I've seen a lot of stories lately on the Police in the US. This is by far the worst.

[Arsen]

The child caused his own death in running away in the first place. Accept the fact and we can all have a better society.

Running away from a policeman should carry the death penalty
- Arsen

Only in America...

That is not what I said. People forget that many of these officers often have to contemplate what the person could do in any given event. This includes the possibility of a kid being armed. And "being a scared of the police brutality" is not a good reason to flee. It just marks you as someone with a warranted amount of suspicion.

 

[Arsen]

Look up. You cannot take that chance. You prepare for what could happen. This isn't the kind of situation (nor the place) where you throw caution to the wind just because he is a child. When under attack you cannot afford to wait around to see if he has a weapon, that gives the attacker an edge to kill you or hurt you.

I can't believe I'm reading this. You really think we should kill children pre-emptively if they resist arrest, because they might be armed? I'm starting to suspect this isn't really your opinion as if it is you should take a good long look at your life and moral standards, it doesn't matter if someone is at a school for "bad eggs", they're still a child and worthy of our protection and care.

The fact that it was a child DOES NOT mean he should drop his guard and the many years of experience. When "some" people feel threatened by the police it's usually because of an unjustified amount of paranoia or they are "doing something" which could justify police action or otherwise.

Are you forgetting which generation and decade we live in? Kids DO bring guns to school. I can't believe people still pretend that the age matters more than the officer's right to defend himself. Fourteen year olds can do some fucked up shit if they want to.

 

[JoJo]

Look up. You cannot take that chance. You prepare for what could happen. This isn't the kind of situation (nor the place) where you throw caution to the wind just because he is a child. When under attack you cannot afford to wait around to see if he has a weapon, that gives the attacker an edge to kill you or hurt you.

I can't believe I'm reading this. You really think we should kill children pre-emptively if they resist arrest, because they might be armed? I'm starting to suspect this isn't really your opinion as if it is you should take a good long look at your life and moral standards, it doesn't matter if someone is at a school for "bad eggs", they're still a child and worthy of our protection and care.

The fact that it was a child DOES NOT mean he should drop his guard and the many years of experience. When "some" people feel threatened by the police it's usually because of an unjustified amount of paranoia or they are "doing something" which could justify police action or otherwise.

Are you forgetting which generation and decade we live in? Kids DO bring guns to school. I can't believe people still pretend that the age matters more than the officer's right to defend himself. Fourteen year olds can do some fucked up shit if they want to.

So what's your point exactly? I've already said that if a 14 year old had a gun, then the officer might be within his rights to use his gun if there was a clear threat to his or someone's life, however in this case the kid wasn't armed so that point is moot, unless you're proposing we shoot anyone who resists arrest in-case they secretly have a weapon concealed on them.

 

[LordLundar]

So what's your point exactly? I've already said that if a 14 year old had a gun, then the officer might be within his rights to use his gun if there was a clear threat to his or someone's life, however in this case the kid wasn't armed so that point is moot, unless you're proposing we shoot anyone who resists arrest in-case they secretly have a weapon concealed on them.

So what you and everyone who's saying that the kid (wait, let's take the age factor out, it's not relevant and has already been explained why. He's a suspect.) wasn't armed is saying that the officer should have been psychic. That the officer should have known the suspect wasn't carrying a weapon nor had a weapon in the shed. Here's a news flash for you, they aren't psychic. They don't know whether a suspect is carrying a weapon or has access to one so they prepare for the worst case scenario.

In addition, this was not a case of the officer executing the suspect in cold blood or the suspect jumping out going "BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!" The door hit the officer in the face. This tends to invoke a reaction of maintaining a hold on the weapon (you know, to prevent the suspect from grabbing the weapon after the attack) which caused the trigger to be depressed.

Now before anyone screams at me, no, I'm not saying that the officer was totally in the wrong here. Given his track record he should not have been in a position that allowed him to be armed nor should he have ignored his supervisors order. But all the claims that the officer should institutionally know whether a suspect is unarmed with no proof indicating so or that he executed the kid in cold blood is a bunch of post event analytical bull from people who were not there or had no idea of the situation.

