Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

[Reiterpallasch]

3. Officers SHOULD have asked him to drop the weapon first.

They did.

Multiple times.

Even the article from the beginning of the thread mentions it, though it does gloss over the "multiple times" portion.

1. Kid was stupid that he brought it to school.

2. Kid was REALLY stupid he pointed it as police officers

3. Officers SHOULD have asked him to drop the weapon first.

I think the only action that needs to be taken now is stress that too the police force, but that's it.

*facepalm*

'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.'
....
'They could hear police charge down the hallway and shout for Gonzalez to drop the weapon, followed by several shots.'

Did you even read the article before commenting?

EDIT: ninja'd D;

I must have missed that >.>

I rephrase my statement: The kid was a IDOT.

I call this one a suicide-by-cop rather than an act of idiocy

 

[Something Amyss]

My mistake on the Huffington Post attribution. It seems as if the article was written by Associated Press journalists and just hosted on the Huffington Post.

And the "spin" that I was referring to is how the article portrays the police as the villains here. Now how is villainizing police officers who did EXACTLY what they should have done considered a "viable question"?

I wasn't referring to the guy who started this thread, I was referring to the original article. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

Yes, how dare that article cover the angle that the police might have been a problem?

They also cover the bit about him being warned, about the incident happening outside Taser range, but RAWR spin!

It almost looks like they addressed claims from both sides of the issue regarding a breaking news story that lacked clear answers (Remember, the initial reports indicated he was shot in the back of the head, especially suspicious were it to be true) and didn't really draw a conclusion of guilt.

But no, it did not say what I wanted it to say, so it's spin.

 

[Something Amyss]

I must have missed that >.>

I rephrase my statement: The kid was a IDOT.

I largely agree with "suicide by cop," given he likely knew the outcome of such an altercation. Of course, it's all speculation. He seemed to be a good kid, and what exactly caused him to flip is still a mystery.

still, he would have been the only one to know the gun wasn't real, presumably, so....

 

[Donttazemehbro]

My brother in law is a police officer. Officers are taught that if presented with a dangerous situation and anyone pointing a dangerous weapon at them, they are trained to use deadly force. I dont think that what they did was justified, as 3 shots is too much to bring down an 8th grader. Personally if i was the police officer, i would have shot a knee cap or foot. That would drop most people rather than a kill shot. The important thing to remember is that this kid is around what, 13-14. I find that his actions were out of immaturity and not a quest for violence. Some kids are pushed over the edge sometimes, i can understand what that means (i would never threaten someone as sever as he did but still). When someone is hurt, they are driven to do things that they would not normally do. So my position is that they did their duty to protect the other students and themselves. However, i think they went too far in their handling of the situation. Instead of 3 shots to the chest, i think blowing out a kneecap or something would have been more acceptable then taking the life of a middle school student.

 

[Reiterpallasch]

My mistake on the Huffington Post attribution. It seems as if the article was written by Associated Press journalists and just hosted on the Huffington Post.

And the "spin" that I was referring to is how the article portrays the police as the villains here. Now how is villainizing police officers who did EXACTLY what they should have done considered a "viable question"?

I wasn't referring to the guy who started this thread, I was referring to the original article. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

Yes, how dare that article cover the angle that the police might have been a problem?

They also cover the bit about him being warned, about the incident happening outside Taser range, but RAWR spin!

It almost looks like they addressed claims from both sides of the issue regarding a breaking news story that lacked clear answers (Remember, the initial reports indicated he was shot in the back of the head, especially suspicious were it to be true) and didn't really draw a conclusion of guilt.

But no, it did not say what I wanted it to say, so it's spin.

But they didn't present it as such. Half the article was them pulling quotes from parents and friends about how great a kid he was and how he was like everyone's best friend.
It's a deliberate use of pathos to encourage the reader to agree with the parent's perception of the whole thing, that the officers were trigger-happy and excessive.
Yes they cover some of the other variables at work, but spin isn't an all or nothing thing like you make it out to be.
The comments by the police chief were almost brushed off by the tone of the article.
I'm all for addressing both sides of the argument, even in this situation, but they only glossed over the policeman's perspective.

A bit of a hypocrite aren't you? Instead of addressing my comments on the article's spin in a mature manner(which is perfectly acceptable), you're whitewashing everything that I say as "It didn't say what I wanted to! SPINNNNN!"

Ironic.

