News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
This is my take as an Akron resident:
We have a new community controlled local police oversight board.
The officer was called with the pretext that someone had been brandishing a firearm / pointing a gun at houses.
You can't see very well what the officer could see because the view is obstructed. It's entirely possible that the kid complied but accidentally pointed the gun towards the officer.
The officer shot exactly 1 time and shot in a non-lethal manner (the hand was shot). This was not a murder attempt, this was in a way the extra mile, the kid will hopefully make a full recovery.
The fake gun is not an orange tipped fake, it's very similar to a real looking gun. The kid also was not with friends "playing pretend" or anything like that.
As soon as the kid started yelling the officer immediately deescalated the situation and moved towards first aid.
The officer does have a messy history, particularly when alcohol is involved and when off duty, but was entirely sober at the time of the shooting and has never been known to be drunk while on duty.
We have had issues in the past few years locally particularly with teen violence. They've been trying to solve it, but some kids are carrying guns and robbing people, some kids have been carrying guns to protect themselves from the other kids, and evidently some kids are carrying fake guns too.
I'm glad this kid got to walk away with their life. I hope their hand isn't too messed up and I hope they don't have too much mental distress. They never should've walked around in public with a toy gun and "showed it off", and I hope they never do this again.
If the officer really did something wrong, I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of it, but as it stands, I think the officer reacted reasonably.
Not trying to discredit or anything but in #4 1 shot is surely good compared to emptying his clip, but shooting or aiming a gun at somebody, the intent can't be "non-lethal".
If you can be shot and killed for possession of a gun then we don't have the second amendment right to a gun.
We need to address this. Because our second amendment rights are being violated especially if you are black.
The far right keep telling us we have this right any time we try pass any type of guy law. Yet cops kill people with guns and even with toy guns or no.
When do we get the right to defend ourselves from these thugs?
The 2nd amendment is a farce and the US would be a much better place if it were abolished.
While there is much to debate about the 2nd amendment, so long as we continue to claim we have one, possession of a gun alone makes no sense as justification to shoot somebody.
Either we have a second amendment or we don't. We don't have one if every person with a gun is immediately fair game for execution by police.
Possessing a gun, and brandishing a gun are very different.
I’m not here to defend the cop or 2A (neither should exist in there current form), but the kid was brandishing, which is super dangerous with both real and real looking guns.
I think everyone here would agree with you however whether the second amendment should be abolished or not is not the subject of conversation.
This person does have a second amendment right to carry a firearm.
You should not be able to shoot someone for exercising their right to carry a firearm.
Also, there's houses all around them. Any shot could easily injure or kill someone else. This wasn't a "good shoot". It could easily have resulted in tragedy.
Yeah the first thing you learn about firearms whether you're hunting or in the military is do not flag someone unless you are prepared to kill them. Even if you don't intend to.
I agree though it is good to hear the cop managed to only shoot one round.
Yep. 2 very simple rules for dealing with guns
I agree with you and want to strengthen your argument in the future when talking to gun folks, so I want to correct you so that gun nerds don't roll their eyes and dismiss you out of hand in the future.
It's not called a clip, it's called a magazine.
To gun folks it's an important distinction.
I'm honestly confused by what you mean here. Cops in my country will intentionally shoot people in the leg as per policy in certain situations, such as when someone threatens them with a knife from certain distances. So it seems to me you can indeed point a gun at someone with non-lethal intent.
Look at the other responses. The golden rule in firearms training (police, military, or for personal use) if you aim at someone with a gun it's with intent to kill.
Aiming for the leg can hit an artery. Aiming for the leg can cause a misfire and hit somebody else or ricochet. Any number of things can happen and if you get shot there is a decent chance of dying. Also, it's common practice if your shooting someone to aim for their chest. It's the easiest place to hit and less likely to hit somebody else because your less likely to miss.
I disagree that there's no such thing as a "non-lethal" intent when it comes to shooting. You should never point a gun at anything you don't want to kill is the advice to prevent tragedy -- it's not some "law" about what happens.
No shooting is ever a good thing, especially in an urban area. Nobody is happy this happened (and I'd preemptively wager the officer is second only to the kid and his family). If you watch the video that officer didn't come off as "angry" looking to start a fight or for someone to "make his day." This wasn't like the videos where a cop walks up to someone sitting on a motorcycle gun drawn or shoots someone sitting in their truck.
The reality is that he had a real reason to believe that kid was a threat to his life, had very little time to react, and he wouldn't be the first police officer we've lost if he did nothing and it turned out to be a real gun (which again, he had every reason to believe it was one). In a lot of department's training that kid would've been shot in the chest -- not the riskier shot of the hand (I'm not entirely sure this guy didn't "break policy" specifically in an attempt to make sure this kid lived).
The right answer here is ultimately to get the guns out of the hands of these kids; that's a problem that goes far beyond this particular police officer though and has a lot of complex issues.