 

[Delsana]

More money to the police forces would allow for them to stop cutting corners and background checking or profiling their own officers before being hired or sent out, and for reviews and better equipment and other such things.

 

[CRRPGMykael]

Where I'm from this is called MENTAL RETARDATION.

 

[tangoprime]

Well, You arm your police force, bad stuff happens.

Either amend your constitution or quit your whining.

14 year old gets shot? Wouldn't have happened if he had not had a gun.

It is a pity that a child was killed by a moron. Truly a pity. And the cop in question should rot in jail for a very, VERY long time. But what else can be said.

Mourn with the family over his death, reading the article genuinely made me feel sick. But do not be surprised that mistakes occur when people walk around with weapons.

The child fled without reason. That right there means he is under suspicion regardless of the manner in which everything is playing out. He then attacked the cop with the door. The cop defended himself.

The child caused his own death in running away in the first place. Accept the fact and we can all have a better society.

It's a tragedy, and I hate HATE seeing all the BS police are doing in the US lately, like the whole not-being-allowed-to-film-a-cop thing, but seriously... don't run from the f'ing police, esp. if you know they're armed. Don't hide in a freaking shed when the police show up. Don't bust through the door trying to knock the cop with the gun down when you exit said shed.

OP, would you have posted this as a sad story about how terrible modern youth are if the story had been about a young person running from police, hiding in a shed, then exiting and stabbing the cop in the chest with a pair of sheers, perhaps accidentally as he stumbled coming out of the shed door, perhaps not? Of course you wouldn't have. If I was a cop, dealing with the crime I see young people doing today, and having grown up not too long ago in a crime ridden hellhole, and some delinquent ran, and hid in a shed with potential stabbing weapons (which, by the way, a bulletproof vest DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST unless you trade your shock plate for a stab-resistant plate and even then it's only dead in the centre) I'd have my firearm drawn too.

 

[JoJo]

So what's your point exactly? I've already said that if a 14 year old had a gun, then the officer might be within his rights to use his gun if there was a clear threat to his or someone's life, however in this case the kid wasn't armed so that point is moot, unless you're proposing we shoot anyone who resists arrest in-case they secretly have a weapon concealed on them.

So what you and everyone who's saying that the kid (wait, let's take the age factor out, it's not relevant and has already been explained why. He's a suspect.) wasn't armed is saying that the officer should have been psychic. That the officer should have known the suspect wasn't carrying a weapon nor had a weapon in the shed. Here's a news flash for you, they aren't psychic. They don't know whether a suspect is carrying a weapon or has access to one so they prepare for the worst case scenario.

In addition, this was not a case of the officer executing the suspect in cold blood or the suspect jumping out going "BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!" The door hit the officer in the face. This tends to invoke a reaction of maintaining a hold on the weapon (you know, to prevent the suspect from grabbing the weapon after the attack) which caused the trigger to be depressed.

Now before anyone screams at me, no, I'm not saying that the officer was totally in the wrong here. Given his track record he should not have been in a position that allowed him to be armed nor should he have ignored his supervisors order. But all the claims that the officer should institutionally know whether a suspect is unarmed with no proof indicating so or that he executed the kid in cold blood is a bunch of post event analytical bull from people who were not there or had no idea of the situation.

Wait... age is completely relevant, he was only 14 for heaven's sake, I haven't seen anyone prove that age wasn't relevant to this case other than whining on about "he might have been a gang-banger etc". For all you know he could have been a cannibal who specialised in eating orphans and kittens, what he might have been is irrelevant without evidence.

The question here is, why did the officer need to take his gun out for apprehending a kid? There was no evidence that he was a direct threat to anyone's lives, he was in a minor fist-fight, like most teens are at one point (me included) and they knew who the kid was so there wasn't a chance of him evading justice forever. Add that to the officer disobeying direct orders by pursuing the kid and I can't see how he isn't responsible for this crime.