 

[Nielas]

My brother in law is a police officer. Officers are taught that if presented with a dangerous situation and anyone pointing a dangerous weapon at them, they are trained to use deadly force. I dont think that what they did was justified, as 3 shots is too much to bring down an 8th grader. Personally if i was the police officer, i would have shot a knee cap or foot. That would drop most people rather than a kill shot. The important thing to remember is that this kid is around what, 13-14. I find that his actions were out of immaturity and not a quest for violence. Some kids are pushed over the edge sometimes, i can understand what that means (i would never threaten someone as sever as he did but still). When someone is hurt, they are driven to do things that they would not normally do. So my position is that they did their duty to protect the other students and themselves. However, i think they went too far in their handling of the situation. Instead of 3 shots to the chest, i think blowing out a kneecap or something would have been more acceptable then taking the life of a middle school student.

You might want to have your brother-in-law explain the mechanics of this situation to you.

The two police officers fired 3 shots TOTAL. This means one fired once and the other twice. That is as minimal number of shots as you get get in this situation.

A bullet wound to the leg can be quite fatal and also less likely to stop someone from firing a gun that is already pointed at the officers.

 

[jdun]

That's what I don't get about the US police. Why aren't they armed with rubber bullets for their handguns as standard. I said this in my earlier post. I know you said they're dangerous, but they're not as dangerous as live ammo. And they get the job done.

I really don't see why thy aren't armed with rubber bullets as standard. Save the live ammo for when the occasion really calls for it. Which in all honesty would be a very rare occasion. Even calling a TAU or Swat team as you guys call it, Rifles and shotguns armed with rubber ammo will take down more or less anyone. Barring those wearing kevlar etc.

In order to understand why the cops don't used rubber bullets you need to know what a lethal weapon is. A lethal weapon is any items that is able to cause death. A gun cause death.

In order to survive a gun fight you need to used lethal force namely a firearm. Pretend you're a criminal with a firearm and the cop shoot you with rubber bullet. What do you do? You laugh and kill them. That's real life.

Can I just get like an auto reply button or something Escapist? Because I'm beginning to feel like a broken record.

Listen, Mr condescension. I know what lethal force is, I also know how little force is required to render the average human... non-threatening. You do not need to match lethal force with lethal force. Especially when we're talking about an isolated scale. I'm not suggesting you replace live ammo for the military with non-lethal alternatives.

But for criminals, your average joe without a kevlar vest. A nice oldschool rubber round (not the newer watered down riot control plastics.) is going to drop them just as fast as a real one. With the added bonus of perhaps not killing them. Although that isn't exactly ruled out. What with broken ribs, punctured lungs, concussions, internal hemorrhaging.

Yea, they're not pleasant. It isn't like going paintballing.

The whole matching lethal force with lethal force is what's wrong with current policing. It creates an eye for an eye culture. And the criminal vs law enforcement struggle becomes an arms race. With people getting bigger and bigger guns to preemptively get one over on the other side.

The truth is there are plenty of non-lethal ways for the police to safely (for themselves) neutralise threats carrying small arms. But, because there are so many people like you who feel... inadequate when they don't have a verified widowmaker in their hands. That isn't going to happen.

And just for the record, I don't blame the police as I've said before. They acted exactly how they've been trained to. But if they'd have been trained to drop the kid without killing him. With an arsenal of effective nonlethal means. Well he and many others wouldn't be needlessly dead.

You are mixing fantasy with reality.

Fantasy: You get killed you respawn.
Reality: You get killed you stay dead.

Fantasy: You get shot the bullet bounce off or do 10 point of damage.
Reality: You get shot, you're either dead, injured, or cripple for life.

If you believe non-lethal arms will be able to incapacitate a person that prose a lethal threat than I have to break it to you, you're dead wrong. People don't give up because they are hit. They give up when they are dead in a fight.

Did these non-lethal weapons incapacitate the criminal? Pretend these crazies had a gun. What happen if you used non-lethal weapons on them? Nothing and you'll will be dead in less then one second.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0tRU21oyM0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PptWBUo7sOY

The first rule of a gun fight is to have a gun.
The first rule against a lethal armed opponent is to have a gun.
That's reality.

