Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

Recommended Videos

Ziadaine_v1legacy

Flamboyant Homosexual
Apr 11, 2009
1,603
0
0
Fair enough, they had to disarm him, he threatened them with what looked like the real thing etc etc, but 3 shots to a 16 year old? Why dont we just arm Police with fucking gatling guns now. They didnt even mention anything like "We warned him to drop the weapon or we will open fire", they just jump in and get trigger happy. Kinda glad we have nanny gun laws in Australia, both because people aren't retarded enough to do that (kid's case) and because our officers don't carry AK-47's as a weapon of disarming.

Pretty sure a shot to his lower leg/foot would have both disarmed him AND not killed him.
 

Hipsy_Gypsy

New member
Jun 2, 2011
327
0
0
Jedoro said:
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.
Exactly. If a police officer feels threatened, then s/he is completely justified to pull out a weapon, as somebody else here has already stated. Also;

Kenbo Slice said:
[...]
I put quotations on the word armed because the kid only had a pellet gun.

[...]
Air guns can cause quite a bit of damage. People have been killed because of those, so pellet guns are no different, really.
 

Amizrael

New member
Nov 12, 2009
15
0
0
I hope this story does not result in a change in policy, local or otherwise. Statistically, it's inevitable that a teenager is going to do something which will result in their death, just think of all of the deaths due to drunk driving. Only now with the internet, everyone gets to hear about it.
 

Sovvolf

New member
Mar 23, 2009
2,341
0
0
Azure-Supernova said:
This is why it was a good idea to introduce this legislation for the UK:

"Unrealistic imitation firearms (IF's) must be more than 50% transparent, bright red, bright orange, bright yellow, bright blue, bright green, bright pink or bright purple or have dimensions of no more than a height of 38 millimetres and a length of 70 millimetres (as defined in the Home Office regulations for the VCRA)"
If the weapon is a close enough imitation of the real thing then I'm pretty sure the law stipulates that it's going to be treated as such.
Even so you can still acquire fairly realistic guns here by legal means through a sports gun store (Stores for selling air rifles and such) as a collector of air rifles and an avid target shooter I've seen plenty of gun stores in Briton and not one of them had anything that was transparent or coloured outside of blank guns.

The one I currently own looks like this:


Given that it is under 8.5 joule (the gun is 3 joule) you don't even require a license to own it. You can simply walk into a local air rifle store and buy one and take it home that same day (as I did) granted you've got to have photo I.D on you first and they tend to put you on their data base. However its still reasonable easy to purchase a fairly realistic looking pellet pistol in this country. Personally I wish they'd put a license on anything that looks like this because idiots have free access to them and do stupid things with them that give legitimate hobbyist like myself and my cousin a bad name.

As for the incident, I cannot blame the police here. Usually when it comes to stuff like this you can find something controversial and often people look for it as a means of "fuck the police" however in this article fairly few have been able to point anything like that out and those arguments have been quickly quashed due mainly to ignorance of how fire arms or police procedure works.

They had no choice from the looks of it, having been round quite a few of these pellet guns (if you've seen the pic above of my firearm you should know how realistic it looks to even the trained eye) I know how real they can seem and outside of close inspection they'd look like a firearm and should be treated as such. If I went around waving my handcannon on a school ground and at the police I'd expect to be shot dead and I wouldn't blame them.

As for words of "shoot to wound" there's no such thing. First of all its near impossible, if you've never shot anything closely resembling a gun then you might not be as savvy on the subject however, unlike in movies or video games, they don't tend to go exactly where you point it. They get affected by wind, recoil, drop, the sight may not be 100% accurate, your hands aren't completely steady trying to hit a limb which tend to be fairly skinny compared to the rest of your body is extremely difficult.

Now take into account that these limbs are moving and waving around, so not only are they small targets, they're also moving targets. You can easily miss, causing the shooter to panic and fire, also, the bullet that didn't hit as to go somewhere, it will hit a hard surface and bounce off, hopefully losing power and stopping, or it will hit something soft and gooey like another human. Its not worth the risk.

You aim for the center mass cause its far easier to hit, even if you're bullet doesn't go exactly on the mark you intended, unless your aim is really off or your a pathetic shot, its going to hit the target somewhere in the center area.

