Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

[Griffolion]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all pellet guns in the US meant to have an orange tip on them so as to differentiate? If so, how far away was the police man standing in order to not clock that?

I'm pretty sure it was stated in the article that the guy filed down the orange tip to make it look like a real weapon.

This happens more often than you think, criminals who can't afford a weapon will often obtain an airsoft gun or pellet gun of some sort and either remove the orange tip or paint over it.

On the flip side, you sometimes have people painting the tips of real guns orange to make them seem like toy guns.

Given that he deliberately modified his pellet gun to make it look like a real firearm, and then brandished it at police, it really makes the suicide-by-cop thing more plausible don't it?

And thanks for the tip Sovvolf, This is the first thread i've posted in on the escapist

Damn if that's the case then that kid had no sense. I'm sad all this happened but no'one can be expected to feel sorry for him, he seems to have brought it on himself.

Even if the weapon was a full on brightly coloured two-tone replica, who on earth would point a gun at a police officer and not expect some sort of bad thing to happen?

 

[Pierce Graham]

While this is a tragedy, both sides are to blame. The cops, for using excessive force, but the kid shouldn't have pointed the pellet gun at the cops, and he should have lowered it when told. The cops had no way of knowing at a glance that it wasn't a real gun. Still, they could have gone for a non-lethal shot. They should have used tasers, too. Another example we can now give anti-taser people.

 

[jklinders]

He had a right to shoot the kid. But three shots? That's ridiculous. He's a kid. 1 is enough, and he might even live, too.

And why in the chest? Why not in the leg or arm? Wouldn't that effectively disarm him?

I agree, the police had a right to shoot him, but the way they shot him was uncalled for.

I disagree. Police training dictates that when it is judged necessary to fire they need to ensure that the threat they are trying to suppress is put down. One Shot cannot be counted on to do that. You can miss, or the threat could fire back before the shot brings him down. Likewise yo uaim for center mass to maximize the chance of a hit. That "justice shot" crap is for games and TV. Once you fire, training takes over. No one in this field will tell that they would fire only once. That crap is for TV and TV lies.

 

[Reiterpallasch]

He had a right to shoot the kid. But three shots? That's ridiculous. He's a kid. 1 is enough, and he might even live, too.

And why in the chest? Why not in the leg or arm? Wouldn't that effectively disarm him?

I agree, the police had a right to shoot him, but the way they shot him was uncalled for.

Someone hasn't read through the thread yet.

1) There is no such thing as shoot to incapacitate or shoot to disarm. When you draw your weapon, it is for the purpose of making the criminal back down or, failing that, to use lethal force. It's pretty damn hard to hit a leg or arm with a gun, despite what hollywood would like you to believe. Chances are that a leg shot wouldn't disarm em either, but it would give them the opportunity to fire back and possibly kill the officers. Police are trained to hit center mass because it's the largest target, has the thickest mass (therefore lessens the chance of the bullet passing through and hitting an innocent behind them) and it reliably brings the target down.

2) There were two officers that opened fire, and the fact that there were only three shots is a remarkable measure of restraint. In most cases where a police officer has to shoot a criminal, they'll empty half a clip or more in firing, for a couple reasons. One, given that handguns aren't particularly accurate, they'll fire many shots to make sure enough rounds hit to bring the criminal down. Two, police aren't psychic and can't just tell their partners that they've got it. In such instances, the officers have a split second to react and those with their weapons drawn will all open fire. Three, people can shrug off a bullet wound or two to the chest if they've got enough adrenaline or if they've got a bunch of drugs in their system. The large volume of shots is to ensure that the perp will go down and stay down.

 

[Reiterpallasch]

While this is a tragedy, both sides are to blame. The cops, for using excessive force, but the kid shouldn't have pointed the pellet gun at the cops, and he should have lowered it when told. The cops had no way of knowing at a glance that it wasn't a real gun. Still, they could have gone for a non-lethal shot. They should have used tasers, too. Another example we can now give anti-taser people.