 

[LordLundar]

Wait... age is completely relevant, he was only 14 for heaven's sake, I haven't seen anyone prove that age wasn't relevant to this case other than whining on about "he might have been a gang-banger etc". For all you know he could have been a cannibal who specialised in eating orphans and kittens, what he might have been is irrelevant without evidence.

You just proved my point. The only time In this thread (and yes, I have read all of it) that age keeps being brought up is "The cop killed a 14 year old!!!" Guess what, 14 year old kids can kill as well, regardless of possible gang affiliation.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=murders+by+14+year+olds&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

Now consider that this kid is also a violent offender. Yeah, age has no bearing here.

The question here is, why did the officer need to take his gun out for apprehending a kid? There was no evidence that he was a direct threat to anyone's lives, he was in a minor fist-fight, like most teens are at one point (me included) and they knew who the kid was so there wasn't a chance of him evading justice forever. Add that to the officer disobeying direct orders by pursuing the kid and I can't see how he isn't responsible for this crime.

Asked and answered. The suspect has a violent track record and already shown a disregard for authority. Put in a situation where he could acquire a lethal weapon or have one already and that warrants a lethal response situation. You don't walk into a potentially lethal situation unarmed under the assumption that "he's just a kid" or he wouldn't attack an officer.

Stop trying to defend this kid because of his age or lack of maturity. He knew exactly what he was doing when he ran and when he hit the officer with the door. The only procedure the officer did wrong was ignoring his superior's order, which I fully acknowledge. This was not a case of a street side execution on a little kid walking down the street by a gun crazed cop. That kid was just as responsible for his death as the officer, if not more so.

 

[JoJo]

You just proved my point. The only time In this thread (and yes, I have read all of it) that age keeps being brought up is "The cop killed a 14 year old!!!" Guess what, 14 year old kids can kill as well, regardless of possible gang affiliation.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=murders+by+14+year+olds&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

Now consider that this kid is also a violent offender. Yeah, age has no bearing here.

"Violent offender"? He got in a fight with another kid, like virtually every teenage boy on the planet does at some point in those years. Any age can kill, there was a very sad case a few years ago of a 5 year old girl who drowned her toddler brother in the bath whilst a babysitter left them unattended, of course no charges were pressed as she was far too young to understand the consequences of her actions. It's not about what age can kill, it's about whether they are old enough to understand the full consequences of their actions. The reason those under 18 are treated differently in the justice system is that they cannot measure their actions in the same way an adult can, the precise amount depending on age. That's not to say juveniles should go without any punishment, but it must be age-appropriate.

Asked and answered. The suspect has a violent track record and already shown a disregard for authority. Put in a situation where he could acquire a lethal weapon or have one already and that warrants a lethal response situation. You don't walk into a potentially lethal situation unarmed under the assumption that "he's just a kid" or he wouldn't attack an officer.

Stop trying to defend this kid because of his age or lack of maturity. He knew exactly what he was doing when he ran and when he hit the officer with the door. The only procedure the officer did wrong was ignoring his superior's order, which I fully acknowledge. This was not a case of a street side execution on a little kid walking down the street by a gun crazed cop. That kid was just as responsible for his death as the officer, if not more so.

Again, there was absolutely no reason to believe that the kid was preparing a lethal response any more than anyone who flees from the cops. It seems strange you think a 14 year old is fully aware of his or her actions when the rest of society is pretty adamant that they aren't, hence why 14 year old's aren't allowed to drink, smoke, marry, have sex, drive or receive the death penalty. Just because you repeat something several times doesn't make it true, it doesn't matter if I say my 8 year old sister understands advanced quantum mechanics a hundred times, unless I provide evidence then you should rightfully call bullshit. What makes you so special you supposedly know more about the subject than society does?

 

[Daffy F]

Where i'm from this is called murder.

