Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

[Azuaron]

Just read through the story. Shot three times and shoot to kill? The hell.

There's no such thing as "shoot to not-kill". Officers are trained to fire two shots (minimum). With multiple cops firing, I'm surprised it was only three times.

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.

Someone is pointing a gun at you. You yell at them to drop it. They keep waving the gun at you and your friends. Any second now, they could pull the trigger and kill you or one of your friends.

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.

Right, the average Texan police officer wears riot armor 24/7. This is a kid in a school with a gun; you don't wait around to get dressed. Anyway, they probably don't even have riot armor in Brownsville, so you want them to wait while they fly some in from San Antonio or somewhere?

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.

Once again, there's no such thing as shoot to incapacitate. "Shoot to kill" is redundant.

Beyond that, if you're pointing a gun at someone and refuse to drop it when ordered by police, you get shot. This is exactly what should happen. The only reasonable way to change this would be to outlaw--and somehow get rid of--all the guns in the country, as New Zealand did. No shootings in New Zealand.

Of course, that's easy on a small pair of islands without a right to bear arms.

 

[Jodah]

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.

Thank you. Every time I hear someone say "Why did they shoot more than once?" it makes me want to punch something...Unless you have actually been in a life or death situation there is no way of knowing how you will react.

Frankly I would be more worried if they COULD stop after one shot. That means they had complete control of their thoughts, which is usually only the case when it comes to serial killers. Most people that kill in self defense are doing so on reflex alone. That's where training comes into play.

As for tasers, what most non-law enforcement people fail to realize is nearly every police officer is tased during their training. They are also pepper sprayed. If every cop has to be on the receiving end of it to even graduate the academy it isn't going to kill/cause permanent harm.

 

[Major_Tom]

Shoot him in the leg? Disarm him? Wound him? What are you talking about, we are not living in a movie, the police are not Lucky Luke. If you point a gun to a police officer and you don't comply, you are going to die. Oh, but he was just a kid with a BB gun - no he wasn't, he was an armed threat in police officers' eyes and they did their job.

 

[Azuaron]

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.[/quote]

You've never been shot with rubber bullets, have you? Imagine getting shot, but maybe you don't die. Three to the chest will probably break ribs, and could easily puncture a lung. Unless you're the Hulk, you're not shooting anyone after being shot with rubber bullets.

 

[SIXVI06-M]

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.

Scare the kid? into doing what? firing his gun?. In a tenacious situation- causing panic to the assailant is only going to make them react more unpredictably and more likely to discharge their firearm.

It reads like it reads- they told the kid to drop the weapon multiple times, the kid refused and motioned to point it at another human being. That instantly warrants being shot and killed. The moment you can anticipate a trajectory from the assailant's weapon towards another person- you stop/kill that person. No questions asked.

The idea of shooting the kid first is to PREVENT the kid from being able to fire his first shot; especially in a high risk situation occasioning actual harm or death to other people. If the kid was able to fire his weapon at someone while the police had weapons drawn and trained on the kid- then the police have failed miserably at their jobs and would need serious high-risk situation re-training and fire-arms re-training.

I don't know what planet you come from where you would let the kid shoot first and possibly allow the kid to kill someone else first before taking the kid down. But remember- the general police motto is: "To protect and to serve", not "Only do something after someone is maimed/killed"

If your contingency in law enforcement in the use of fire-arms is "let the assailant shoot first and probably kill someone, then do something after that" - I definitely won't be electing you as a police chief, that's for sure.

Sneaking up behind the kid? it sounds like you're putting more of your imagination into the news article than what reality actually presents. To set up an ambush like that, it takes time, planning and simply way too much risk- people were in danger, the situation was tense and warranted immediate action. No one is going to wait until someone's found a way through a window/find their way up a fire escape and around the floor. You talk as if you thought the kid was a mission objective in a computer game. No, the kid was a real risk to real human lives.

Even if the gun did turn out to be a toy in the end - it was not worth the risk.

You also sound as if you didn't read the article completely (or with an objective mind - think logically and reasonably, not with your feelings- your feelings cannot stop bullets or murder).

 

[Dastardly]

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's generally a bad idea to scare someone that has a gun. Panic isn't the most useful emotional state in which to put someone who already appears very dangerous. Middle school children are also not famed for their rationality to begin with.

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

It certainly does read that way. It's called "sensationalism." No media outlet wants to give the impression that they wanted the kid dead, but they also can't pass up a story like this... so they paint the cops as the "bad guys" and get the best of both worlds.

I hardly think if they charged him whilst wearing riot armour (this was in Texas) that the shooting would be necessary.