I can't exactly vouch for the whole 3 shot thing though from what I've heard from people that have had the unfortunate task of shooting someone, people don't tend to go down in one hit unless your packing something seriously heavy. One shot may be enough to kill someone, however it could take anything from minutes to days for that to happen, in the mean time he could be shooting you. So you need to shoot until you put them down. Excessive force would have been if they went to the fellows wounded body and started to unload the whole clip point blank in the face.

There's my two pence on it all.
 

Sovvolf

New member
Mar 23, 2009
2,341
0
0
Ziadaine said:
Fair enough, they had to disarm him, he threatened them with what looked like the real thing etc etc, but 3 shots to a 16 year old? Why dont we just arm Police with fucking gatling guns now.
2 shots is the minimum police in the US tend to fire, given what I've read here, its well justified. A single shot as a good chance of killing, however it won't immediately drop a target, you don't shoot to wound, you shoot to kill. Other lives were in danger.

Ziadaine said:
They didnt even mention anything like "We warned him to drop the weapon or we will open fire", they just jump in and get trigger happy.
From the article: 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.


Ziadaine said:
Pretty sure a shot to his lower leg/foot would have both disarmed him AND not killed him.
Its extremely hard to hit a small, relatively thin moving target with a gun and there's still a good chance it could have killed him. Along with the fact that the fellow could have still been able to fire the weapon before he bled out.

Real life isn't like a video game or movie. Guns work differently.
 

Ramare

New member
Apr 27, 2009
266
0
0
As others have surely said: Why was there three shots? Police training. You have to shoot? Shoot. Just do it. Good, now steady your aim and shoot again. Target not on the ground dead or dying? Shoot again. Repeat for as many bullets as you have in your weapon or until they're down.

Also, what if there was more than one policeperson? Maybe three of them shot simultaneously, and didn't find it necessary to shoot any more since three shots had been fired, and the suspect was likely on the floor by that point. Maybe there was two, and one fired twice, one once. I doubt they issue these to police since it's non-standard military-grade (not sure on that last bit, but it certainly is non-standard) hardware; but maybe it was just one dude/chick with an M93.

Glad to finally hear a story about a policeman/woman on the Escapist with just as much long-term mental damage to someone as most stories that doesn't make America's police look like a bunch of morally questionable, under-equipped mercenaries. There's pretty much a consensus (So far I've seen, anyway) that the kid was asking for it-- literally, albeit indirectly, depending on who you ask.
 

MahMahnator2992

New member
Sep 5, 2009
25
0
0
I grew up about 45 minutes from Brownsville (where the shooting took place), and something that I don't think has been mentioned is the fact that the kid would've had to have been held back in school at least a year, possibly two. If a child hasn't been held back any grade levels, then when he is in 8th grade he should be either 13 or 14, since he was 15, he should have been in either 9th or 10th. Truth be told, the education system in the area sets the bar pretty low already (it's one of, if not the poorest area in the United States), so if the kid was held back he was either A. A complete idiot, or B. A troublemaker. Glad I finally managed to get out of there and make it to relative civilization.
 

jimbob123432

New member
Apr 8, 2011
245
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
jimbob123432 said:
Abandon4093 said:
LastGreatBlasphemer said:
Abandon4093 said:
I don't agree with that either. The judge should just reply with 'be thankful you're not dead.' Obviously a drastic change like the one I'm talking about would require a change to legislation. Unless the person shot was found to be completely innocent in the situation, they shouldn't have the right sue.

And a real rubber round, not a riot round. Is going to incapacitate as quickly as a normal gun. Because it fires with practically the same muzzle velocity. Not to mention the round is bigger. It does move slower but the impact is just as devastating. It only doesn't penetrate.

It's just as effective as handgun but with the chance it doesn't kill. With live ammo it's the shock of the impact that takes the person down. Not the fact it blew a hole in them. Two or three shots with large rubber rounds (as is standard practice with normal rounds) is going to put anybody down. I don't care if your name is Arnold Bruce Stalone. You're not posing a threat.

