Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

[Erttheking]

"The police should be punished"

...Well ms. whaver, let me just say that I'm very sorry...I'm very sorry that your son was completly fucking brain dead and the police were looking to prevent a new Collumbine.

 

[The Last Nomad]

Only read half of the article so correct me if I missed something important there but I think it was a case where the officers did the right thing, but maybe went a bit to far.

Generally there is two ways to deal with an armed suspect.
Some one has a gun: no shots need to be fired, ask them to put it down (at gunpoint if necessary)
Someone points a gun at you and refuses to put it down: shoot your's first
Seems the cops had the 2nd of those situations on their hands and done the right thing, although perhaps a single shot would have been enough to avoid killing the kid but also to stop the situation.

Although dealing with armed kids is very difficult, they don't always understand death and the possibilities of guns causing death so easily.
While the kid only had a pellet gun, it could easily have been a real gun and no-one could have known till afterwards.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

I do wonder whether the kid was actually trying to kill himself?
In any case its a tragedy, I can also completely understand why his parents would want the police to be punished, their son was just killed, they arent really in a state to look at the facts.

Also one thing these articles need is a little blurb at the bottom saying things like

"To the commentors and readers of this article

-It is very hard to identify whether a handgun is fake or not when standing at range, Police Officers do not possess eagle vision

-It is fucking hard to shoot someone in a "non lethal" area, and if you miss, you run the risk of hitting a person behind the suspect

-There is no such thing as a non lethal area, there are are areas that may be slightly less lethal, but there is still a very real chance of death

-Warning shots do not work

-The last thing you want is a pissed off injured person with a lethal weapon, thats why the cops make sure they're dead"

Imagine how much argument could be resolved if info like that was put alongside the article?

 

[Scarim Coral]

While I did read the situation (the kid was nuts and using a pellet gun and the cop probably couldn't see it was a fake given the sight from his distance) but couldn't the cop shoot him in the arm or leg to disarm him?

 

[s0p0g]

"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." of course he said that. do you seriously think he'd say "yeah sure, we had a madman amongst our ranks, but totally didn't see it coming"?

really? i mean, i only do know about US american police work from tv and thankfully youtube videos, but from what we silly europeans get to hear... yeah... i guess that's what happens when you give a pig a gun and a badge. you become the fucking law and fucking do whatever you fucking please to lowly mortals!
to protect and to serve (my primal instincts)... oink oink.

on the other hand, if i were a cop over there, i'd fight for my life too, be it an old lady crossing the street while lights are read, or be asking a single person to step out of their car to check his license. you never know if he or she ain't got a gat in their undies (from what i'ce heard it's legal in large parts of the US. you know, so that killings like this don't occur. lol.), so the only reasonable thing to do is shoot first, ask questions later. (of course you have to aim for lethal targets first; non-lethal shots are for pussies, and as a bad-ass cop, you ain't no pussy, beeatch! you go for the kill, man! i mean, we all know that some guy who stole an old lady's purse is a highly trained killer who will shrug off any wounds and shoot very precisely at the the officers' heads and other lethal parts. instead of cringing in pain.)

 

[Memoriae]

I agree with a commenter on the news page in question, if the kid does not know what to do when police say to drop his weapon, he's not been brought up right. I think the people involved aren't saying everything there is to know about this affair. A kid with a normal life wouldn't threaten police officers with a bb gun. And why were the police in there? Why were they called? Couldn't anyone see before that he was harmless and only had a toy? And why couldn't the police fire only ONCE. If they fired 3 times this means they saw him get injured and then deemed it necessary to fire twice more.

I don't think this story shows the full picture.

You'll probably find that none of the school staff even wanted to get close to see if it is a gun, just in case it was a gun, and the person holding it was unstable enough to shoot.

You'll also probably find that it most schools it'll be standard procedure for anything potentially involving a firearm to have the police attend.

So while you may not agree with the police being called, it was absolutely the right thing to do, as they have the resources to deal with situations like that, where a school won't.

Also, in litigation-happy America, if a member of the staff tackled the kid to the ground, or otherwise rendered him unconscious, you can guarantee that there'd be a lawsuit. So partially from the side of safety, and partially to prevent some backwards litigious shits from suing the school.


Also, around the number of shots? They fired 3 times, of which 2 hit.

 

[Leninv3l]

Well it says he "had plenty of opportunities to lower the gun and listen to the officers' orders, and he didn't want to,". I can say in that case they were perfectly justified. Three shots may have been a bit excessive, but it's not like they should've just sat there and risked having officer get taken out by the kid.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

While I did read the situation (the kid was nuts and using a pellet gun and the cop probably couldn't see it was a fake given the sight from his distance) but couldn't the cop shoot him in the arm or leg to disarm him?