I covered the shoot to disarm points. As for the tasers, it was reported that the officers were outside the range for tasers. And police MATCH force. If a criminal is going to use lethal force, the police match it with lethal force. Anything less could be fatal. Also, the electric shock caused by tasers causes the muscles in the body to clinch, which would lead to an involuntary trigger pull or two that could kill or injure someone nearby. Of course, that's assuming that the taser even effects them. Depending on the adrenaline/drugs running through the perp's blood stream, or just their physical hardiness, it's not uncommon for a taser to have no effect at all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rsPjcltCjM
video related: if you don't feel like watching it, it's a video of the guys from jackass hitting each other with tasers and laughing it off.

 

[Shifty Tortoise]

The shots were perfectly justified, it's what the officers were trained to do in the situation, blame their training. In hindsight it may have been better to fire a warning shot, scare him into dropping the pellet gun.

What type of ammunition does one fire for a warning shot?

One of the cardinal rules of firearm safety is KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT LIES BEYOND. So what would be the 'target' of this warning shot? The hard concrete floor were the bullet could easily ricochet? The soft ceiling that may potentially have people above? A wall where the bullet might penetrate and do the same?

Bottom line: Not only do you not fire 'warning' shots, you REALLY do not fire warning shots in a building full of innocent people. The barrel of a gun pointed at your face is warning enough, not to mention repeated commands to 'drop your weapon'.

He had plenty of opportunities to rethink his actions, not least of which was to not bring an object closely resembling a firearm to a school. The police did everything right to resolve what (so far as the information they had indicated) was a potentially deadly situation, and as a comedian once said: you can't fix stupid.

Use blanks.

Police do not carry blanks. Try again.

Hindsight, do you know what that is? Stop lecturing me on police protocol and firearms safety. In a perfect world the police would have better plans for situations like this, but that's the beauty of hindsight

In a 'perfect' world, there would be no need for police period. So let's keep our arguments based in reality. You fancy hindsight, how about some foresight then? In what scenario would a police officer carry blanks as part of standard equipment? I can think of two possible scenarios.

1. They automatically put a blank round in the chamber on top of a clip of regular nines. This posses a problem because it means your first shot is useless (if you need it) or you're fiddling with the action (at a time where fractions of seconds count). If who shoots first determines who goes home, that would be automatically condemning officers to death.

2. They carry a clip of blanks which they need to change out for real rounds or vice-versa. In both instances, they are fumbling for ammunition and wasting precious time (oh, and they'd best remember to pop the one in the chamber).

Face facts: as tragic as the kid's death was, no one is to blame but him. He CHOSE to modify his weapon to make it appear real, he CHOSE to bring it to school, he CHOSE to assault another student, he CHOSE to make death threats with his modified weapon, he CHOSE to ignore police warnings, and he CHOSE to point the weapon at police.

The police had to assume that he was armed and would make good on his threats. The kid's fate is sad, but it's of his own CHOOSING. No different than stepping in front of a train or off a ledge.

whatever, you win, you get the last word, have fun you massive child

Actually no you lost cause he made a better argument than you. Not because he got the last word/

I wasn't trying to have an argument in the first place, so why should i care?

 

[The Bucket]

The shots were perfectly justified, it's what the officers were trained to do in the situation, blame their training. In hindsight it may have been better to fire a warning shot, scare him into dropping the pellet gun.

What type of ammunition does one fire for a warning shot?

One of the cardinal rules of firearm safety is KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT LIES BEYOND. So what would be the 'target' of this warning shot? The hard concrete floor were the bullet could easily ricochet? The soft ceiling that may potentially have people above? A wall where the bullet might penetrate and do the same?

Bottom line: Not only do you not fire 'warning' shots, you REALLY do not fire warning shots in a building full of innocent people. The barrel of a gun pointed at your face is warning enough, not to mention repeated commands to 'drop your weapon'.

He had plenty of opportunities to rethink his actions, not least of which was to not bring an object closely resembling a firearm to a school. The police did everything right to resolve what (so far as the information they had indicated) was a potentially deadly situation, and as a comedian once said: you can't fix stupid.

Use blanks.

Police do not carry blanks. Try again.