The cops aren't just trying not to get themselves shot. They don't want anyone to get shot by this kid. If Iyou run at the kid with armor, but the kid just fires into the nearest classroom door or window, what then? You just made the kid kill some people (if you're the officer), and the media has a field day with you anyway.

But still unless you have actually been shot at by the kid you don't bloody well shoot to kill.

Cops are under absolutely no obligation to wait until they are actually shot at, because at that point they could be dead (or someone else could be). And a dead cop can't help anyone, so the subject is then free to shoot everyone else. But also, please understand that due to physics, medical science, and law: There is only "shoot to kill. There's no such thing as "shoot to wound" or "shoot to scare" or "shoot to disarm."

If you shoot at an arm or leg, it's small. You might miss, and that bullet continues... where? Who knows? And that's a big problem. If you fire a "warning shot" into the air or ground, again, uncontrolled ricochets can be deadly, too. Cops are trained to put every shot on-target and know where every bullet goes. Gunfights are chaos already, and mistakes will be made, so no point increasing the chances of another.

They could have easily had someone sneak up on him from another entrance.

Who? Another cop? What if the kid turns his head ten degrees to the left? Suddenly, he sees the "sneaky" cop and panics. Bullets everywhere. Or maybe the cop is wearing that riot armor? Well... now he's way too noisy to "sneak up" on a kid. Ever seen that stuff close up? But then let's say the cop gets to the kid and grabs him... what then?

Can you guarantee the kid can't squeeze off a shot before the cop brings him down? Maybe he hits the cop while they struggle (it's not as easy to grab something out of someone's hand as you might imagine). Maybe he shoots someone else instead.

A cop's job is to gain control of the situation in the way that endangers the least innocent bystanders and himself or herself. Too many of us think cops should do all of these magical things we've seen work in movies and TV. People have tried them in real life, failed miserably, endangered innocents (or gotten them killed), and that's exactly why the police have these policies and training requirements.

 

[Dastardly]

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).

There's always a chance of the subject squeezing off a shot, unfortunately. Even the mythical "headshot" doesn't kill instantly -- people have run, opened doors, shouted, and all kinds of things after gunshots to the head. I agree that tasers aren't a perfect option, either. It's more just a general idea that we should give cops more non-lethal options if we're going to get so pissy when they have to use force like this...

But the main reason cops wouldn't use tasers to bring down someone with a gun is that they are generally trained to match force. If the subject is using deadly force, you respond with deadly force. You don't over-shoot and meet non-lethal force with lethal force, but you also don't endanger others by under-shooting and failing to control the situation.

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

Agreed on both. Just because a situation is tragic doesn't mean we have to pick through the surviving people and blame one of them. The kid is to blame, and he's dead now. That's sad, and my heart goes out to the family... but "justice" is done. The person at fault has been punished.

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.

This. Again. Same thing I've been trying to get across, but every time a new person pops into the thread, they say the same thing, "Shoot the gun out of his hand!" or "Shoot the leg, geez!" Too many movies and video games. If all of us just put the above clause (or something similar) right at the beginning of our posts, it might head things off...

(I wish)

 

[Gardenia]

If you shoot at an arm or leg, it's small. You might miss, and that bullet continues... where? Who knows? And that's a big problem. If you fire a "warning shot" into the air or ground, again, uncontrolled ricochets can be deadly, too. Cops are trained to put every shot on-target and know where every bullet goes. Gunfights are chaos already, and mistakes will be made, so no point increasing the chances of another.

I would just like to add to your excellent post, that even if shot in a leg (like, the thigh), there is a good chance the bullet will pierce the main artery there, and the kid will bleed out in minutes (or even seconds). Happened to a bouncer in my town about 10 years ago, the killer "only wanted to hurt him."

Other than that, I have nothing meaningful to add to this conversation. The cops did a good job on a dumb kid. If you want to blame something, blame the politics that made your society so riddled with guns and crime.

 

[Kiardras]

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.

This sums it up really. If you're told to do something by an armed officer, and don't do it, then its tough shit what happens to you. Same thing happened in the UK with a suspected terrorist - he was told to stop by armed police and didn't, so they shot him.

 

[Agayek]

Barring further information than what is described here, I'd have to side with the cops. It sounds like they took all the reasonable precautions and the kid was waving around an object that very closely resembled a lethal weapon. It's unfortunate that it had to happen, but I don't blame the cops for doing it.

 

[Christemo]

As tragic as this is, if he was carrying what looked like a real gun I don't know that I can really fault the officers for their actions.

I will echo Redlin's sentiments that police should have non-lethal options. I like to think our law enforcement can be a bit more nuanced than that in the Fallout games.

yeah. i´d prefer Adam Jensen to the main character of Fallout 3 as my local cop.

 

[SIXVI06-M]

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.