Thats just sick... It might be ok in Game Logic, but in real life that just gives people a slow painfull death, and gives them immense pain... Its essentially torture...!

Not only that, its bloody hard to shoot someone in the arm or leg! Aiming a wapon isn't the easiest thing to do, especially at distance, and most weapons are not zeroed perfectly, especially as you have to zero the weapon differently at different distances! Noone is trained to shoot to injure, and noone is trained (except special forces) to shoot anywhere except the torso! Shoot to kill, its inhumane otherwise!

 

[Kopikatsu]

While I did read the situation (the kid was nuts and using a pellet gun and the cop probably couldn't see it was a fake given the sight from his distance) but couldn't the cop shoot him in the arm or leg to disarm him?

A shot to the leg has a high chance of being fatal (A lot of major veins there) and arms are hard to hit.

Police and military are trained to aim for center mass. Which is what they did.

Never assume that the world operates on video game logic where people regularly shoot guns out of people's hands without injuring them and such.

 

[Baby Tea]

"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.

No he doesn't.
Police aren't trained or order to 'shoot to disarm'. They are ordered to 'Shoot to remove threat', and they aim for center mass. One shot means you can still have a person, with a gun, being able to use it. Since they thought it was a real gun, if they only shot once the kid could have truly 'snapped' and started shooting back, thus injuring officers.

Really, I'm shocked it's only 3 shots.

This event is indisputably a tragedy. What an utter waste of life.
But from what the article says, the officers did it all by the book.
Looks like the kid wanted to die, really. Suicide by cop. A real shame.

 

[karloss01]

snip

in addition even pellet guns can have clips and magazines, My two-toned G36C has a magazine that has fake rounds built into it. if i decided to spray my gun so its no longer bright green then it would look like the real deal.

The kid in the end got what he deserved, he should have listened to the cops.

EDIT: just for reference

 

[RESURRECTION21]

it is fucked up but i wonder how long till fox news and jack tompson blame video games i give it 4 hours but it is just sad i fell so bad for all who where there

 

[A Free Man]

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.

It's a very sensitive and tough decision really, but I think a lack of real firepower with police although suitable in situations like this would make dealing with the real thing that much more dificult. What chance would a police officer with a taser have defending someone who is being shot at by any gun? Unfortunately this is a tragic event with no one really to blame. It is understandable but that doesn't make it right, but at the same is extremely sad but that doesn't make it wrong. It is a very grey are in my book.

 

[SIXVI06-M]

While I did read the situation (the kid was nuts and using a pellet gun and the cop probably couldn't see it was a fake given the sight from his distance) but couldn't the cop shoot him in the arm or leg to disarm him?

If the gun was real: there's probably a dozen rounds in the clip of that gun. The trigger is but a tiny flick of the finger away - can get a shot off in milliseconds. Also, anyone can pull the trigger of a gun. This is an able-bodied teenager, he will be fast and has a full range of motion.

1. If the kid were shot in the arm: that doesn't guarantee that he'll drop the weapon or prevent it's use. Best case scenario - it'll shock the kid into firing the gun randomly and hopefully the kid misses hitting anyone. Worst case scenario: it'll piss the kid off and the kid's probably put a few bullets into a few other kids/cops by now.

2. If the kid were shot in the leg: the kid is probably on the ground now; but I'm sure you can use a gun from the ground. Unless he's holding the gun with his foot. If that's the case- then apply example 1. except imagine the kid is using the gun with his feet instead.

3. Our limbs and extremities are thin, and moves easily. Our core is thick, full of padding and does not move so easily. If you were to shoot at something- best to aim at something large and thick - that way it's harder to miss. An actual tragedy would be: in confronting a kid with a problem who has only managed to think of a selfish and cowardly way to solve his problems, that someone ACTUALLY innocent is killed or maimed by a stray bullet.

These are not probabilities anyone who is charged with the protection and safety of others should be taken chances with. You take the least risk possible and you get the most effective result you can get.

Save your tears and heart for someone who can think a bit more beyond themselves, someone worthy and deserving of your compassion; rather than someone who selfishly causes a scene, bringing pain and difficulty to those who actually cared for someone who obviously didn't care enough.

 

[Azuaron]

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.

...tasers...

You can't tase someone holding a gun. Their muscles will tighten, pulling the trigger of the gun. They needed (but wouldn't have on hand, since they're only used for very specific, crowd-control circumstances) rubber bullets or a bean bag gun (both of which are still really dangerous).

On the one hand, somewhat sad. On the other hand, the officers did exactly the right thing.

ETA:

While I did read the situation (the kid was nuts and using a pellet gun and the cop probably couldn't see it was a fake given the sight from his distance) but couldn't the cop shoot him in the arm or leg to disarm him?