A semi-automatic pistol is a low level threat in comparison to gang armed with fully automatic rifles and pistols. Which is what we were talking about. And as I said, a rubber round hand gun is just as effective as a normal one when it comes to taking people down. There is nomore gambling with lives that there is now with live ammo.
No, we're not talking about a gang with fully automatic pistols. We're talking about a kid waving a gun in school. And rubber rounds, yeah, have a very small chance of killing. But what happens when you fire it at 8 meters away? That's a little over 25 feet, not far at all. They break bones, they shatter skulls, they collapse lungs at that distance. The last two end in death. Shock and adrenaline are funny things, a hit to the torso could definitely knock them down, but they could remain conscious, and now your bullet did nothing but get him to pull the trigger.

And yes, I agree in cases of police being sued for taking down someone the judge should always tell the person to eff off. But that's not the case.
Jesus christ I've already fucking said that. My point isn't that they're a completely safe and idealistic alternative. It's that they're better than live ammo.

For fucks sake, I've been repeating myself all night. But that's the first time someones told me something I've already written as if it's an argument against what I'm saying.

Fuck.

Also 3 rounds to the chest (as is standard practice). Unless he has like 5 adrenal glands. He isn't getting up. Let alone going to have the wherewithal to aim and fire.

And my point is, the same can be said for live rounds. Like I said, the shock is what downs people. Not the hole or the bloodloss. It can take 15 minutes for the bloodloss from a normal bullet wound to seriously effect someone. The shock of the impact is what causes the immediate damage. The same shock a rubbercoated round gives.
Not to stir up anything more on this topic, but I just have a point to make. If I was a cop, I would much prefer to have live ammo in my sidearm over rubber bullet just in case the guy I was shooting at didn't go down (ie: a perp who is drunk/high on PCP). If the adrenaline kicks in and they do shrug off the first 2-3 shots, what's 5 or 6 more rounds going to do? At least with live ammo, you can put a round in the heart or the head to ensure a kill.
A headshot doesn't ensure anything. People have opened doors, ran, returned fire and much much more after being shot in the head.

The grim truth of it is that guns aren't always 100% effective until way past when they need to be. IF you popsomeone in the head with the one of the rounds I'm talking about, if the person doesn't immediately drop to the ground and go unconscious (likely to die later) it's a bloody fluke. Just like it would be with a live round.
I understand (sort of) what you're saying. There's also a psychological factor in this. If a cop, or anyone for that matter, is in a position of needing to put someone down, a live ammo is going to put a lot more confidence into the shooter and thus it'll be safer for everyone (except the guy being shot). A cop's pistol already has around a 12lb trigger pull on it, so it's not the easiest to aim; add nerves brought on by the uncertainty of being able to 100% put the other guy down, and everyone in the direction of fire is in trouble.

And, no, "popping" someone with a rubber bullet in the head is not necessarily going to put someone down and it won't be a fluke. A guy high on PCP (like in my example) will NOT notice that. Rubber bullets are usually only fired by a primer or a small amount of charge (so that they don't penetrate) so the force isn't as much as a bullet (it'll hurt though). I direct you to this video of a guy getting shot by a bean bag round at close range:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_ymNErgGkQ
Notice how short of a period the guy is downed, and he was expecting it! He could have easily fired several rounds at officers very quickly as he was getting up. And that was from a short distance, much further away and it probably not even knocked him down, just bruised him.

Finally, there have been several deaths in situations where cops have used rubber or bean bag rounds because they accidentally confused them for live rounds. I doubt proponents of LTL (less-than-lethal) methods would be very happy about any more situations like this, more than likely blaming cops for "being too brutal".

In short, Keep It Simple Stupid applies: the less the cops have to worried about what to use and when to use it, the faster they can deal with situations where other people are in danger.

P.S. I would like to know what you think of the idea of soldiers using rubber rounds in combat situations. After all, that guy driving up to a checkpoint really fast could just not understand English or be really nervous. If it's better for using on "people who haven't done anything yet" at home, shouldn't that logic follow through to other countries and their people "who haven't done anything yet"?
 

jimbob123432

New member
Apr 8, 2011
245
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
senordesol said:
Abandon4093 said:
Are you serious? How are they better? The fact that they're less likely to kill, that's fucking how. My god, how do you form coherent sentences?

People don't generally die from small arms until a few seconds after being shot (depending where). Way after they fall down.

And yes, it can have odd effects. Like the woman who got up after being ran over by a car, ran for her life and managed to fend off 5 police officers. Are we to take that as the rule or the exception?

