Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

[Nadhammer]

If you pull a weapon, or something that looks like a weapon, on police you are going to be shot. End of story. It is their job, for starters, and secondly, cops have survival instincts too.

Anecdote time: when I was fifteen, I played some airsoft with a couple buddies. We had some really realistic-looking weapons, my own being a UMP-45. These did not have the huge orange caps on them.

Some neighbours of the property where we were playing - with consent - called the police, and I guess understandably so; several teenagers were running around with automatic weapons. When the cops showed up, their guns were out and they were officially not fucking around. We got the hands-on-your-head-get-on-your-knees treatment and each and every one of us was mercilessly searched, re-searched, and thoroughly dressed down for waving around very convincing looking - and illegal in my province - weapons.

tl;dr? It's a cop's job to use what he or she believes is appropriate force. If a suspect brandishes a weapon - any weapon - it is the cop's job and duty to neutralize that threat.

 

[Phishfood]

"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.

Because that is what they are trained to do. Hell, its what I'd do in a situation where someone was pointing a gun at me. I'm shooting to kill, not to wound and give them a chance to return fire.

 

[Esotera]

"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.

Because one bullet isn't necessarily going to take someone down, and the last thing you want is a pissed-off injured person with a gun. They probably won't release what he said because they're being investigated, and it's somehow relevant to that.

Or alternatively, dead men tell no tales. It's hard to judge this story in an unbiased way.

 

[CCountZero]

"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.

Far as I understand it, police shootings normally go down at less than eight meters distance between the officers and the suspects, which is why they tend to favour hollow-point/fragmenting rounds and shotguns.

If the first round doesn't completely stop the suspect, they're likely to face return fire.

As an officer, if you have to shoot at an armed person, "playing nice" is gonna get you killed, so they don't do that.

That said, a Taser would certainly have done the job, and it's quite regrettable if such a tool wasn't available to the officers.



Edit: Also, TROLOLOLOLOLOLOL at having three posts with the same message in a row

 

[tthor]

"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.

i have an old BB gun, and if you didn't look closely at it, it could easily be mistaken for a real gun; and considering the fact that, if someone, even a belligerent middleschooler, points a weapon at you, a moment of hesitation could mean life or death.

 

[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.

I agree, normally with these sorts of the stories (like the unarmed kid who got shot when he jumped out of a shed at an officer) I'm against the use of guns, but in this case for all the officers knew the 15 year old could well have been holding a real gun. I'd prefer it if he hadn't died but in the circumstance considering there were many other children's lives at risk, they had no choice.

I guess its an excellent argument for issuing tasors to police, to avoid these misunderstandings.

(Paranoid after getting several warnings for "short" posts so check out this filler)

 

[Dastardly]

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.

And the father's comment: "Why was so much excess force used on a minor?" he asked. "Three shots. Why not one that would bring him down?"

People very much don't seem to understand how police training works, or how guns function. There is no such thing as "fire one just to bring him down." Except in movies and TV, that is.

1. Any bullet can be fatal, so there are no "wounding shots."
2. Every bullet goes somewhere, so there are no "warning shots."
3. Ricochets are dangerous and unpredictable, so even "shoot at the ground" isn't an option. Better to choose the target than to let it be chosen by Chance.
4. Firing a "wound" or "warning" shot without stopping the subject could result in them firing in a panic -- far more collateral damage that way.
5. Police are trained -- meaning drilled until it's reflex -- to aim for center mass every time. It's not because it's "lethal." It's because that's the biggest, surest target, reducing the chances of missing (and hitting someone else).
6. They are also trained to fire at least twice every time, to ensure the subject is down.
7. There were multiple officers, so we can't be sure one officer shot three times.

The one thing that could have helped this situation is if the police had access to non-lethal projecticles. In this case, a taser would have been the best. Pepper spray, again, can result in panic fire (and that's if it hits). Other non-lethals require the officer to get too close. Rubber bullets are far more dangerous than tasers, especially at close range (like in a hallway).

Unfortunately, the public is also wildly uneducated about tasers. They believe every subject can be "talked down" (as a middle school teacher, let me assure you: not even almost). They believe tasers shoot frikkin' laser fire. They believe every tasing results in a stroke, heart attack, and total memory loss.

So, you ban the non-lethal option, and cops are only left with the lethal option. They have two jobs here: 1. Stop the person with the weapon from hurting anyone. 2. Get home alive to their own families at the end of the day. And not necessarily in that order, either.

Also, the parents complaining about not being able to get to their kids. If this turned out to be a drug/gang-related event, and someone had gotten to their kids, they'd have complained that the school didn't secure them enough. Having been in an actual lockdown myself, "parent roadblocks" are a major problem -- we wouldn't have gotten even one emergency vehicle to the school if it had been necessary.

Basically, everyone blames the cops and school, always assuring they have the better idea... even though we've already looked into those ideas and found them to be ridiculous and dangerous. Cops and schools are just easy targets, because the public knows they can't argue back.

 

[Tanis]

Cops did the right thing, kid got what he deserved.
End of story.

 

[BeerTent]

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

This.

If your waving something like a pellet gun around, ESPECIALLY one without the orange cap, then you look a lot like a student with a gun, and students with guns aren't there to check out the lunch meal.