Spoiler

In all seriousness, this is a fucking disgrace. He should get a jail sentence for this.

 

[dystopiaINC]

Here's some of the story they "left" out.

The officer didn't see him at first, but "approached the storage shed to search further for the suspect announcing several times 'Police, Police.'"
The report also stated that the "(Lopez) lunged through the doorway at (Alvarado), intentionally knocking the shed door into (Alvarado's) face."
The report further details that "fearing for his life, (Alvarado) discharged one round striking (Lopez) in his torso."

http://www.ksat.com/news/25797958/detail.html

Do you honestly think the man with the gun, who was recommended to be terminated from the force, but the school kept him hired, making this shooting a liability, it was PRONE to happen at any given time. The point is the kid was killed at 14, after running in god damn fear from a police officer WHO PULLED A GUN ON HIM! The simple fact he didn't have a taser or something is worrying, gun should be last resort, taser or non lethal weapon should be first choice, hell, THATS WHY THERES PEPPER SPRAY FOLKS, STINGS LIKE A ***** AND KEEPS THEM INCAPACITATED!
In all honesty, was it a fist fight, was the kid reacting back to the other child, why didn't the school get another officer, instead of one that wasn't fully done. So many things.

What this was is simple, cold fact, murder or man slaughter, I still not quite sure on their difference as of yet, getting there though. But this is murder, a kid at a fist fight, if they had a weapon, like a bat or something like a knife, then, YES, a gun is ALRIGHT, but for gods sake, shoot them in the leg or something. Seriously, I'd be scared too, the police in any school are intimidating to try and stop students from fighting, because when you have to face a friendly face instead of a rough one, which will intimidate you more? Seriously, police officers should be less gun finger pully in this state, hell, in Europe, don't the police only get guns when facing someone that will most likely have a gun? USA, why can't we just give our officers proper hand to hand training and guns only when necessary. I'm reminded of Hot Fuzz from that last sentence....

I'm in a movie mode tonight...

ok first of all the gun wasn't drawn before the kid ran, the cop went to break up the fight and the kid took off, he got a call that the kid was hiding an a persons shed and drove over to it and drew his gun after getting out of the car and on approach to the shed.
the kid didn't run because he saw a gun there was no gun being waved around. granted the cop was a little jumpy. consider this is a cop dealing with a kid who just assaulted somebody, and has been expelled from the last 2 schools he's been to. he's a problem kid who's trespassing in a person's shed (a place where many sharp metal tools are stored) and could have found a weapon as it is the boy attacked an officer after being told the police were there and to surrender.

the difference between murder and manslaughter is huge. murder is killing a person with the intent to do so, and there are degrees but useable a fight that get to serious or something planed out. Manslaughter is when somebody dies due to negligence on the part of another person, say somebody falls of a guys boat and drowns and the guy had no life preservers on the boat. or a car accident, it's usually when somebody dies by accident because somebody was negligent of safety procedures.

 

[Aprilgold]

ok first of all the gun wasn't drawn before the kid ran, the cop went to break up the fight and the kid took off, he got a call that the kid was hiding an a persons shed and drove over to it and drew his gun after getting out of the car and on approach to the shed.
the kid didn't run because he saw a gun there was no gun being waved around. granted the cop was a little jumpy. consider this is a cop dealing with a kid who just assaulted somebody, and has been expelled from the last 2 schools he's been to. he's a problem kid who's trespassing in a person's shed (a place where many sharp metal tools are stored) and could have found a weapon as it is the boy attacked an officer after being told the police were there and to surrender.

the difference between murder and manslaughter is huge. murder is killing a person with the intent to do so, and there are degrees but useable a fight that get to serious or something planed out. Manslaughter is when somebody dies due to negligence on the part of another person, say somebody falls of a guys boat and drowns and the guy had no life preservers on the boat. or a car accident, it's usually when somebody dies by accident because somebody was negligent of safety procedures.

Thanks for the info. Really didn't get the difference, but thank you for explaining it.