Hindsight, do you know what that is? Stop lecturing me on police protocol and firearms safety. In a perfect world the police would have better plans for situations like this, but that's the beauty of hindsight

In a 'perfect' world, there would be no need for police period. So let's keep our arguments based in reality. You fancy hindsight, how about some foresight then? In what scenario would a police officer carry blanks as part of standard equipment? I can think of two possible scenarios.

1. They automatically put a blank round in the chamber on top of a clip of regular nines. This posses a problem because it means your first shot is useless (if you need it) or you're fiddling with the action (at a time where fractions of seconds count). If who shoots first determines who goes home, that would be automatically condemning officers to death.

2. They carry a clip of blanks which they need to change out for real rounds or vice-versa. In both instances, they are fumbling for ammunition and wasting precious time (oh, and they'd best remember to pop the one in the chamber).

Face facts: as tragic as the kid's death was, no one is to blame but him. He CHOSE to modify his weapon to make it appear real, he CHOSE to bring it to school, he CHOSE to assault another student, he CHOSE to make death threats with his modified weapon, he CHOSE to ignore police warnings, and he CHOSE to point the weapon at police.

The police had to assume that he was armed and would make good on his threats. The kid's fate is sad, but it's of his own CHOOSING. No different than stepping in front of a train or off a ledge.

whatever, you win, you get the last word, have fun you massive child

Actually no you lost cause he made a better argument than you. Not because he got the last word/

I wasn't trying to have an argument in the first place, so why should i care?

Why did you bother posting your opinion if you didn't want to defend it? You made your points, he refuted them, and instead of continuing it (which is the point of message boards) you called him a child and tried to look like you were just taking the high ground.

 

[Saltyk]

I'm going with what appears to be the consensus here. Its tragic, but the police are not at fault. The police did the right thing.

I don't get why they're mad that they shot more than one bullet.

I don't think the average eight grader could survive a gunshot period. How does one shoot "just to bring them down"? I get that there are non-lethal places to shoot someone, but does that work for a child too?

Or did the mother expect him to go all Rambo and rip up his gymshirt to tie around the wound while making a daring escape?

I have no idea if someone has corrected you on this and frankly I am not looking through 17 pages looking for the one guy who did. However, this is important.

There is no such thing as a nonlethal gunshot! There is no place I can shot you that doesn't risk killing you. Movies and games like to pretend that shooting a person in the leg or the arm won't kill them. This is completely and utterly false. Some smaller bullets have been known to ricochet within the body doing massive damage. There's also the possibility that the bullet could shatter sending what amounts to shrapnel through your body. Even if not, there are plenty of arteries and blood vessels in your arm and leg that will cause you to bleed to death if they are so much as nicked. In your leg they are massive. Think of how often you have heard a doctor tell someone they got real lucky because the cut just barely missed an artery. Even being shot in your shoulder can quickly result in death.

Given this, police are not trained to shoot to injure or stop. They are trained to shoot to kill. If they have to shoot someone, it has to be a case where the individual is a threat to them or other people. This is why police don't just shoot a running individual in the leg to catch them. In fact, they are trained to shoot at the person in the abdomen rather than extremities as it is more likely to kill the suspect due to the organs and such. This also means that they have to shoot more than once to ensure the suspect does not survive. A wounded animal is more dangerous as they say. Also, a good number of bullets will miss a target. Handguns are not terribly accurate at any range. This is only magnified from greater distances. Once more, movies lie to you when they say otherwise.

 

[Reiterpallasch]

It's also just more humane to kill quickly with a few shots than to have them bleed to death in agony.

 

[Reiterpallasch]

And I forgot to cover the whole "gunshots to extremities will still kill" angle in my post too, thanks for posting that.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm pretty sure it was stated in the article that the guy filed down the orange tip to make it look like a real weapon.

I thought pellet guns were sold without orange tips, and only toy guns were mandated to have the orange tip.

regardless, I looked online and some of the papers are showing pictures of the "gun" used and it had no orange tip.

Edit: I just googled "pellet gun" and most of the hits don't have orange tips.