The officer was in the right. The kid, well... I prefer to call it "Natural Selection." We don't need bleeding hearts for them and a Taser may have put the officer in danger if the kid had a real firearm. (Those things aren't instant, I know.)

 

[IceStar100]

How is it excessive? If after the kid was lying on the floor and an officer walked over and put one in his head. Then you?d have a point. Cops have training but there a level in the end they are human too. They want to go home too. I guess when you wife, sister, daughter is being raped you should just ask them nicely to stop.

 

[AngloDoom]

Seems like a case of suicide by police to me.

The kid obviously didn't intend to kill anyone and he clearly didn't want to cause harm to anyone in particular or he would have had plenty of time to break things and people before the police arrived. Then he's standing there with a gun that looks remarkably like the real thing, pointing it at someone he clearly doesn't intend to hurt (or he'd bring a knife) and saying something the "authorities declined to share".

Nothing could have been accomplished apart from the kid's own death and it seems he got what he wanted.

The police reacted exactly how anyone should in the situation, and while I wish some sort of non-lethal way of resolving the issue had been found, making someone's trigger-finger spazz back and fourth while they gyrate around the room a la tazer isn't a guaranteed way of resolving the issue with no-one hurt.

The kid has issues and he found a way to take away his fear of killing himself by getting someone else to do it for him, as far as I can see. He should certainly be mourned, it's just a shame no-one could have helped him if this was the case.

 

[thespyisdead]

i know one thing: if i was the cop who was being threatened with an object/toy that strongly resembles a real gun i would straight away assume, that it's real. that would mean i would follow protocol, give the kid his warnings, and if he starts waving it in my general direction, i would shoot. the last thing i would want is a hole in my head

the guys, who think it was excessive, will not make very good cops... maybe a good dead cop though

 

[Todd Ralph]

i always love when people who have no idea of the stresses or reactions of people who work security/military complain and yell excessive violence. Also cut the crap. OH its so sad he died. Bull, no one on this site is going to lose sleep over this story and only those were affected will care or worry.

Seriously how far do you expect cops to go before they pull out a gun and put two in the flack one in the sack. Its ridiculous how far people will go to paint law enforcement as the bad guys. Ive been trained in deadly force with the USMC Im currently on a Security Augmented Force where we stand guard with m1014 combat shotguns so i have some idea of what im talking about mind you.


stop whining its another case of survival of the fittest and apparently this mouthbreather wasnt up to the challenge.

 

[Vivi22]

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'd be fine with taser use over the use of guns where possible personally, so long as police treat them as the potentially lethal weapons they are which many sadly don't. They're seen as non-lethal, but the reality is, police can't know if a person has an underlying medical condition where taser use may kill them, and too many who have them simply jump to that as their first option when dealing with an unruly suspect. If police were held to the same standard every time they fired a taser as they are supposed to be every time they fire their gun I'd be less put off by their use.

That said, it's always a shame to hear about stories like these.

 

[Batou667]

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

My thoughts exactly. Somebody who points a fake gun at police and declines to drop it when asked multiple times WANTS to be shot.

Ths "kid" was 15. Not a toddler who thought they were playing cowboys and indians.

The cops absolutely did the correct, but difficult, thing. Imagine if the gun had been real and the teenager had decided to take out a few classmates before committing suicide. Can you imagine the headlines the next day? "Idiot cops stand and gawp as psycho goes on killing spree unchallenged".

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

Justified... Very justified...

The guy was an idiot... This was just fates way of performing natural selection! Its not like he was a little kid... 15 is way old enough to know that that is something stupid to do! At 15 I was in my last year of compulsory schooling, doing my exams in order to be able to get to the next stage of life.. For me it was further education, and then a job, but for many of my friends they were allready applying for jobs and aprenticeships at this age! Its plenty old enough. And it said he had the chance to lower it.. therefore he got what he was deserved!

And when brandishing a firearm... you have to shoot to kill... Its the only humane way of doing it!

 

[ThreeWords]

I'm also wondering if this was a suicide by cop.

Jaime's best friend, 16-year-old Star Rodriguez, said her favorite memory was when Jaime came to her party Dec. 29 and they danced and sang together.

"He was like a brother to me," she said.

There's your answer: dude thought he was in there with a close friend, danced with her on New Years, then got told he was 'like a brother'

I think I know who's fault this is.

 

[mb16]

"boy brandished what looked like a handgun and pointed it at officers."

that's all I needed to know. The police were justified in their actions

 

[LordFisheh]

For God's sake. If you take something that looks like a gun and point it at a bunch of armed officers, you should expect to be shot at. The situation is really easy to avoid - don't point gun-looking things at the police. People who can't follow such a basic rule have no sympathy from me.

 

[Harbinger_]

"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.

There were alot of people who were 'just kids' who killed quite a few people. Obviously the kid didn't deserve to die, we have nothing but their word on pretty much anything that has to do with the story at all. What the kid said possibly has to do with his family or perhaps the school itself.

Many replica guns can't easily be differentiated from a real gun (see the post earlier in this thread with pictures)

You don't fire once in a gunfight. One you fire you pretty much force the other guy to fire. An injured person can still kill you with one pull of the gun trigger. That means you can't pause to see if he gives up, after that first shot you keep firing until they are no longer a threat.

Exactly this.