Absolute bullshit. You're not going to be getting back up, let alone shooting anyone, when you've been popped a couple of times by a rubber bullet. If they hit you in the chest you're going to have trouble breathing. And hitting somone in the head can render them unconscious, if it doesn't kill them.

Rubber bullets are more than enough to drop a threat. Only with the added bonus of perhaps not killing them.

Hmmm, if you think about it:

rubber bullets are not designed to tear shit up and potentially kill on impact and cannot compare in stopping power of a bullet- they are designed to bounce off the target and cause immense pain and disruption.

It does not guarantee that the assailant will drop the weapon when hit, let alone remove the assailant's ability to squeeze a tiny little trigger. Get desperate enough with veins full of adrenaline - you'll probably have an furious, writhing-in-agony assailant flailing his arms around WHILE firing his weapon; with the assailant hopefully hitting the person bouncing painful rubber balls off him.

Also think- rubber bullets have much more slower muzzle-velocity than conventional rounds - think about how much time it would take for a handfull of rubber bits bouncing off a person to bring them down as opposed to the stopping power of a few bullets that'll simply end them a lot sooner.

It's not about the kid getting up or not. It's just making sure the kid has NO CHANCE of being able to fire a round from that gun at all. It's just not worth the risk, nope.

 

[Henkie36]

Well, I don't blame the police. If someone thinks it's a good idea to wave real enough looking toyguns around, they need to deal with the consequences. And in the US, where the police are quite trigger happy, that consequence is usually getting shot.

So perhaps it's a good thing that airsoft guns are forbidden down here. They are in the Law of Weapons and Munitions, which basically states that under no circumstances are you allowed to posess one of those guns. That of course doesn't stop people from having them, you can easily import one from Germany or Belgium or any coutry which falls under the Schengen Treaties, where you can cross borders without having to pass through customs.

But this is still pointless, it happend in a country where you can get real guns just as easy as fake ones, so this is just another incident, and I doubt that it will be the last.

 

[Xanthious]

Now maybe I'm just getting older and seeing things in a more simplistic fashion than I did once upon a time. However, it seems to me that if you don't want to be fatally shot in school then maybe, just maybe, bringing what looks like a very real gun and telling your classmates your going to kill everyone may not be the route to go. Just a thought. . . .


However, to everyone saying that the officers' actions were over the top let me ask you this. Imagine you are in their position. You are facing down a kid with what looks like a real gun in a hallway with other innocent bystanders. You've given this kid every opportunity to drop the gun but he isn't listening. Are you willing to bet your own life, the lives of the bystanders, the chance your kids may grow up without a father just to save this one kid's life? He forfeited his life when he pulled a gun in a school.

The bottom line is he put himself in that situation. He made his own choices. You do stupid things and there are consequences. What did he think was going to happen when he pulled a gun in school?

"NEVER POINT A GUN ON SOMEONE IF YOU DO NOT INTEND TO KILL THEM, FOR THEY WILL SHOOT YOU DEAD."

This! I carry a firearm and thankfully I've never had to use it. However, if someone points a gun at me and I'm able to get my gun out I'm going to shoot them and continue to do so until I'm good and damn sure they are no longer a threat (read: dead). I was raised by a father and grandfather that taught me about guns growing up and the one thing they stressed on me was never EVER point any kind of weapon at anyone unless you have good reason.

 

[Random berk]

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.

Wouldn't a taser cause the muscles in the target's hand to contract? In that case, there'd probably be a certain risk of him firing a shot as well, though it would only be one shot, with no aim.

If not, then yeah, you're right, this is exactly the kind of situation where a taser should be available to police officers. It would have saved the kids life, as well as a lot of grief and guilt for everyone else involved. However, while tasers and non lethal weapons shouldn't be banned, they should be better controlled. The police should have to use them, or at least have immediate access to them, in a situation like this where their dealing with an aggressive, armed or potentially armed suspect. They should not be able to use these kinds of weapons- and they are still weapons- in situations like the Occupy protests, or similar situations where the crowd in general was relatively peaceful. So many of the stories of police using non lethal weapons against protestors for me bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the stories of the army shooting at protestors in Egypt and Libya- regardless of whether the weapon is unlikely to kill, or extremely likely, they're still firing indiscriminately into a large crowd.

Back on topic though, these officers did the right thing. Any half decent airsoft gun is indistinguishable from a real one when its being pointed at your face. Given the events at the time, they would have to have examined that weapon beforehand to know it wasn't a threat.

 

[davros3000]

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.

 

[SIXVI06-M]

This is the parents fault for not teaching their idiot-child the basic rule "NEVER POINT A GUN ON SOMEONE IF YOU DO NOT INTEND TO KILL THEM, FOR THEY WILL SHOOT YOU DEAD."

