Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

[Kenbo Slice]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/police-kill-armed-8thgrad_n_1183517.html?icid=maing-grid7|aim|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D124955

I put quotations on the word armed because the kid only had a pellet gun.

What are your guys's take on this?

I think it's excessive, I understand the cops were just doing their jobs but Jesus there had to have been another way.

Edit: Alright guys, you can stop quoting me. I'm not taking sides on this thing at all. I just thought it was interesting.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Incidents like these always make me feel angry when people campaign against tasers. If a cop feels threatened, he will pull a weapon. However, if tasers have been banned the only choice is to shoot the person in the chest. Tasers may not be perfect but in incidents like these it is preferable to killing the youngster.

I heard about a killing in my province where a kid was waving a painted black airsoft pistol at police.

Edit: Almost a dozen quotes already. You guys have made your point, I still would rather see the kid live.

 

[Cazza]

"closely resembled the real thing." How far away was the cop. Well far enough to believe it was a real gun. Cops don't just shoot people with pellet guns. If you had a gun pointed at you and you had a gun. I beat your going to shoot them.

 

[Aidinthel]

As tragic as this is, if he was carrying what looked like a real gun I don't know that I can really fault the officers for their actions.

I will echo Redlin's sentiments that police should have non-lethal options. I like to think our law enforcement can be a bit more nuanced than that in the Fallout games.

 

[dyre]

Probably shouldn't have been waving a pellet gun around in school. If he shaved off the orange cap thing on the gun, it could look pretty damn real from a distance. I don't consider it excessive for cops to take out someone who clearly appears to be armed with a firearm and refuses repeated warnings to put it down, especially since school shooters aren't exactly unheard of. Tragic, but not excessive.

 

[Jedoro]

Fifteen-year-old Jaime Gonzalez "had plenty of opportunities to lower the gun and listen to the officers' orders, and he didn't want to," Interim Police Chief Orlando Rodriguez said.

He had time to lower it. Frankly, cops aren't paid to die for us, and the best way to survive against someone who is using what you honestly believe to be lethal force, is to use it first.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Edit 2: Comment removed because apparently "stop quoting me now" is difficult for some people to comprehend, and the knowledge that ten other people have already told me the exact same thing seems to be no deterrent.

I don't care much in this case because the kid obviously wanted to commit suicide. I just find it disturbing that everyone is so comfortable that a kid was shot to death, even if he was believed to be armed. What happened to tasers? and restraint?

No. Don't. You won't change my mind.

 

[Pimppeter2]

I don't get why they're mad that they shot more than one bullet.

I don't think the average eight grader could survive a gunshot period. How does one shoot "just to bring them down"? I get that there are non-lethal places to shoot someone, but does that work for a child too?

Or did the mother expect him to go all Rambo and rip up his gymshirt to tie around the wound while making a daring escape?

 

[Giftfromme]

I guess it's a matter of "shit sux then you die" He shouldn't have waved the gun around, simple.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Well, if there is a genuine question as to how this happened, I am sure that the relevant Internal Affairs department will investigate. If they reach the consensus that the officers acted correctly, then they'll feel as I do: the knowledge that your judgement (however informed) has killed a child, is punishment enough.

If they find that procedure was not followed correctly, or anything else that grossly violates the rules, then appropriate punishment will follow.

 

[Sparcrypt]

He pointed the weapon at them so it was absolutely 100% justified - they didn't know it wasn't a real gun and they shouldn't have to take the chance.

I never, ever, EVER want to see the day where cops are expected to allow an armed offender point a weapon at them or anyone else and not feel that they should end the threat immediately.

Should the use of firearms by police be an absolute last measure, used only in the most dire of circumstances? Absolutely. But when those situations occur then the cops should not be blamed... as far as I'm concerned the kid killed himself.

I have no sympathy for him as the guy who pulled the trigger now has to live with having killed a child - that isn't something anyone should be forced to do.

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

You pull a pellet gun out at school, you risk police thinking it is a real gun. I don't understand why people are getting so worked up over the amount of bullets fired. Three is hardly excessive force. If someone waved a gun (or something you legitimately though was a gun), not a single one of you is going to fire once and say to yourself "Yeah, that's good." You want to save yourself and others, not worry about the amount of bullets you should/should not pump into the target.

The kid pointed the gun at police and got what anyone else would have in that situation - shot. There's nothing strange about this case at all. People are just flipping out because it was a minor.

 

[the clockmaker]

"Why was so much excess force used on a minor?" he asked. "Three shots. Why not one that would bring him down?"

He has a point there. This story is pretty fucked. Yes, the police had reason to feel threatened, but he was just a kid. He obviously snapped over something but he didn't deserve to die. Why did they shoot him three times? Why won't they release what the kid said before he died? Do we have anything other than their word that the gun "closely resembled the real thing"? It just kind of stinks.

If you are shooting, you have made the decision to bring lethal force into the situation, so you do not risk your first shot failing, you shoot until the threat is removed.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

8th grade, should have known by then. How is the justification even up for debate?

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Once you decide to shoot as a cop your suppose to continue shooting until the suspect is down. According to the article the kid was warned multiple times to drop the gun. Also, cops have shot people holding wallets like a gun, sometimes when the adrenaline is pumping you just "see" a gun. It also doesn't help that it looks very close to a far more damaging weapon than a pellet gun.

I'm on the cops side on this. I'm also wondering if this was a suicide by cop.

 

[Corporal Yakob]

It sucks but I'm with the cops on this one: the kid shouldn't have been waving an pellet gun that looks indistinguishable from the real thing in front of cops, and he definitely shouldn't have been waving it about after being warned to drop it.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

If the officer felt his life was in danger, he had every right to shoot the kid. I work at a police department and my officers don't just draw their weapons on a whim, nor do they discharge them for fun. In regards to the number of shots also, when you make the decision to fire your weapon, you are making the decision to use lethal force to bring down that subject. You aren't shooting at them to "injure" them.
It is a tragic incident but the officer was not in the wrong.