylight. These aren’t cap pistols we’re talking about.”
Well..Gee...I happen to carry a REAL gun around all the time...
Mere possesion of a weapon..or FAKE weapon...isnt acceptible grounds to shoot someone dead..
Neither is pulling out your wallet...*cough*
“Mere possesion of a weapon..or FAKE weapon...isnt acceptible grounds to shoot someone dead..”
If that person carrying that fake weapon points at you after you’ve told them to drop it, then what? Do you guess whether it’s real or not?
That’s the point.
Visiting my summer house in PA when I was a kid, my brother and I got yelled at by a cop for shooting at cars with waterguns that looked like fish.
DAMN...I had that all nice and spaced ...
Grrr...sometimes I hate this forum format....cant even edit it...
Sorry...my reply is almost un-readable...
It was all spaced nice too....Grrr...
LOL
“Mere possesion of a weapon..or FAKE weapon...isnt acceptible grounds to shoot someone dead..”
If that person carrying that fake weapon points at you after you’ve told them to drop it, then what? Do you guess whether it’s real or not?
That’s the point.
Ah..but even you make the distinction that the fake weapon be “pointed at you”
Here’s the money quote:
Hoover was off duty and called for police help. A 20-year-old man was charged with aggravated assault after police found a black plastic Uzi submachine gun under the car’s passenger seat, but he was acquitted because jurors felt the officer should have been able to tell it was only a toy.
If these people can ban “toy” guns as “dangerous”....how long till they try and go after “real” guns as “really dangerous”??
Here are some of the aticles standard liberal anti-gun crisis point which everyone seems to lap up willingly...
“...public safety demands they take action.”
“”It’s important that a child cannot walk into one of these little convenience stores, plop down a dollar and walk out with something that can get him shot on the spot without question,” Deberry said.””
A dollar??? to buy death?? need a little more hyberbole?
“”It only takes 30 seconds for a kid to either take a marker or some paint, or shoe polish, and that orange tip is gone,”
AH...so we find out now that FEDERAL LAW allready requires that Toy guns be marked clearly wityh an Orange ring on the barral tip...Interesting...
“”One of the imitation weapons I got at a convenience store looked very much like the assault weapons that the secret service and other FBI agents carry under their suits,” he said. “Another one was a handgun that had a silencer on it.”
Yes yes...except for the big orange tip....yes...looks just like it...BTW...the Toy Gun that DeAunta Farrow had?
According to an interview with investigators Sammis said, “When the ambulance crew rolled the subject completely over, I noticed the gun to have a small orange tip on the front of the barrel. I bent over approximately 2 feet from it, and finally observed it to be a toy gun. At that moment, I felt a knot in my stomach and throat that I have never felt before.”
Yeah...we call it the “oh shit “ moment when you realise you screwed up BIGTIME.
http://www.katv.com/news/stories/1107/474375.html
“The special prosecutors say there is not enough evidence to file any criminal charges. One of the main reasons why is they believe it was possible for a police officer to mistake a toy gun for the real thing.”
Get that?...they were considering charges on the cop...Yes he may have “thought” it was a real gun...but it wasnt ...
That may absolve him of the crime of manslaughter with a clear self defense plea..
But that is a FAR cry from making it acceptible to shoot someone simply for possesion of a toy gun...
Now I’m not about to jump on the “the racist cops are killing all the black children” bus...but a simple cursery read up on the Farrow case shows this wasnt “cut and dried” at all... There are some disprepencies in witness testimony and clearly some of it is tainted..
http://rwor.org/a/096/deaunta-farrow-en.html
“Sammis says he was on a stakeout when he and another officer confronted someone who appeared to be carrying a gun. When “the suspect” didn’t drop the weapon, Sammis said he feared for his life and opened fire. Only then, he says, did he realize that the “gun” was a toy gun and that he had just shot and killed a 12-year-old child.”
“When the suspect didnt drop the weapon”
Note this is not....
“When the suspect POINTED the weapon at me”
Now what was it you said again?
ah yes..”If that person carrying that fake weapon points at you “
Note this telling quote from Special prosecutor H.G. Foster “whether it was a snack or a toy gun in his hand, the officers followed protocol and didn’t commit a crime.”
Oh really?...damn...I might have to avoid the carry out then....I come out there with snacks in my hands all the time...AND a gun in my waist band holster...