As said in my first paragraph, the guy was basically a liability, this was BOUND to happen because the school kept him hired even though there were plenty of complaints about him not being a competent officer. Much else doesn't matter, honestly, but this is what happens when you keep a liability around that has a gun, someone is bound to get injured or even die. Sympathies to the family, and I blame the school for not preventing this in the future, the officer should at least go up for manslaughter and there should be something in the book about assisted manslaughter, theoretically, the school could have prevented this by getting another officer, so some blame falls on them both. Officer for disobeying direct orders, causing the death of a kid, and the school for not preventing this by getting a new officer when they were aware their one was not at a competent state.

Look up. You cannot take that chance. You prepare for what could happen. This isn't the kind of situation (nor the place) where you throw caution to the wind just because he is a child. When under attack you cannot afford to wait around to see if he has a weapon, that gives the attacker an edge to kill you or hurt you.

I can't believe I'm reading this. You really think we should kill children pre-emptively if they resist arrest, because they might be armed? I'm starting to suspect this isn't really your opinion as if it is you should take a good long look at your life and moral standards, it doesn't matter if someone is at a school for "bad eggs", they're still a child and worthy of our protection and care.

Where did he say that we should kill childre- WHAT THE FUCK?!

I can't believe that I'm reading this. What... What is your reasoning behind that? I don't know how you could possibly justify saying that.

NEITHER CAN I, I MEAN, JEEZ MAN, ITS A FUCKING KID! If he was fist fighting, he would have used a weapon, so no reason to god damn shoot at him, hell, AIM FOR THE LEGS IF YOU HAVE TOO, BY GOD, WHAT THE FUCK MAN!!

 

[dystopiaINC]

ok first of all the gun wasn't drawn before the kid ran, the cop went to break up the fight and the kid took off, he got a call that the kid was hiding an a persons shed and drove over to it and drew his gun after getting out of the car and on approach to the shed.
the kid didn't run because he saw a gun there was no gun being waved around. granted the cop was a little jumpy. consider this is a cop dealing with a kid who just assaulted somebody, and has been expelled from the last 2 schools he's been to. he's a problem kid who's trespassing in a person's shed (a place where many sharp metal tools are stored) and could have found a weapon as it is the boy attacked an officer after being told the police were there and to surrender.

the difference between murder and manslaughter is huge. murder is killing a person with the intent to do so, and there are degrees but useable a fight that get to serious or something planed out. Manslaughter is when somebody dies due to negligence on the part of another person, say somebody falls of a guys boat and drowns and the guy had no life preservers on the boat. or a car accident, it's usually when somebody dies by accident because somebody was negligent of safety procedures.

Thanks for the info. Really didn't get the difference, but thank you for explaining it.

As said in my first paragraph, the guy was basically a liability, this was BOUND to happen because the school kept him hired even though there were plenty of complaints about him not being a competent officer. Much else doesn't matter, honestly, but this is what happens when you keep a liability around that has a gun, someone is bound to get injured or even die. Sympathies to the family, and I blame the school for not preventing this in the future, the officer should at least go up for manslaughter and there should be something in the book about assisted manslaughter, theoretically, the school could have prevented this by getting another officer, so some blame falls on them both. Officer for disobeying direct orders, causing the death of a kid, and the school for not preventing this by getting a new officer when they were aware their one was not at a competent state.

Look up. You cannot take that chance. You prepare for what could happen. This isn't the kind of situation (nor the place) where you throw caution to the wind just because he is a child. When under attack you cannot afford to wait around to see if he has a weapon, that gives the attacker an edge to kill you or hurt you.

I can't believe I'm reading this. You really think we should kill children pre-emptively if they resist arrest, because they might be armed? I'm starting to suspect this isn't really your opinion as if it is you should take a good long look at your life and moral standards, it doesn't matter if someone is at a school for "bad eggs", they're still a child and worthy of our protection and care.

Where did he say that we should kill childre- WHAT THE FUCK?!

