Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

userwhoquitthesite

New member
Jul 23, 2009
2,177
0
0
Kenbo Slice said:
Alright guys, you can stop quoting me. I'm not taking sides on this thing at all. I just thought it was interesting.
You are taking sides because of this statement
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 this is entirely justified. Fuck this dumbshit kid if he thinks it's a good idea to bring a pellet gun to school and wave it around. If what the cops say is true, and that he repeatedly ignored orders to drop the weapon (and even in texas, folks, pellet guns are considered weapons at schools) then they had every reason to open fire.

The only way this is the fault of the police is if the gun in question had the orange cap, which most bb and pellet guns don't have, since they fire metal projectiles, which can actually cause real harm, especially in the case of pellets.

Everyone needs to stop blaming the cops. It's not like they shot him for carrying wire cutters or nunchucks
 

Baneat

New member
Jul 18, 2008
2,762
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)
The bottom one has a magazine, but it's clearly made of plastic on closer inspection when you look at the middle of the slide.
 

omega 616

Elite Member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
43
FelixG said:
And yes, he deserved it. Kid brings a gun to school and assaults classmates and threatens to kill people. That is a criminal, best removed from the genepool so he doesn't infect others.
Are you being serious here, that's it there are no people walking away unharmed? People are going to be hurt and there is nothing you can do but kill first!

Why don't we just go into prisons and start clearing them out, they are only little criminals after all! Do you hear yourself?

There are other ways not just Rambo mode, I hope you don't have any dreams of being a cop!

So he went to school, punched a kid then got into aiming his gun and saying he is going to kill people? I doubt it. He was probably just waving it round or had it by his side.

If I have my hands to my side, you have them in a boxing stance and I go to slap you, who is going to hit who first? You with a straight or me bringing my hand up and then planting it on your mush? You obviously!

As for the bit I left quoted, lets apply that logic to wars, shall we? How about disability hospitals? What about people who wear glasses?

Ever hear a cry for attention?
 

Reaper195

New member
Jul 5, 2009
2,055
0
0
He was waving a real-looking gun around, and didn't drop it when the cops told him to. Why the fuck is anyone even questioning the cops? They had full right to shoot.

Of course, this would have been different in a country without loose gun laws like the US, but still.
 

Headdrivehardscrew

New member
Aug 22, 2011
1,660
0
0
SIXVI06-M said:
davros3000 said:
The Police seem to keep forgetting that they are paid to die for us if necessary. They took the job, but won't take the consequence of going into a situation. The policeman responsible for this should face action, at least professionally and possibly for criminal responsibility.

Just because the Police have firearms does not licence them to kill people.

I can't believe all the people on here who believe that the Police have a right to shoot on sight anyone they may believe to be carrying a weapon. Was the weapon discharged by the boy at all? No. The Police had no evidence to indicate it was a real weapon, its more likely that they boy would've been able to get a fake. They should get some proper discipline and some proper training if they wan't to carry real weapons and stop pretending that they're the untouchables or something. They aren't. They're cowards. They signed on a dotted line to risk their lives, they take the pay and the pension but won't man up to take a risk when required.

This case isn't an argument for the police having tasers. This case is an argument for policeman to have to earn the right post training to carry a weapon.
[...]
You are the coward here- sitting in front of your computer comfortably and blindly judging others with hardly a thought about the situation or putting yourself in their shoes.

Think before reacting - you'll sound a lot more intelligent at least. What you described is heroics seen in comic books, movies and computer games. What happened in the news is real life, involving real people, where death is permanent and the value of a life is both unseen and insurmountable; this kid decided to put himself in a position where he was seen disregarding the value of the lives of others, putting his own life above others- then that is justification enough to stop him with necessary force.
You know... it's a real problem these days. A lot of people are blinded by ideology, by how they want to see the world. In the UK, firearms were basically banned to 'protect' the populace. Thing is, now only bad guys deal with and own firearms, and the more general hostile and criminally inclined public will happily kill each other to death with knives, stakes or axes. It just doesn't work out. In Germany, I hear it's gotten somewhat complicated to legally own firearms... so the only ones owning, dealing with and abusing superiour firepower are the ones legally banned from doing any such thing, such as immigrants from war-torn nations or members of historically "always right, will argue you to the death, alternatively kill you dead" factions.