A bit more on Sammis: As it turns out Sammis, who Police Chief Paudert says is “one of the best Special Response Team commanders I’ve ever seen in my career,” has a history of brutality. In his ten years on the force: Sammis once let his police dog maul a man so severely he required 75 stitches. Sammis used a taser on a man who was known as the town’s local and harmless eccentric. Sammis and some other cops broke into an elderly couple’s home that was erroneously targeted in a “meth” raid. The cops handcuffed an 80-year-old man on the floor. While moonlighting as a security guard, Sammis and some other officers attacked an entire family, macing the son, slugging the mother in the jaw and breaking the father’s wrist.
BTW...Sammis actions might cost the taxpayers 85 million bucks...He has since resigned..
Back to the thread topic:
“If police are called to the scene and don’t see those tips, then they open fire because it appears the person has a deadly weapon,” said Smith. “The officer doesn’t have too many choices.”
Yes...well...IMHO...any cop who will simply “open fire because it appears the person has a deadly weapon” might need to be schooled a bit eh?
That cop should KNOW that his life is in danger before shooting ANYONE...
Mere possesion of a weapon IS NOT grounds to summarily execute someone...
I thought we all learned that from RUBY RIDGE when JANET RENO CHANGED the rules of engagment to allow the sniper team to shoot at a cabin with children in it without being directly threatened by anyone...merely for being armed.....
“Sometime these people try to go into a store and try to rob it with a toy gun, and if the police come they may shoot thinking it’s a real gun,” Siplin said.
AND this is clearly ALLREADY crime....it’s called robbery...and you can be convicted even if you only had your finger in your pocket...or SHOT...
The leading U.S. opponent of gun control doesn’t think much of legislation that seeks to control fake guns.
National Rifle Association spokesman Ashley Varner said anti-toy gun legislation is “silly” because “it doesn’t deal with issues of crime.”
“It won’t eradicate the human element of the crime,” she said. “It doesn’t target getting criminals off the street.”
Excuse me for my agreement with the reasonable people...
This is simply more liberal hysteria about a non existant crisis that needs to be solved by banning something harmless in it’s intended use...
Using a toy Gun to commit a robery is ALLREADY a crime.
Using a toy gun to threaten or intimidate someone is allready a crime in many plces...and can get you shot.
Federal law allready requires that toy guns have a clealry maked orange barrel tip...
At the most...I could support deliberately disguising a toy gun a crime...
But make no mistake...I WOULD also shoot someone that “pointed it at me”....But I also know what a toy gun looks like...
and a 12 year old who most likely couldnt hit the broad side of a barn with an auto anyways...STILL isnt much of a threat.....even if the gun WAS real....
As a certified instructor I can tell you this....in most states....if you ever have to use deadly force on another person...you better KNOW your life was in clear and present danger before you pull that trigger...
Shoot a kid with a toy gun based on a supposition of a threat and you will most likely do time.
Unless you are a cop.
Ok, even after the spacing, you don’t make much sense.
The point is that these “toy” guns can cause all sorts of problems.
The thing the cop was maddest about in my son’s case is that if the boys hadn’t stopped immediately, he would had to make a split second decision as to what to do. He could have killed one of them. He couldn’t tell if what they were carrying was real or fake.
So, we’re still left with the conundrum of letting kids be kids and cops not killing a kid because the kid has a toy gun.
I keep my Ka-Bar on my bed in case somebody wants to attack me.
Yeah, I know, nothing near as good as a 12-gauge, but all I have at the moment.
Not guilty on both counts!
You seem to be missing the point...
Mere possesion of a REAL weapon is not legal grounds to shoot someone...period.
Therefore....mere possesion of a TOY gun isnt EITHER.
“The point is that these “toy” guns can cause all sorts of problems.”
With all due respect...ALL KINDS of things can cause ALL SORTS of problems for children...
That is a rather low threshold to ban things...dont you think?
Accidental, or unintentional, injury is the leading cause of death among children, teens, and young adults.
The five leading causes of accidental injury are burns, motor vehicle accidents, falls, poisonings, and drowning.
Burns and fires are the fourth most common causes of accidental death in children.
Nearly 75 percent of all burns in children are preventable.
More than 600 children die every year in fires, or from other burn injuries.
Toddlers and children are more often burned by a scalding or flames.
The majority of children ages 4 and under, who are hospitalized for burn-related injuries, suffer from scalds burns (65 percent) or contact burns (20 percent).
Hot tap water burns cause more deaths and hospitalizations than burns from any other hot liquids.
So...since many MORE children have been killed by HOT WATER than TOY GUNS....
Therefore....Shouldnt we ban hot water?
For the children?