I can't believe that I'm reading this. What... What is your reasoning behind that? I don't know how you could possibly justify saying that.

NEITHER CAN I, I MEAN, JEEZ MAN, ITS A FUCKING KID! If he was fist fighting, he would have used a weapon, so no reason to god damn shoot at him, hell, AIM FOR THE LEGS IF YOU HAVE TOO, BY GOD, WHAT THE FUCK MAN!!

the thing is he may have been fist fighting but a garden shed is were a lot of sharp garden tools are stored for all the cop knew the kid had picked up some garden shears and was gonna try to stab him, as it is he was attacked when he got to close to the door, so how is he to know? just how? the kid was in a school for delinquents already.

aiming for the legs does not work like in the movies. first off there are to many large arteries in the legs and if one gets hit the kid would be dead in under ten min any way.
second, hitting the legs is harder than hitting the torso, smaller target with large range of movement he could miss easily,
third, cops are trained that if they are going to fire then they are always going to aim for the torso always, they want to put you down as fast as possible. we don't know if this was an accidental discharge for an aimed shot but in either case if he aimed then he was just following his training if it was an accident then it was a lucky shot and the kid shouldn't have attacked a cop who had his gun drawn.

not saying he doesn't deserve some charges brought against him, he disobeyed orders. but the kid ran when he had no reason to do so, and attacked an officer, manslaughter at most really.

 

[Aprilgold]

ok first of all the gun wasn't drawn before the kid ran, the cop went to break up the fight and the kid took off, he got a call that the kid was hiding an a persons shed and drove over to it and drew his gun after getting out of the car and on approach to the shed.
the kid didn't run because he saw a gun there was no gun being waved around. granted the cop was a little jumpy. consider this is a cop dealing with a kid who just assaulted somebody, and has been expelled from the last 2 schools he's been to. he's a problem kid who's trespassing in a person's shed (a place where many sharp metal tools are stored) and could have found a weapon as it is the boy attacked an officer after being told the police were there and to surrender.

the difference between murder and manslaughter is huge. murder is killing a person with the intent to do so, and there are degrees but useable a fight that get to serious or something planed out. Manslaughter is when somebody dies due to negligence on the part of another person, say somebody falls of a guys boat and drowns and the guy had no life preservers on the boat. or a car accident, it's usually when somebody dies by accident because somebody was negligent of safety procedures.

Thanks for the info. Really didn't get the difference, but thank you for explaining it.

As said in my first paragraph, the guy was basically a liability, this was BOUND to happen because the school kept him hired even though there were plenty of complaints about him not being a competent officer. Much else doesn't matter, honestly, but this is what happens when you keep a liability around that has a gun, someone is bound to get injured or even die. Sympathies to the family, and I blame the school for not preventing this in the future, the officer should at least go up for manslaughter and there should be something in the book about assisted manslaughter, theoretically, the school could have prevented this by getting another officer, so some blame falls on them both. Officer for disobeying direct orders, causing the death of a kid, and the school for not preventing this by getting a new officer when they were aware their one was not at a competent state.

Look up. You cannot take that chance. You prepare for what could happen. This isn't the kind of situation (nor the place) where you throw caution to the wind just because he is a child. When under attack you cannot afford to wait around to see if he has a weapon, that gives the attacker an edge to kill you or hurt you.

I can't believe I'm reading this. You really think we should kill children pre-emptively if they resist arrest, because they might be armed? I'm starting to suspect this isn't really your opinion as if it is you should take a good long look at your life and moral standards, it doesn't matter if someone is at a school for "bad eggs", they're still a child and worthy of our protection and care.

Where did he say that we should kill childre- WHAT THE FUCK?!

I can't believe that I'm reading this. What... What is your reasoning behind that? I don't know how you could possibly justify saying that.