The Miami Shootout is reality not fantasy. It cost the lives of two FBI agents fighting two harden criminals to the death in a 5 minute gun fight. That's reality.
https://www.google.com/search?q=miami+shootout&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

The Peter Soulis incident where Officer Soulis fight against a murder to the death. Both men refused to die. At the end of the gun fight the criminal was hit 22 times, 17 of which was in the center of mass.
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/training/officer-down-peter-soulis-inci

 

[Donttazemehbro]

My brother in law is a police officer. Officers are taught that if presented with a dangerous situation and anyone pointing a dangerous weapon at them, they are trained to use deadly force. I dont think that what they did was justified, as 3 shots is too much to bring down an 8th grader. Personally if i was the police officer, i would have shot a knee cap or foot. That would drop most people rather than a kill shot. The important thing to remember is that this kid is around what, 13-14. I find that his actions were out of immaturity and not a quest for violence. Some kids are pushed over the edge sometimes, i can understand what that means (i would never threaten someone as sever as he did but still). When someone is hurt, they are driven to do things that they would not normally do. So my position is that they did their duty to protect the other students and themselves. However, i think they went too far in their handling of the situation. Instead of 3 shots to the chest, i think blowing out a kneecap or something would have been more acceptable then taking the life of a middle school student.

You might want to have your brother-in-law explain the mechanics of this situation to you.

The two police officers fired 3 shots TOTAL. This means one fired once and the other twice. That is as minimal number of shots as you get get in this situation.

A bullet wound to the leg can be quite fatal and also less likely to stop someone from firing a gun that is already pointed at the officers.

A valid point, one thing you do have to remember is the trauma the bullet causes is based on the type of bullet. Most cops, in my area, use a nice glock 9 mm. Now 9 mm, while powerful, one shot (if it does not hit a vital artery or organ etc) will most likely not kill the victim depending on size and other factors.

 

[Reiterpallasch]

My brother in law is a police officer. Officers are taught that if presented with a dangerous situation and anyone pointing a dangerous weapon at them, they are trained to use deadly force. I dont think that what they did was justified, as 3 shots is too much to bring down an 8th grader. Personally if i was the police officer, i would have shot a knee cap or foot. That would drop most people rather than a kill shot. The important thing to remember is that this kid is around what, 13-14. I find that his actions were out of immaturity and not a quest for violence. Some kids are pushed over the edge sometimes, i can understand what that means (i would never threaten someone as sever as he did but still). When someone is hurt, they are driven to do things that they would not normally do. So my position is that they did their duty to protect the other students and themselves. However, i think they went too far in their handling of the situation. Instead of 3 shots to the chest, i think blowing out a kneecap or something would have been more acceptable then taking the life of a middle school student.

You might want to have your brother-in-law explain the mechanics of this situation to you.

The two police officers fired 3 shots TOTAL. This means one fired once and the other twice. That is as minimal number of shots as you get get in this situation.

A bullet wound to the leg can be quite fatal and also less likely to stop someone from firing a gun that is already pointed at the officers.

A valid point, one thing you do have to remember is the trauma the bullet causes is based on the type of bullet. Most cops, in my area, use a nice glock 9 mm. Now 9 mm, while powerful, one shot (if it does not hit a vital artery or organ etc) will most likely not kill the victim depending on size and other factors.

Hence the reason why cops normally shoot and keep shooting until the perp is down for the count.
Which is why quite a few people on this thread (including me) are arguing that 3 shots between two officers was a sign of remarkable restraint on the side of the officers.

 

[Foxtrotk72]

bit unfortunte that the kid had to die i guess police didn't know if it was a pellet or real gun until they shot him i recon he deserved it he was give chances but didn't listen but i dont know much about Texas police engagements like this cause im in Australia i feel sorry for the family who didn't know about it

 

[mega48man]

just a reminder that no matter where you look, either in starving nations or in small town american, life isn't fair...and can be cruelly so

 

[xXAsherahXx]

It was in Texas. Makes sense right there. I'm 100% certain that there was another way, but pellet guns do look a lot like real guns when meant to. Dunno why any kids pull that shit to begin with. I guess it's fun to cause a panic for the lulz. Idiot.

Oh well, it's sad that he died I suppose.

 

[CruisingForBiddies]

I don't think the kid got what he deserved at all. He may have drawn what the police officers at the time believed was a weapon but he certainly didn't deserve to die. Who ever who shot and killed him had the intentions of protecting themselves and anyone who may have been around at the time. To be honest I feel just as sorry for the person who pulled the trigger. Imagine having to live with that over your head.