The new mayor is a big community policing advocate ... maybe if this officer had known this kid the reaction would've been better. But ultimately, the underlying problem is this kid had something indistinguishable from a firearm (under the mistaken assumption that, that would make him somehow safer -- he says in the video he's carrying the fake gun to feel safe) and that's what started this whole chain of events.
The whole thing is a tragedy, through and through.
Careful, you'll scare the cops and they'll start shooting
It's hard to tell if the shot was intentional. The office is talking to the kid and exiting his vehicle when he shoots him. Cops aim at your center, not your hands.
Orange tips haven't stopped police from shooting people in the past. They've even claimed criminals paint orange tips on real guns. If he were playing with friends police would probably be responding to reports of an armed gang.
I'm not seeing anywhere that the cop had his BAC tested, or that he was tested for any substances after this shooting.
I'm not sure what your point is. Should police treat teens in your area as threats because some are carrying real guns?
This kid will absolutely have mental distress and is probably going to be terrified of cops forever. And if the officer did do something wrong and they get to the bottom of it, then what? This cop has already proven he's a danger and hasn't faced any real consequences.
It would be one heck of a coincidence if this kid just so happened to get shot dead in the middle of the hand that was holding the fake gun.
The point isn't that they haven't stopped it. The point is this toy gun wasn't one of those toy guns; the officer had no clear marking to go off of. You can go on to say "he would've shot him anyways" but that's your bias, not anything we can know for sure either way.
The point is that wasn't an allegation against the officer by the kid, any other officers, or in any of his prior incidents/suspensions; i.e., there's no reason to believe that was the case here based in reported facts.
The point is that this isn't Mayberry and there was reason for the officer to believe that this teenager they'd never met, in an area that's had problems with this, posed a real threat to them. People under 25 are (sadly) responsible for the majority of violent crime in the city currently.
Well, we'll see. The citizen oversight board is new and untested. The mayor is similarly new and untested (but passionate about the issue). The office of chief of police is in transition and currently unfilled.
It would be incredibly hard to intentionally shoot someone in the hand in this type of situation. I don't think his hand was the intended target. The cop hasn't even fully exited his cruiser when he shoots. It says he shot him within seconds of the encounter.
The cop isn't acting like the kid is a threat to him. He rolls up maybe 15 feet away, directly in his line of sight, talks to him through the window, and starts to exit his cruiser. He didn't observe from a distance, or seek cover, or call for backup. He needlessly put himself in danger if he thought this kid was going to try to kill him.
Yes, but the fact of the matter is that he was shot in the hand. It's entirely possible this cop has spent a lot of time at the range and intentionally made that shot.
This was one bullet in a (relatively rare) case of firearm discharge by an officer in Akron. The chances of that one bullet being fired and one bullet accidentally hitting exactly where it needed to are pretty low.
It was also pretty close range (which makes this easier), if he was aiming for center mass and hit this kid's hand, he would have to be an incredibly bad shot.
It's pretty clear he either didn't think this was the kid or wasn't expecting to have (what looked like) a gun pointed in his general discussion.
It's also pretty clear that backup was not far away based on there being other cops on the scene within seconds of the shooting.
That was still plenty of time if it was a real gun for that officer's family to be attending a funeral right now.
Who apparently are apparently not willing or allowed to provide actual oversight?
And all police officers should know that witness testimony is more often wrong than not.
I don't know why you give someone with a history of violence, that includes brandishing a firearm at their own girlfriend the benefit of doubt?
Essentially saying that he panicked and has poor aim. No one is taught to shoot "in a non-lethal manor", you always aim for center mass.
I'm sorry, is it illegal for him to be carrying a toy gun, or even a real gun? This is America, we are allowed to open carry, or conceal and carry with proper licensing. Did the officer ask if he had a weapon on him? Did he ask about licensing? Or did he just give a vague command for him to raise his hands?
Most people don't have to hear cries of anguish to avoid murdering children. Most people would do anything possible to avoid shooting children...... Are we congratulating people for de-escalating problems they escalated in the first place?
The problem is he should have never been back on duty in the first place. He got suspended, fired, reinstated, suspended and when he returned from suspension, he was put back on suspension within a month.
So we have a problem with children with firearms? And the solution is.... to arm a man child with more firearms than the children, and somehow less violence happens?
I played with toy guns when I was little, hell I played with real guns when I was little. This is not a crime, and even if it were, would summary execution be appropriate?
Why do you hold children to a higher degree of responsibility than a police officer?
He shot a child...... One who was legally following his orders. In what circumstances is this not something wrong?
Because I try and give everyone the benefit of the doubt; even people who reply with a condescending tone. I also acknowledge that people make mistakes and people's personal lives and professional lives are different things.
Plenty of people go to a range and practice shooting. You're making a lot of assumptions about skill here that are entirely your own bias.
You are not allowed to go around and point a gun (real or not) at buildings. It's called public menacing and it's illegal. That is what the call was about.
There is a big difference between eye witness testimony (i.e., remembering the facts and identifying people) and inaccuracies in reporting (I saw a car driving way too fast, I saw a person rob my grocery story, I saw a person shoot someone -- these aren't things people often get wrong).