NEITHER CAN I, I MEAN, JEEZ MAN, ITS A FUCKING KID! If he was fist fighting, he would have used a weapon, so no reason to god damn shoot at him, hell, AIM FOR THE LEGS IF YOU HAVE TOO, BY GOD, WHAT THE FUCK MAN!!

the thing is he may have been fist fighting but a garden shed is were a lot of sharp garden tools are stored for all the cop knew the kid had picked up some garden shears and was gonna try to stab him, as it is he was attacked when he got to close to the door, so how is he to know? just how? the kid was in a school for delinquents already.

aiming for the legs does not work like in the movies. first off there are to many large arteries in the legs and if one gets hit the kid would be dead in under ten min any way.
second, hitting the legs is harder than hitting the torso, smaller target with large range of movement he could miss easily,
third, cops are trained that if they are going to fire then they are always going to aim for the torso always, they want to put you down as fast as possible. we don't know if this was an accidental discharge for an aimed shot but in either case if he aimed then he was just following his training if it was an accident then it was a lucky shot and the kid shouldn't have attacked a cop who had his gun drawn.

not saying he doesn't deserve some charges brought against him, he disobeyed orders. but the kid ran when he had no reason to do so, and attacked an officer, manslaughter at most really.

He was told by a superior officer NOT to peruse the kid, he broke direct orders, so the kid would still be fine if he hadn't broke command. The kid didn't attack the officer, in any sense, was probably in fear of being arrested, like you said, school for bad apples, he could have been one good apple out of a series of bad ones, and just didn't want to go to prison for something he didn't start. The point is, he got a kid killed because he broke orders, which, as far as I know, can get you removed from the badge. The school could have prevented, they didn't. It wasn't meant to be shot off.
But know that *as far as I know* proper procedure when pursuing a subject hiding somewhere is to approach AWAY from where the door can be opened, because whatever comes out, a guy with a knife or Mrs Cramapple with her Strawberry Pie, you'll be safer KNOWING what your shooting at.

The guy was incompetent at his job, and many are now in days, because you don't get enough reward for the risks your taking. Hell, police deal with a TON-O-SHIT, look at the London Riots, look at what types of weapons Drug Dealers usually are using, look at god damn ANY major criminal that needed police to deal with, if anything, this shows that a higher pay check may be good to keeping this stuff from happening, even higher funding would help, because the officers would be better trained.
By 'aiming at the legs' I was being hypothetical, mostly, mainly what I meant is true to substain the target without bloody killing them. *Thus why I still respect European police officers over American ones, they are prime examples of it* I make reference to this multiple times in my first post, any police officer should sub-stain a target without the use of a fire arm unless them or a civilian is in danger. So he shouldn't have pulled a gun on a person fist fighting, because IF that person had a weapon, they would have used it on the individual they were fighting.
I have not much else to say, but both the school AND the officer should be charged with Manslaughter, at the minimum to the full EXTENT of the law.

 

[JoJo]

Look up. You cannot take that chance. You prepare for what could happen. This isn't the kind of situation (nor the place) where you throw caution to the wind just because he is a child. When under attack you cannot afford to wait around to see if he has a weapon, that gives the attacker an edge to kill you or hurt you.

I can't believe I'm reading this. You really think we should kill children pre-emptively if they resist arrest, because they might be armed? I'm starting to suspect this isn't really your opinion as if it is you should take a good long look at your life and moral standards, it doesn't matter if someone is at a school for "bad eggs", they're still a child and worthy of our protection and care.

Where did he say that we should kill childre- WHAT THE FUCK?!

I can't believe that I'm reading this. What... What is your reasoning behind that? I don't know how you could possibly justify saying that.

Read the whole conversation from the beginning, without context it's meaningless. Ultratwinkie thinks it's fine to shoot children who resist arrest, hence why he said "This isn't the kind of situation (nor the place) where you throw caution to the wind just because he is a child. When under attack you cannot afford to wait around to see if he has a weapon" If he doesn't mean that, what does he mean?

I'm suspicious about the number of people here defending the cop who disobeyed orders, I suspect it might be correlated with the number of people on this site who claim to hate children.