If the problem of all this ACAB and other selective narrow-mindedness would only be limited to forums and teh internet, we'd all be happy campers. Trouble is, politics is now knee-deep in this lethal intellectual quicksand, and this uninformed or downright nasty stance is applied to everything, from firearms to immigration to nuclear power. It's more crippling than outright war. Sad, but it goes to show what silly creatures we are.
 

Random Fella

New member
Nov 17, 2010
1,167
0
0
Call me heartless, but if someone, it doesn't matter who, threatens a cop with a gun, then he deserves to get shot. The cop doesn't know it's a pellet gun or weather he is going to harm someone or not, but a policeman's and innocent bystanders safety come before the safety of a potential shooter. He deserved to get shot for threatening police, I am not glad he got shot but it was his own fault in my opinion.
 

omega 616

Elite Member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
43
FelixG said:
Are you being serious here, that's it there are no people walking away unharmed? " People are going to be hurt and there is nothing you can do but kill first!"

I forgot to put the lil speech marks.

You're a fan of the death penalty, how surprising! You really are a "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" kinda fellow, aren't you?

How could I kill people, English cops don't carry guns! The special cops do but they are only called in in very rare circumstances.

America, Somebody got hurt

America, somebody got hurt

America, somebody gets hurt

UK, nobody hurt ... guy gets detained by a bin.

Uk cops aren't perfect but nobody is going home in a body bag

Yeah, I read it. I actually quoted some of it in another post ....

So he couldn't be waving the gun around? It was 100% aimed at the cops? So by your logic why didn't they just shoot him first chance they got? If the guy was already aiming at them they must have been in danger so why ask him to lower it?
 

JWAN

New member
Dec 27, 2008
2,725
0
0
How were the cops supposed to know it was a fake gun? after columbine and WVU I dont blame them for not taking any unnecessary risks.
I feel bad for the kids family but I feel just as bad for the the officers.
 

TacticalShoe

New member
Oct 19, 2008
19
0
0
It's a crappy situation all around, really, but I can't fault the officers for doing their jobs.

I feel like a situation like that is bad in itself, but when it happens in a school full of innocent children, the first reaction is to neutralize the situation as quickly and effectively as possible.
 

ccggenius12

New member
Sep 30, 2010
717
0
0
FarleShadow said:
[
What a load of piffle. To use a word I rarely get to.

It is laughable that someone can suggest that 'Cops shouldn't have guns, because then criminals will', what is that? "Oh if we're nice, maybe they won't shoot at us?"

So maybe Police officers should just use kind words and Nerf! balls to subdue violent offenders?
Actually, it's a statement of fact. It is quite simply far more difficult to acquire a firearm in an Island nation like the UK than it is to acquire one in a gun-friendly country that has a border with a country with poor gun control. The extra effort is simply not worth it when you don't have to match that force.
Most violent crimes in the UK are not committed with guns, this is an indisputable fact. If cops are armed with guns, you will see a decrease in violent crimes not involving a gun, assuming the criminals in question are not stupid. However, of those criminals no longer using lesser weapons, some will trade up for firearms. Firearms are far more lethal than knives, baseball bats, etc. so I find it unlikely that the presence of guns would lead to a decrease in the mortality rate.
Note that neither of us is saying that we should disarm law enforcement, because that will lead to criminals disarming. In fact, if you read my original post, (Which given your response seems quite clear you didn't.) I was ensuring that he did NOT imply that we should do so. We merely hold the position that arming a nation against a threat that does not currently exist could cause that threat to come into being. At the very least, if they make guns readily available for law enforcement, they make it exponentially easier for criminals to acquire them.

TLDR: There is no point in giving law enforcement in the UK firearms, as the situation does not warrant the presence of firearms.
 