I don’t own an Airsoft gun, but I’ve seen plenty in videos and they do indeed look dead-real.
You absolutely cannot tell this is fake from more than 10ft away:
http://www.redwolfairsoft.com/redwolf/airsoft/NewsDetail?newsID=822
Check the video out too. It even operates like an M4A1.
Blood, I don’t mean any offense, but it sounds like that could have occurred only 3 years ago. A cop yelling at you for water guns that looked like fish? Incredible
If I happen to be next to a cop in my local mall when shots ring out, and I’m carrying, I hope he/she doesn’t demand I drop the weapon, but would rather say “cover my six.” I can happily do that. I can’t stay idly by, hands behind my head, while innocent people are being killed, all because a cop has an adrenaline rush and decides to arrest me, a law-abiding firearm owner who is ready to watch that cop’s back while he/she goes to take care of the problem.
Do you realize how ignorant that statement is? Why do people get their reality from movies? Police Officers or Citizens defending themselves DO NOT have to wait for a bad guy to shoot at them before they fire back! In fact, waiting until the bad guy is shooting at you is extraordinarily stupid and likely to end up with you getting killed.
In fact, it is pretty stupid to wait for the bad guy to *point* the gun at you.
Deadly force is permitted to stop the use of the IMMINENT use of deadly force. That doesn't mean you have to wait until the bad guy is pointing a gun or shooting at you. Simply reaching for a gun is enough.
“If I happen to be next to a cop in my local mall when shots ring out, and I’m carrying, I hope he/she doesn’t demand I drop the weapon, but would rather say “cover my six.” I can happily do that. I can’t stay idly by, hands behind my head, while innocent people are being killed, all because a cop has an adrenaline rush and decides to arrest me, a law-abiding firearm owner who is ready to watch that cop’s back while he/she goes to take care of the problem.”
Well said...if you do a search..you’ll find several instances of that very thing...including armed citizens comming to the aid of downed officers.
First thing....If an officer sees your weapon and orders you to do anything...dont move....and the first words out of your mouth should be 4 small ones..
“I have a permit”
Then let him decide what to do...
I even hand my permit over with my drivers license when I have been pulled over...
It’s a non threatening way to show the officer you may be armed...
NEVER say..”I have a gun”..until he first knows you have a permit.
Yeah, I am sure that you can tell the difference between a real one and one of these in the hands of a suspect:
http://www.franklinpolice.com/toyguns.htm
Look, I am not in favor of banning realistic toy guns, but you are making incredibly stupid statements trying to defend the anti-ban position.
Yes, in the wrong hands these toys can cause someone to get shot. That alone isn't reason to ban them. Punish the people who misuse them.
“How about we dont go around shooting kids with toy guns....unless one actually takes a shot at you...”
Do you realize how ignorant that statement is?
“well officer...I thought the kid had a REAL gun...I didnt mean to kill him”
Do you know how ignorant THAT statment would be in court?
“Why do people get their reality from movies?”
I get my reality...from reality...thank you very much...
“Police Officers or Citizens defending themselves DO NOT have to wait for a bad guy to shoot at them before they fire back!”
I never said that...I was talking about KIDS at the time..
KIDS....with TOY GUNS...
” In fact, waiting until the bad guy is shooting at you is extraordinarily stupid and likely to end up with you getting killed.”
Again..I never stated anyone had to “wait for the bad guy to shoot”...I said that the threshold for the use of deadly force would be “pointed AT you”...or “at someone else”..
“In fact, it is pretty stupid to wait for the bad guy to *point* the gun at you.”
Please explain to me how how one can be shot by a weapon not pointed at one...
As a certified firearms Instructor...I cannot truthfully or “reasonably” claim to be threatened by a weapon not pointed at me..or at least in my general direction...
Maybe you can...
“Deadly force is permitted to stop the use of the IMMINENT use of deadly force.”
In most states...yes...But the mere possesion of a deadly weapon by someone is not in itself grounds to use deadly force.
” That doesn’t mean you have to wait until the bad guy is pointing a gun or shooting at you.”
No...It’s means that must must have a “reasonable” belief that you are in danger of being killed or bodily harmed...AND THAT THERE WAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.
“Simply reaching for a gun is enough.”
For a cop?...maybe...
For you and me?
Nope...it isnt.
But that is your choice....go right ahead and blow some KID’s head off...based on a supposition...
Better hope you are right.
Keep in mind in the farrow case...you are talking about a 12 year old child...who clearly only had a toy gun.
BTW...I dont believe that you should carry a firearm with such a low threshold of percieved “IMMINENT” danger....EVER...