While this is a tragedy, both sides are to blame. The cops, for using excessive force, but the kid shouldn't have pointed the pellet gun at the cops, and he should have lowered it when told. The cops had no way of knowing at a glance that it wasn't a real gun. Still, they could have gone for a non-lethal shot. They should have used tasers, too. Another example we can now give anti-taser people.

That's not excessive force. That's proportionate force.

Also, I'm not sure how this is an example for anti-Taser people, as the police had Tasers and could not, repeat COULD NOT use them. So you can't say "If they had Tasers, the kid wouldn't have died." Since they were outside of effective Taser range, it cannot be used as an example that we should let police use Tasers, since they couldn't.

If anything, this seems to demonstrate that Tasers are not the Panacea they are treated as by the "pro-Taser" people.

I'm also not inclined to believe this will sway people who believe Tasers are used excessively in instances where their use is excessive force.

 

[Burs]

I think this thread is one of the reasons i just lurk all the time rather than post.

I read the whole thread and not much else needs to be said. I do agree with the cops on this one. Not because I'm American or that i think guns are the best thing ever, but because in the same situation in which i was being visibly threatened by something I thought was a gun I would have defended myself and everyone in that school.

Look, it's sad that the kid had to die. I get what a lot of foreigners are saying about gun use and non lethal weapons. Things are different here across the ocean and the border. It's difficult for any of you to understand just like it is for Americans to understand foreigners. Sometimes you just have to act in a way that can guarantee the safety of yourselves, your fellow officers, and everyone around you.

Im a foriegner and against the use of Personal firearms for defence, and Im still with the Police.

Being a former Brit Special Constable at that point I'd be calling the ARU who if the kid didnt move after the 3 warnings would still shoot him- thats what caused all the stupid so-called riots over here last year

He had a right to shoot the kid. But three shots? That's ridiculous. He's a kid. 1 is enough, and he might even live, too.

And why in the chest? Why not in the leg or arm? Wouldn't that effectively disarm him?

I agree, the police had a right to shoot him, but the way they shot him was uncalled for.

umm, If it comes down to drawing your firearm its always about lethal force so the officer shoots as many times to make sure the suspect is dead.

Why in the chest?: simple its the largest area on the human body and therefore easier to hit and less chance of giving the suspect time to cuase harm to anyone else by missing or hitting the suspect somewhere where they might ignore it.

I only hope the officers dont get villified by the press, family and themselves =(

 

[Milo Windby]

*Bandwagon*
I don't fault the cop... its tragic and sad that it happened but if I was the cop and I saw someone raise a realistic replica pellet gun that looks exactly like the real one I would not stand there and ask "Hey kid, is that a pellet gun? =D"

 

[jklinders]

Well I'm not pro-tazer. I just feel they have their place right next to other tools used by law enforcement from Cuffs to batons to sidearms.

Anyone who claims that they are safe is drinking cool aid. It's not safe to be struck in the noggin by a baton either.

Besides as already stated they are the wrong tool for this situation as the natural reaction to getting shocked is to clench your hands, leading to a shot being fired. That is not to say that they should not have tazers at all, just to use them when it is appropriate. Just like all their other tools.

 

[Reiterpallasch]

I think this thread is one of the reasons i just lurk all the time rather than post.

I read the whole thread and not much else needs to be said. I do agree with the cops on this one. Not because I'm American or that i think guns are the best thing ever, but because in the same situation in which i was being visibly threatened by something I thought was a gun I would have defended myself and everyone in that school.

Look, it's sad that the kid had to die. I get what a lot of foreigners are saying about gun use and non lethal weapons. Things are different here across the ocean and the border. It's difficult for any of you to understand just like it is for Americans to understand foreigners. Sometimes you just have to act in a way that can guarantee the safety of yourselves, your fellow officers, and everyone around you.

Im a foriegner and against the use of Personal firearms for defence, and Im still with the Police.

Being a former Brit Special Constable at that point I'd be calling the ARU who if the kid didnt move after the 3 warnings would still shoot him- thats what caused all the stupid so-called riots over here last year

He had a right to shoot the kid. But three shots? That's ridiculous. He's a kid. 1 is enough, and he might even live, too.