DrunkPickle

New member
Sep 16, 2011
147
0
0
Another victim of the American "Justice System"...This is just getting pathetic. Wasn't there a similar incident with a Nerf gun just a month ago?
 

tarspoon

New member
Jan 6, 2012
6
0
0
All repliers completely missed my point. Why did I even bother.

DrunkPickle said:
Another victim of the American "Justice System"...This is just getting pathetic. Wasn't there a similar incident with a Nerf gun just a month ago?
Reading this thread I realized that americans deserve their 'justice' system. Evidently, they support and adore it.
 

mcnally86

New member
Apr 23, 2008
425
0
0
ccggenius12 said:
FarleShadow said:
[
What a load of piffle. To use a word I rarely get to.

It is laughable that someone can suggest that 'Cops shouldn't have guns, because then criminals will', what is that? "Oh if we're nice, maybe they won't shoot at us?"

So maybe Police officers should just use kind words and Nerf! balls to subdue violent offenders?
Actually, it's a statement of fact. It is quite simply far more difficult to acquire a firearm in an Island nation like the UK than it is to acquire one in a gun-friendly country that has a border with a country with poor gun control. The extra effort is simply not worth it when you don't have to match that force.
Most violent crimes in the UK are not committed with guns, this is an indisputable fact. If cops are armed with guns, you will see a decrease in violent crimes not involving a gun, assuming the criminals in question are not stupid. However, of those criminals no longer using lesser weapons, some will trade up for firearms. Firearms are far more lethal than knives, baseball bats, etc. so I find it unlikely that the presence of guns would lead to a decrease in the mortality rate.
Note that neither of us is saying that we should disarm law enforcement, because that will lead to criminals disarming. In fact, if you read my original post, (Which given your response seems quite clear you didn't.) I was ensuring that he did NOT imply that we should do so. We merely hold the position that arming a nation against a threat that does not currently exist could cause that threat to come into being. At the very least, if they make guns readily available for law enforcement, they make it exponentially easier for criminals to acquire them.

TLDR: There is no point in giving law enforcement in the UK firearms, as the situation does not warrant the presence of firearms.
What is the level of bullet control? Because I know where I live they just kill each other with bullets, guns are a rich mans luxury. Are home made "zip guns" an issue in the UK too? All it takes is a bullet a pipe and a hammer, drugs help too.
 

ACM_Shadow

New member
Aug 6, 2009
114
0
0
ccggenius12 said:
snip
Actually, it's a statement of fact. It is quite simply far more difficult to acquire a firearm in an Island nation like the UK than it is to acquire one in a gun-friendly country that has a border with a country with poor gun control. The extra effort is simply not worth it when you don't have to match that force.
Most violent crimes in the UK are not committed with guns, this is an indisputable fact. If cops are armed with guns, you will see a decrease in violent crimes not involving a gun, assuming the criminals in question are not stupid. However, of those criminals no longer using lesser weapons, some will trade up for firearms. Firearms are far more lethal than knives, baseball bats, etc. so I find it unlikely that the presence of guns would lead to a decrease in the mortality rate.
Note that neither of us is saying that we should disarm law enforcement, because that will lead to criminals disarming. In fact, if you read my original post, (Which given your response seems quite clear you didn't.) I was ensuring that he did NOT imply that we should do so. We merely hold the position that arming a nation against a threat that does not currently exist could cause that threat to come into being. At the very least, if they make guns readily available for law enforcement, they make it exponentially easier for criminals to acquire them.

TLDR: There is no point in giving law enforcement in the UK firearms, as the situation does not warrant the presence of firearms.
Completely agree with you here, I find best way to state this is via a scene in lethal weapon 3. talking about weapon escalation.. cops have pistols, bad guys get machine-guns, cops wear bulletproof vests, bad guys get armor piercing bullets.
Generally the more "tech" the law-enforcers have, the higher "tech" the law-breakers go.

OT: from the article it seems like the kid was in a ready to fire stance, and at that point you don't mess around, no matter the age, if you hesitate people can die, better the person threatening others then bystanders or the police.

I feel sorry for the police that had to take this call, they have to deal with the community saying why, and likely their own conscience's trying to justify what they did.