You don't want that. Guns are lethal weapons. Getting shot is often fatal no matter where you get shot. If you start training police officers to "just wound" criminals, cops are going to start "just wounding" criminals that really don't need to be shot, and lots of people will die who don't need to. The only purpose for a police officer's gun is to kill someone before they kill another person.

 

[TilMorrow]

Just read through the story. Shot three times and shoot to kill? The hell. Was there no attempt at all to scare the kid? It reads like they yelled at him once then thought screw this and shot him. Also according to the story he was in the school corridor when they shot him. I hardly think if they charged him whilst wearing riot armour (this was in Texas) that the shooting would be necessary. But still unless you have actually been shot at by the kid you don't bloody well shoot to kill. Heck, you shouldn't even be shooting to incapacitate unless the kid had shot someone. Though the kid may have been unstable and was classified as dnagerous after he punched the other kid but I find that situation questionable and where did the gun come from I have to ask? Did he secretly buy it or did it belong to someone else? I mean they aren't cheap and he would have need parental permission if he got it himself so I wonder...

Edit: Also take into account that this happened in a school and I reinterate that he was in the corridor and not a classroom when he was shot. They could have easily had someone sneak up on him from another entrance.

 

[SIXVI06-M]

"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.

No he doesn't.
Police aren't trained or order to 'shoot to disarm'. They are ordered to 'Shoot to remove threat', and they aim for center mass. One shot means you can still have a person, with a gun, being able to use it. Since they thought it was a real gun, if they only shot once the kid could have truly 'snapped' and started shooting back, thus injuring officers.

Really, I'm shocked it's only 3 shots.

This event is indisputably a tragedy. What an utter waste of life.
But from what the article says, the officers did it all by the book.
Looks like the kid wanted to die, really. Suicide by cop. A real shame.

3 shots is most likely just a very well measured response with balancing risk to others to necessity - it's just enough to get the job done - it doesn't say how scrawny the kid is, but of course- you'd think someone who looks like you can snap in half would take less rounds to put down than a walking meat-wall.

That and don't forget, it's in a school, it's a teenager, the scene is surrounded by despairing kids and parents; the police are already well aware that this is could very well be a political and PR shitstorm. Last thing they need is to be labelled as 'trigger-happy' by world news. To be honest, they did good in that regard.

That and consider, there was more than one cop there - 3 bullets to immobilize and neutralize threat. If they saw any further threat- I'm sure the backup can put an extra 9 rounds into the kid and decide that the kid is definitely down.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Just read through the story. Shot three times and shoot to kill? The hell. Was there no attempt at all to scare the kid?

Let's scare the teenager who is waving a gun around. That'll end well.

It reads like they yelled at him once then thought screw this and shot him.

Did you read it? He was given multiple chances to put the gun down. He refused.

Also according to the story he was in the school corridor when they shot him. I hardly think if they charged him whilst wearing riot armour (this was in Texas) that the shooting would be necessary. But still unless you have actually been shot at by the kid you don't bloody well shoot to kill.

Herp. Wearing body armor doesn't mean that you can tank bullets like Rambo. Most body armor can only absorb a single low to mid caliber bullet. The exception is extremely heavy armor, but that's reserved for OED/PSBD. (Bomb Squad, basically). Also, yes you do. Why would they wait for the kid to kill someone before putting him down? They told him to drop the gun, he refused, they shot him. That's procedure.

Heck, you shouldn't even be shooting to incapacitate unless the kid had shot someone. Though the kid may have been unstable and was classified as dnagerous after he punched the other kid but I find that situation questionable and where did the gun come from I have to ask? Did he secretly buy it or did it belong to someone else? I mean they aren't cheap and he would have need parental permission if he got it himself so I wonder...

5Herp. There is no such thing as 'shooting to incapacitate'. You shoot to kill, or you don't shoot at all. Even a shot to the arm or leg can be fatal, so there is no reason to bother with it. As for how he got it...does it matter? He had it.[/quote]

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.

...tasers...

You can't tase someone holding a gun. Their muscles will tighten, pulling the trigger of the gun. They needed (but wouldn't have on hand, since they're only used for very specific, crowd-control circumstances) rubber bullets or a bean bag gun (both of which are still really dangerous).

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.

Rubber bullets are used for riot control; not when lives could potentially be on the line. Besides...shooting someone holding a gun with rubber bullets isn't going to 'take them down'. They can still...you know...shoot people.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

Literally two pages of people defending the police's right to shoot to kill. Great response from everyone, I'm just glad that I don't live in a place where this sort of sh*t's legal.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Literally two pages of people defending the police's right to shoot to kill. Great response from everyone, I'm just glad that I don't live in a place where this sort of sh*t's legal.

Don't wave a gun (Real or not) in a school, then refuse to drop it when the police tell you to.

We've had enough school shootings that it's not just a 'kids being kids' thing.