Legal use of “deadly force” in most states is the act of LAST resort....not the act of first resort...
You CAN and will be held resposible if you are not within the limits of the law.
A quick example:
Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.
Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.
Get that?
“the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.”
In other words...there ARE types of assault that do NOT justify the use of deadly force..
If you are going to use deadly force..you better be not only sure of the “intent to harm you”...you better be sure the person had the “means” to carry it out...
A toy gun is not the means to carry out a violent assault.
Unless that person was in the commision of a “forcible felony”, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Good luck in court.
Yeah, I am sure that you can tell the difference between a real one and one of these in the hands of a suspect:
http://www.franklinpolice.com/toyguns.htm
Actually..I can...the barrel diameter is too small to be firemarm.
And once again...if someone “POINTED” one of these at me in the dark...I would most likely shoot them where they stood...
And I would most likely be found justifed in self defense with the “reasonable” belief that my life was in immediate danger.
“Look, I am not in favor of banning realistic toy guns, but you are making incredibly stupid statements trying to defend the anti-ban position.”
That is your opinion...I carry concealed everyday...have for years....I havent had to shoot anyone...yet.
“Yes, in the wrong hands these toys can cause someone to get shot. That alone isn’t reason to ban them. Punish the people who misuse them.”
Well then...I believe we are in agreement...at least on that point.
FireMARM?
Sheesh..getting sleepy..I’m sluring my font...
Good night...be safe..
Sorry, but you are WRONG.
Deadly force may only be used by a police officer IF a suspect is able and prepared to harm the officer or another person.
IOW, the perp MUST have a weapon, and it must be ready to cause injury. Merely holding a weapon won’t cut it, thinking the guy has a gun won’t cut it; and for DAMN SURE, shooting a kid with a toy gun WON’T CUT IT.
This cop should be doing serious time.
Deadly force may only be used by a police officer IF a suspect is able and prepared to harm the officer or another person.
IOW, the perp MUST have a weapon, and it must be ready to cause injury. Merely holding a weapon won’t cut it, thinking the guy has a gun won’t cut it; and for DAMN SURE, shooting a kid with a toy gun WON’T CUT IT.
This cop should be doing serious time.
Get a formal legal education then get back to me, Ok.
While it varies slightly from State to State, Generally an officer is permitted to use deadly force when it is or appears to be reasonably necessary
1. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;
2. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay; or
3. To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as a result of conviction for a felony.
When judging the use of force, Courts judge the situation from a totality of the circumstances perspective, based on objective reasonableness AT THE TIME THE EVENT OCCURRED.
This translates to this: If a suspect has a toy gun and displays it in a manner by which a reasonable person would perceive the imminent use of deadly force the officer is completely justified in shooting. There is no need to wait for the gun to be pointed at the officer, and no need to attempt to identify if the gun is real or not.
You might not like the law, but it is the law.
Good grief.
The libs want to ban anything that looks like a gun.
Banning fake guns is just another step in banning real guns.
(your tagline reference, lol)
I know where you're coming from!
Again, at the time of an incident there is no way that you are going to be worrying about whether or not a gun in the hands of a suspect is real or not. If the suspect is refusing commands, or engaging in conduct that presents a reasonable person with the belief that the imminent use of deadly physical force is likely, shooting is justified.
Again..I never stated anyone had to “wait for the bad guy to shoot”...I said that the threshold for the use of deadly force would be “pointed AT you”...or “at someone else”..
And you are dead wrong. If you are actually a certified firearms instructor, then you would realize a basic principle taught in every firearms class that I have ever witnessed. Action beats reaction. Reality isn't a Hollywood western. A threat has to be perceived, processed, and then the brain has to engage the appropriate physical response.
Think of the "21 foot drill" to demonstrate this principle in action. Most believe that a person standing 21 feet away with a knife is no danger at all. Yet, studies have shown that the average person can cover the 21 feet and stab and kill an officer before the officer can draw and fire his gun.
This same principle applies when a suspect has a gun in a waistband. If the suspect decides to shoot at the officer, the suspect makes the decision to act, and his brain is already engaging the appropriate physical response. (Reaching for the weapon, drawing it a firing it.)
The officer has to process the threat, recognize it, then his brain has to engage and set forth the appropriate response. If the officer waits until the suspect points his weapon at the officer, there will be no time to react.
The fact that the suspect goes for the weapon in the waistband is more than enough to establish conduct that creates the reasonable likelihood of imminent deadly physical force.
