+2

Presenting the same point in the post below differently, one could ask would those cops have approached the young boy victim like this if they were really expecting danger from him? Is this how cops trained to handle a dangerous shooter? By coming close to him with their full body in the open like this ready for being targeted? 

On the other hand, that behaviour fits much better with recognizing that it was not a serious situation as the dispatch quote in the post below suggested.  

+1

Shouldn't the cops who shot the boy playing with a toy gun in Cleavland have approached the situation with better balancing for the need to warn the boy victim and tell him what to do with how much there was a need to get close? Why did they invoke themselves that close giving themselves less time to make warning and instructions? It does not seem there was anybody close to the danger. Also the statement in the dispatch call "..he keeps pulling a gun out of his pants and pointing it at people" without firing any bullet, assuming that it could miss suggesting a kid playing out, can hardly suggest an immediate danger. Had anyone seen a shooter, whether targeting or mass, acts this way?   

As you can see it seems there was much to suggest that it may not be a serious situation. However, the dispatcher still did not convey to them that it could be a toy gun despite being directed to that possibility by the 911 caller. 

So who was at fault here, the cops or the dispatcher or is it that the blood of an innocent young boy who might even not have known the possibility of such danger in order to avoid it was lost between the two?