Cops response was valid. Parents were morons, kid was an idiot. Cold? Yes. Did he need to die? No, but his parents failed him. I live in a country without guns and thats something my parents taught me in an early age, never raise a weapon unless you intend to use it.

You can't totally absolve the kid of all responsibility either; he may have been raised by a teacup and a shoe or something to that effect; but this kid was in middle school- a teenager capable of logical and reasonable thought.

He may have been raised irresponsibly and poorly, that can contribute to the circumstance.

But don't forget that the kid willfully did what he did, a conscious choice he made that he decided will result in something he wants. He whipped the gun out and waved it around.

I've been tempted to do a lot of things in my life. But at the end of the day, I hold no illusions about who chooses to do them or not, and that's me. If the kid truly did not ever make his own decisions in his life - he probably wouldn't have gone to that extreme and chose the actions he took. Circumstance is a double-edged sword - it may force us down a particular path, but we can still choose how we follow it and where/when to divert its course when possible.

 

[Sylveria]

A "Gonzalaz" was shot by a Texas police officer. Hmm

But yeah, if you're dumb enough to pull something that resembles a fire-arm on a cop, the world is better off without you. Now if it was a neon green super-soaker, I'd be quicker to call foul.

 

[BodomBeachChild]

Tough break for that kid. Plenty of airsoft and pellet guns look 1:1. That officer did what was right. Yeah, sure, a taser would have worked too unless the gun was real and he did shoot someone. A nother way to look at this is... one less idiot in the world.

 

[Memoriae]

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.

Absolute bullshit. You're not going to be getting back up, let alone shooting anyone, when you've been popped a couple of times by a rubber bullet. If they hit you in the chest you're going to have trouble breathing. And hitting somone in the head can render them unconscious, if it doesn't kill them.

Rubber bullets are more than enough to drop a threat. Only with the added bonus of perhaps not killing them.

Hmmm, if you think about it:

rubber bullets are not designed to tear shit up and potentially kill on impact and cannot compare in stopping power of a bullet- they are designed to bounce off the target and cause immense pain and disruption.

It does not guarantee that the assailant will drop the weapon when hit, let alone remove the assailant's ability to squeeze a tiny little trigger. Get desperate enough with veins full of adrenaline - you'll probably have an furious, writhing-in-agony assailant flailing his arms around WHILE firing his weapon; with the assailant hopefully hitting the person bouncing painful rubber balls off him.

Also think- rubber bullets have much more slower muzzle-velocity than conventional rounds - think about how much time it would take for a handfull of rubber bits bouncing off a person to bring them down as opposed to the stopping power of a few bullets that'll simply end them a lot sooner.

It's not about the kid getting up or not. It's just making sure the kid has NO CHANCE of being able to fire a round from that gun at all. It's just not worth the risk, nope.

With all respect I completely disagree. Rubber bullets have killed people in the past and they're more than powerful enough to drop someone.

People don't die instantly from live ammo either. Plenty of people have gotten off shots after being shot with real ammunition.

Rubber bullets are more than enough to deal with someone who's holding a gun. They just are.

You are honestly not going to be getting up and shooting someone after being smacked with a rubber round. No more so than with a live one.

I don't think the issue is with the lethality of rubber weapons vs live ammunition, but with the risk of the confrontation escalating against acceptable force.

There's a good reason why the police in both the US and the UK don't deploy live ammunition against rioting crowds. While a rioter without a gun can still throw a bottle, they're having to use their own strength to throw it. When you're being pelted with medium velocity, hard rubber rounds, it's a little hard to concentrate on anything apart from the pain.

Now, if you take someone with a gun, and pelt them with the same hard rubber, medium velocity rounds, then even if they are on the floor, they can still aim and fire at you, so live ammunition is a more appropriate response to a potentially deadly threat.

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.

No. I cannot fathom just how fucking stupid that first line is. The police are not paid to die for anyone. They are paid to serve and protect the public from threats. If someone waves a realistic looking weapon around, especially something designed to look like a firearm, and refuses demands to disarm themselves, then the mandate of the police is to protect the public from threats. That mandate allows for reasonable force to be used in situations, and the second that child refused to put their weapon down, they ceased being a member of the public, and became a threat, which the police are paid to protect the public from.

Someone comes at them with a large pipe, and swings it around, then yes, shooting them may be excessive force, unless that person presents significant enough of a threat to nearby people.

Someone has a gun, even if it is a replica or a very realistic looking airsoft weapon, and refuses to disarm themselves, they then become an imminent, lethal threat to the surrounding people, which an imminent lethal threat, then justifies a lethal response.