And why in the chest? Why not in the leg or arm? Wouldn't that effectively disarm him?

I agree, the police had a right to shoot him, but the way they shot him was uncalled for.

umm, If it comes down to drawing your firearm its always about lethal force so the officer shoots as many times to make sure the suspect is dead.

Why in the chest?: simple its the largest area on the human body and therefore easier to hit and less chance of giving the suspect time to cuase harm to anyone else by missing or hitting the suspect somewhere where they might ignore it.

I only hope the officers dont get villified by the press, family and themselves =(

Unfortunately, the Huffington Post article that started this thread put a "police brutality" spin on the whole thing, and the parents agree.
Understandable on the parents' part, but the Post has no excuse for that sort of thing.

 

[jklinders]

I think this thread is one of the reasons i just lurk all the time rather than post.

I read the whole thread and not much else needs to be said. I do agree with the cops on this one. Not because I'm American or that i think guns are the best thing ever, but because in the same situation in which i was being visibly threatened by something I thought was a gun I would have defended myself and everyone in that school.

Look, it's sad that the kid had to die. I get what a lot of foreigners are saying about gun use and non lethal weapons. Things are different here across the ocean and the border. It's difficult for any of you to understand just like it is for Americans to understand foreigners. Sometimes you just have to act in a way that can guarantee the safety of yourselves, your fellow officers, and everyone around you.

Im a foriegner and against the use of Personal firearms for defence, and Im still with the Police.

Being a former Brit Special Constable at that point I'd be calling the ARU who if the kid didnt move after the 3 warnings would still shoot him- thats what caused all the stupid so-called riots over here last year

He had a right to shoot the kid. But three shots? That's ridiculous. He's a kid. 1 is enough, and he might even live, too.

And why in the chest? Why not in the leg or arm? Wouldn't that effectively disarm him?

I agree, the police had a right to shoot him, but the way they shot him was uncalled for.

umm, If it comes down to drawing your firearm its always about lethal force so the officer shoots as many times to make sure the suspect is dead.

Why in the chest?: simple its the largest area on the human body and therefore easier to hit and less chance of giving the suspect time to cuase harm to anyone else by missing or hitting the suspect somewhere where they might ignore it.

I only hope the officers dont get villified by the press, family and themselves =(

Unfortunately, the Huffington Post article that started this thread put a "police brutality" spin on the whole thing, and the parents agree.
Understandable on the parents' part, but the Post has no excuse for that sort of thing.

Seeing as the HU-PO is the left's answer to Faux News I am not surprised and as such decline to use them as a source for anything. Better to try and find less overtly biased sources. Or at least take them with a real big grain of salt. If you have a strong stomach, check out the comments there. Trolls on both sides of the debate baiting each other all over the place. I almost wish my troll hunting license was up to date. Almost.

 

[Reiterpallasch]

I'm sure the Huffington Post wasn't the only publication that spun the story that way either. :|

 

[jklinders]

I'm sure the Huffington Post wasn't the only publication that spun the story that way either. :|

I agree. They are just the most blatant about it.

I have little connection to law enforcement myself, but I know it is a very unpopular job where everyone second guesses your every action. Then we get this TV based fantasy malarkey from a lot of folks(not you, you seem to speak from experience) spouted by a bunch of folks with healthy doses of "what if."

I get pretty angry at the media in general when I see garbage like that.

 

[Jegsimmons]

THIS KID HAD IT COMING

Besides the fact he was threatening people with it, and that school gun violence is the scariest thing we could have in the US (see virginia tech and columbine) and he THREATENED POLICE WHO THOUGHT IT WAS REAL, he was asking to have a few rounds put in him, the police did their job and did it well, what if that dumb bastard has a real gun?* Many people could be dead, and then what? ***** at the cops anyway?

*note, im not anti-gun at all, but keep them away from schools because kids are stupid

 

[Reiterpallasch]

Well I personally think that this was a (successful) suicide by cop.