The rest of this I'm not touching it's loaded with biases, condescending tone, and disregard for the particulars of the situation.
Seems like you are more focused on giving that doubt to the officer than the boy who was shot.....
Lol, I go to the range to practice. You know where they put the targets on the dummies......not on the hands. Firearms are not nonlethal weapons, anyone with any training knows this. When you learn to shoot, you are always told to shoot center mass.
Any what evidence says he was pointing at building? A phone call from some random lady does not validate him shooting a child.
What if I randomly called the police on you and told them you pointed a gun at me, where would you like to be shot?
There is a big difference between eye witness testimony (i.e., remembering the facts and identifying people) and inaccuracies in reporting (I saw a car driving way too fast, I saw a person rob my grocery story, I saw a person shoot someone -- these aren't things people often get wrong).
That is semantic reasoning, there is no inherent difference between the two. Also, people file false police reports constantly.
Lol, like you don't have a condescending tone to your writing? The difference being is that your claims actually deserve condemnation.
I stated what was going on, and what my take on it was with the local context. Have a nice day. You're clearly not interested in an intelligent or otherwise nuanced conversion.
And I explained with nuance, just how ridiculous each of those takes were.
Lol, says the person who won't engage with criticism because they're not presented in a way that massages his ego. Convenient.
Stop the bullshit virtue signaling, your beliefs are more volatile than any criticism I've laid at your feet.
Especially considering the whole "you can fuck off" comment that you deleted. Coward.
Not even that one?
At the very best, this is gross negligence on the officers part. At worst, it’s attempted murder. Even if a person has a real gun, that is not a justification to execute them on the spot or to even discharge lethal weaponry in any manner.
This cop belongs in prison.
Good post, but who needs nuance when you got a catchy slogan
Thanks for the breakdown. I'm very surprised he shot him in the hand since that is very much against training. A toy gun without an orange tip is pretty hard to tell it is fake from 10m away.
Yup, ordinarily it’s shoot to neutralize the threat. Looks like his shot saved the kids life.
How the fuck did his shot save the kids life? Him shooting at the kid is what put his life in danger.
You see officer, I robbed the man because I knew if I didn't I would kill him. I deserve a medal for stopping a murderer.
Ok I agree that the prior post was weird but this line of logic given the situation is absolutely fucking braindead
Very rational take.
It doesn't surprise me you get a good deal of downvotes.
I'm not surprised either but I thought folks would appreciate the local context.
This is an issue our community is truly trying to address (it was something the new mayor was quite passionate about in his campaign and the community police oversight board was something he pushed for/got done when he was a city council member).
I (personally) have found that while Akron has made national news for police related shootings, the shootings often are far more nuanced than say, those out of Columbus, OH or what happened with George Floyd.
You and people like you are the reason cops have no accountablily in this country and this state, speaking as another Ohio resident.
Person 1: tries to rationally explain all the events that happened to give context to the story.
Person 2: YOU'RE THE REASON WHY COPS KILL EVERYONE!!!!
Yeah, there was an attempt to rationally explain the events, and the person's conclusion was that "the officer reacted reasonably". i.e. They think shooting a totally compliant unarmed child was a reasonable action.
The thing is, most of us here disagree with that assessment. There are a myriad of other ways that the police officer could use which don't involve using a lethal weapon on a child. These type of incidents cannot be treated as just bad luck. They are systematic, problematic, and unacceptable. To conclude that 'the officer reacted reasonably' is unsatisfactory. That kind of conclusion is what supports police to act with no accountability.
Eh, read the article and read all their comments and tell me they're being reasonable. There's a certain kind of white person--and yes, race matters because black people have first hand experience of how awful the police are--who grew up being told that cops, firefighters and soldiers deserve our respect, admiration and honor. And no matter how much evidence to the contrary they are confronted with, they find a way to maintain that belief that cops are essentially good, honorable people. Yes, there is an occasional "bad apple;" yes, sometimes mistakes are made; yes, some cities have systematic problems in their police departments; but the police in their town are good honorable folks. Not perfect--nobody is, but they are doing their best to serve and protect in a dangerous world, and we should be grateful to have them out their protecting our families. When something happens, they always give the benefit of the doubt to the cops, never the citizen. They're like the willfully ignorant wife of an abusive step-father.
"People like you" are the reason why I have to block people and get disgusted with social media.
There's nuance in everything, which is something you clearly don't understand, and I have no interest in discussing anything with you further.
Nuance doesn't automatically support your argument, just because things can be more detailed than originally assumed, doesn't mean that those details support your argument.
The fact that the police officer in question has already been fired for dangerous behavior and has been suspended since his union got his job back is a piece of nuance you have consistently downplayed or ignored.
Every rebuttal people have supplied for your claims adds to the nuance of an opinion, as it has been extrapolated upon. You're just utilizing nuance like it's a magical spell whenever you paint yourself into a stupid corner.
You don't care about nuance, you don't care about polite discourse, you just want to lick boot.