In most states...yes...But the mere possesion of a deadly weapon by someone is not in itself grounds to use deadly force.
Nice straw man. No one said the mere possession was grounds for deadly force. The point was that one doesn't need to wait for a suspect to actually point the weapon or fire the weapon before deadly force is authorized.
No...It’s means that must must have a “reasonable” belief that you are in danger of being killed or bodily harmed...AND THAT THERE WAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.
Given the physiological processes described above, are you seriously contending that a suspect reaching for a weapon in a waistband does not justify deadly force? Seriously?
For a cop?...maybe...
I am sorry, but if a criminal is reaching for a weapon, established case law is quite clear that deadly force is permitted, whether or not the victim is an officer or citizen.
But that is your choice....go right ahead and blow some KID’s head off...based on a supposition... Better hope you are right.
A quick example: Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are: Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm; Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping. Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse. Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force. Get that? “the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.” In other words...there ARE types of assault that do NOT justify the use of deadly force.. If you are going to use deadly force..you better be not only sure of the “intent to harm you”...you better be sure the person had the “means” to carry it out... A toy gun is not the means to carry out a violent assault.
The Courts have ruled that reasonableness is judged according to the circumstances surrounding the event at the time, not with 20/20 hindsight. If a suspect reaches for a realistic toy gun, it doesn't matter if the gun turns out to be a toy after the fact. The court examines what the victim knew at the time.
Case in point, “[a]lthough a toy gun may not be classified as a deadly weapon, the manner of its use and the reaction it causes may make it an offensive weapon." Commonwealth v. Johnson, 239 A.2d 861 (Pa. Super. 1968)
"Possession of a toy gun, just as an unloaded gun, is considered possession of a dangerous weapon because of its potential to be dangerous." If someone detects a toy gun, he may react to it with deadly force. United States v. Bates, 213 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir. 2000)
"The risk that is created when a robber displays a toy gun is similar to the risk created when carrying an unloaded gun. Even though [the robber] did not possess an actual weapon underneath the concealing towel, her actions created a reasonable belief that she had a gun. Police responding to the crime or the victims of the crime could easily have retal- iated violently because of the immediate threat they per- ceived. During the course of a robbery, people confronted with what they believe to be a dangerous weapon often find their perception impaired because of fear and the threat of violence. That perceived fear and threat can itself trigger a violent and even deadly response." United States v. Souther,. 221 F.3d 626, 629 (4th Cir. 2000)
Again, get a formal legal education then get back to me. :)
As a former Louisiana deputy sheriff, lemme tell you that if I had shot a kid with a toy gun, I’d have been sliced, diced, and stir fried. You are to take the totality of the situation into account before firing; not just reacting to the possibility that they “might” have a real firearm. A juvenile would be initially presumed to NOT have a real gun.
Other persons with a gun in their hand wouldn’t do; they had to be an imminent threat - and that was considered to be the subject in a position (pointing, bringing to bear) to use that weapon.
One slight variation was use of deadly force in the apprehension of a fleeing violent felon; if we witnessed a violent felony, we could use whatever force was necessary to apprehend them - including deadly force.
Alot of LEO candidates were washed out for failing the shoot/no shoot exercises.
I doubt that. I've seen more justified toy gun shootings than not. As for "kids" or "juveniles," when did age become a negative presumption of crime?
Yeah, it was the ‘81 recession and I just got out of high school. It was preferable to welfare but that’s probably the only positive thing I can say about that job...
“Commonwealth v. Johnson, 239 A.2d 861 (Pa. Super. 1968)”
Aggravated robbery
“United States v. Bates, 213 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir. 2000)”
Bank robbery
United States v. Souther,. 221 F.3d 626, 629 (4th Cir. 2000)
Robbery
All of these are forcible felonies...in which a citizen in most states would be within the law to use deadly force...
These are felonies regardless if there is a weapon or not...
None of these cases are about mere possesion of a toy gun...You keep mixing in “forcible felonies” with “mere possesion”
In fact... trying to find a case of someone getting shot for “mere possesion”...all I can find is people being shot while brandishing a toy gun while in the comission of a forcible felony...
A situation in which I have allready stated...I would also use deadly force....
If someone is robbing you...it doesnt matter if they only have a finger in their pocket....it’s robbery...
Sorry, first thread post and was so nervous, forgot to check for duplicate. Shouldn’t happen again for another 3 years.
Imminent use of deadly force encompasses the situation where someone reaches for a gun (toy or not) in a waistband.
A Ka-BAr is a good choice, never runs out of ammo nor needs batteries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.