And like I said, that's why they'd fire 3, as is standard practice. Honestly are you even reading?

Honestly, it's like Americans have some sort of blinkers on when you even suggest a means of retaliation that isn't a standard gun. Is it some sort of cultural brainwashing?

I don't know and I've gone past caring. A rubber coated round is more than enough to deal with the average threat. It will drop people as quick as a normal round with less chance of death. Win win as far as I'm concerned. But it doesn't have that cool appeal that hole in the chest has, so yea. I see your counterpoint.
Easy now, I resemble those remarks. :)

The main concern is denying an LEO vital tools they may need in a particular situation. Funny things happen to your brain when you go up against a suspect who wants to KILL you or worse; kill someone else. And, hey, we Americans are all about equality. If that mofo wants to kill me, I should be able to kill him right back. That's the mentality. You can call it cultural 'brainwashing' if you like, I'd just call it...our culture.

The fact is, if neither of us are LEOs, then we can't possibly fathom all the scenarios were lethal force would be REQUIRED to end the threat to officers and the innocent; but when that scenario comes around, we don't like the idea of potentially hamstringing those we trust to protect and serve.

And for me, it boils down to this: Don't want to get shot by a police officer? Don't give the man with the 9mm any reason to think you're a threat.
Well it's not what I'd suggest but if you really think the psychological effect of live ammo is as important as that. How about carrying two weapons. One standard issue live ammunition piece and one with rubber rounds? With training that expressed how they should draw the rubber round side arm first. And if that fails move onto deadly force. But honestly, it wouldn't fail.

And unfortunately, the net is full of videos of police panicking and shooting people that weren't doing anything they shouldn't have been. If their first instinct would have been to draw the rubber coated round side arm. Then perhaps some of those people wouldn't have died.
2 guns? Really? Scenario: You've got a guy coming at you with a full-auto rifle, at least you think so, but he hasn't done anything yet. Which one do you draw? In the time you took to think about that, you've been shot.
 

Zeren

New member
Aug 6, 2011
394
0
0


The gun on the right is an airsoft pistol. The gun on the left is a 9mm Glock 17. From a distance you would not be able to tell which was real.

If the story played out as stated, the shooting was justified.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,876
0
0
usmarine4160 said:
The shooting was justified, pretty sure why 3 rounds were fired. Usually you fire twice and then fire a third round if the person doesn't go down, it's called a failure to stop shot. Not sure if it was needed as I wasn't there so I'm not judging... after all, there are pellet guns out there that would be indistinguishable from the real thing if someone was pointing it at you.

(I'm guessing the bottom one is the pellet gun as it doesn't have the lanyard hoop on the handle, also the bottom one doesn't seem to have a magazine)
That's not a really safe way to make an assessment though.

This is a 6mm pellet pistol I just dug out of the closet.



EDIT: For reference, the gun is from about a decade ago, before the orange caps laws existed, or at least before they existed in their current form, so I didn't go and illegally modify it.
 

Bat Vader

Elite Member
Mar 11, 2009
4,997
2
43
Ziadaine said:
Fair enough, they had to disarm him, he threatened them with what looked like the real thing etc etc, but 3 shots to a 16 year old? Why dont we just arm Police with fucking gatling guns now. They didnt even mention anything like "We warned him to drop the weapon or we will open fire", they just jump in and get trigger happy. Kinda glad we have nanny gun laws in Australia, both because people aren't retarded enough to do that (kid's case) and because our officers don't carry AK-47's as a weapon of disarming.

Pretty sure a shot to his lower leg/foot would have both disarmed him AND not killed him.
The article does state that the teen had plenty of chances to drop the gun and listen to the orders the officers gave him. In the end the teen brought it on himself by not dropping his weapon when he was ordered to. A fifteen year old person should know if police officers have their guns pointed at them. It is best to put their hands in the air and cooperate.
 

TheSteeleStrap

New member
May 7, 2008
721
0
0
I heard about this story. I feel for the kid's family, and I understand why they are calling police brutality, because I somewhat agree with that. The kid was carrying a pellet gun that looked real, as so many of them do. With all of the school shootings that have happened, cops in a school are on edge. So when they tell you to drop the gun, you drop the damn gun, before something like this happens. So there's two sides to it. pick your favorite.
 

