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

[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.

Unless he actually comes back and tells us what he meant, it's all pointless conjecture.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that his intended message was that just because they are a child, that doesn't mean they can't maim or kill you, so having the gun out was the correct thing in to do in this situation.

Getting a gun out is pointless and risky unless you intend to use it. This kid had been in a fist-fight, there was no strong reason to believe that he might have a weapon. Sure, it's possible he could have had one, but so could anyone, so that means logically anyone who supports this shooting supports the killing of anyone who resists arrest, unless they're a hypocrite or a child-hater.

Which, I agree with. I find the idea that people below sixteen or eighteen are mindless idiots who can't do anything on their own to be a bit on the ridiculous side. He resisted arrest. He had to have broken the law several times to get into such a school. He was in a tool shed, which generally contains tools, and tools can kill or maim. He was a potential threat. Of course, this doesn't mean I'm defending him for shooting the kid.

I highly doubt that the officer went in there prepared to fire the gun, but merely to use it as something to intimidate the kid with. Unfortunately, he did shoot, and on top of his past aggressions, I feel that this is definitely enough for him to be discharged from the police force, and perhaps face legal charges. He is not, however, the soulless monster that some make him out to be.

My god, my grammar is terrible!

Gah, edits. People below 18 aren't mindless but they can't be held to the same standards as us adults, hence allowances need to be made. The policeman was breaking the code of use if he intended to use the gun for intimidation and add that to him disobeying orders, he was entirely in the wrong. Remember it's the policeman's fault he put himself in that supposed danger as he ordered not to, and the danger was entirely hypothetical and under law one can only use lethal force if there is a clear and present danger, which there wasn't in this case as the kid wasn't identified as having a weapon.