Sovvolf

New member
Mar 23, 2009
2,341
0
0
TheMightyAtrox said:
I heard about this story. I feel for the kid's family, and I understand why they are calling police brutality, because I somewhat agree with that. The kid was carrying a pellet gun that looked real, as so many of them do. With all of the school shootings that have happened, cops in a school are on edge. So when they tell you to drop the gun, you drop the damn gun, before something like this happens. So there's two sides to it. pick your favorite.
I feel for the family but I can't really see how this is police brutality. Their actions seemed reasonable enough. Myself in that situation, I can't imagine I'd have acted any differently. The kid in question was asked to put it down, instead he brought the gun up to aim at the officers, at that point, I can't say I wouldn't have opened fire.

Kid was carrying a pellet gun that looked real, the only way of finding out it wasn't was if he dropped it for inspection or he fired it... Waiting for him to fire it isn't such a hot idea, cause if your wrong, it could be you, your fellow officer or some other poor innocent kid in the school. I can't think of many other ways to resolve the situation.
 

Tommeh Brownleh

New member
May 26, 2011
278
0
0
Natural selection at it's finest. Kid shows up with something that looks like a real weapon and can't be immediately distinguished as anything else, in a place where weapons of any sort are not allowed. (Hell, where I go, most of the time you're not even allowed to speak of weapons) Then, points it at a cop and gets shot. Suicide by cop or not, one less complete retard in the world.
 

kaizen2468

New member
Nov 20, 2009
366
0
0
Sounds like the kid brought it upon himself, for some reason. For all the cops knew, it was real. It happens with kids these days getting their hands on real guns. If the kid shot one of the cops in the head, would it be all right? Needing to wait for someone else to die before reacting?
 

Digitaldreamer7

New member
Sep 30, 2008
588
0
0
Kid should have put it down when they told him to. If he had, he'd be alive today. It's a clean shoot though. Kid had what appeared to be a weapon. To be honest most cops I know wouldn't have even considered a taser in this situation.


Sucks for the family

Sucks just as hard for the cop since he has to live with it too.
 

GenericAmerican

New member
Dec 27, 2009
635
0
0
Ziadaine said:
Fair enough, they had to disarm him, he threatened them with what looked like the real thing etc etc, but 3 shots to a 16 year old? Why dont we just arm Police with fucking gatling guns now. They didnt even mention anything like "We warned him to drop the weapon or we will open fire", they just jump in and get trigger happy. Kinda glad we have nanny gun laws in Australia, both because people aren't retarded enough to do that (kid's case) and because our officers don't carry AK-47's as a weapon of disarming.

Pretty sure a shot to his lower leg/foot would have both disarmed him AND not killed him.
3 shots means he got lucky, 2 officers should have put out a combined 6 rounds; as far as i'm concerned they went easy on him/didn't follow training. Also our officers don't carry Kalashnikovs...they have handguns, and usually a shotgun in the squad car.

And about a shot to his leg...I'll agree with you as soon as you can reliably make that shot (with a handgun) on a non-static and armed target within split seconds of it leveling a weapon at you.
 

Sovvolf

New member
Mar 23, 2009
2,341
0
0
nackertash said:
I'm just going to say how i feel on this one so don't bother hating.
Your country makes me fucking sick that you can be justified in killing a child who had what is essentially a toy, and it makes me sicker that some of you think that's just alright. Fuck you
This would have been the reaction regardless of the country. The kid held up a school with what looked like a real pistol, refused to put it down after being warned, then pulled up the gun to aim at a police officer. For all anyone knew, that gun could have been real and the kid could have went on to massacre the school.

It was only discovered that it was a pellet pistol until after the fact.

How would you have handled it I wonder?

Also you can't go and say "Don't bother hating" when you finish your post by saying fuck you to everyone who believe shooting what appears to be an harmed unhinged ready to snap, raising his potentially real gun at police officer teenager is justified.
 

Fishehh

New member
May 2, 2009
300
0
0
"Why was so much excess force used on a minor?" he asked. "Three shots. Why not one that would bring him down?"
If you ask any officer, after an incident involving a shooting on their side, how many rounds they fired, they won't know. They'll have to check and they'll probably find no rounds left in the gun. They shoot to stop. You never shoot a warning shot or "Shoot to wound" you shoot to kill. Every time.