Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

[senordesol]

Arnt cops only supposed to return fire if they themselves are fired on?

And how did they get into this position anyway? Just run out in the open and yell "Put your gun down"? I can see a dozen ways they could have avoided this. Just waiting behind a wall telling him to put the gun down for an hour would have been a better solution.

But no, "Lets shoot him 3 times in the chest when his gun may not be real, may not be loaded, and he hasn't done anything with it yet."

Dont get me wrong, im all for police protecting themselves. But if they purposely put themselves in front of a person with a gun, they need to be berated.

Do you know how insane that sounds? Wait for the guy to shoot you before you can shoot back? Yeah, that's what my wife and kids want to hear as they put me in the ground. No, an officer will open fire if he is reasonably certain that he (or another person) is in immediate mortal peril. Meaning that just because someone has a weapon doesn't mean they shoot, but if you point a weapon at an officer (and you ALWAYS assume it's loaded); it's lights out.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

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.

Be very glad of that, you must live in an area with a low violent crime rate unlike here in the states.

Yeh, and I live in an area where the average resident has 3 different kinds of guns, police carry high-caliber revolvers and shotguns, we have "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your Ground", and did I mention that violent crime is extremely low. Whats your point.

OT:I am standing by the cops with this one, just like I usually do. That kid sounded like he had every chance to put it down and stop being a threat. And just because he was carrying a BB gun doesnt mean squat. Just ask the cop in the nearby town about how she got hit in the head with a BB from an airgun and knocked out. It saddens me that this kid was shot by cops because he was carrying what looked like a weapon, and my heart goes out to the family, but really, what was he even DOING with a BB gun. Seems fishy that he would bring it to school if he didnt have evil intent for it.

And on the note of tasers, you guys know those only have a range of like 20 yards right. Although, the Taser Corp is working on a new model small enough to fit inside a shotgun shell with a range of 250+ yards, so heres hoping they can get those to cops soon.

 

[RatRace123]

It's a tragedy that a kid died, but from what it sounds like, he had himself to blame.
If you point a gun at a police officer and don't drop it when they give you the chance, well, they're going to do what they have to do.

Three shots is excessive, especially for a minor. As it was mentioned above, I'm not sure one shot would leave much hope for a kid's survival, but it would probably leave a better chance than three, but I don't know much about standard police procedure so, take my opinion for what it is.

The cops were acting appropriately in that situation, as tragic as the whole incident is.

 

[The Bucket]

Arnt cops only supposed to return fire if they themselves are fired on?

And how did they get into this position anyway? Just run out in the open and yell "Put your gun down"? I can see a dozen ways they could have avoided this. Just waiting behind a wall telling him to put the gun down for an hour would have been a better solution.

But no, "Lets shoot him 3 times in the chest when his gun may not be real, may not be loaded, and he hasn't done anything with it yet."

Dont get me wrong, im all for police protecting themselves. But if they purposely put themselves in front of a person with a gun, they need to be berated.

Nope, they are trained to fire whenever they or someone else is in mortal peril, it'd be crazy if someone is waving a gun around to only take them down when they kill someone. And no, its important that they lock him down so he cant run around the school, into classrooms potentially filled with children and kill everyone (which he was threatening to do).

They warned him to put the gun down, he refused. One of the first rules of gun safety is always assume a gun is loaded and dangerous.

 

[kouriichi]

Arnt cops only supposed to return fire if they themselves are fired on?

And how did they get into this position anyway? Just run out in the open and yell "Put your gun down"? I can see a dozen ways they could have avoided this. Just waiting behind a wall telling him to put the gun down for an hour would have been a better solution.

But no, "Lets shoot him 3 times in the chest when his gun may not be real, may not be loaded, and he hasn't done anything with it yet."

Dont get me wrong, im all for police protecting themselves. But if they purposely put themselves in front of a person with a gun, they need to be berated.

Do you know how insane that sounds? Wait for the guy to shoot you before you can shoot back? Yeah, that's what my wife and kids want to hear as they put me in the ground. No, an officer will open fire if he is reasonably certain that he (or another person) is in immediate mortal peril. Meaning that just because someone has a weapon doesn't mean they shoot, but if you point a weapon at an officer (and you ALWAYS assume it's loaded); it's lights out.

But they put themselves in a position to be shot right? Isnt that their own fault? Arnt they taught to always be behind cover? And im sure the concrete/brick walls of a school are perfectly fine cover from a small caliber handgun.

As i said, dont get me wrong, but putting yourself in a dangerous situation, and then shooting first when the weapon may be no threat isnt good practice. They couldnt have waited behind the walls for a while for backup to arrive? Or aim for non-lethal locations on the body? He was 15, i doubt he could take a shot to the arm, leg or stomach and still have the will to shoot back.

as i said, the police have the right to protect themselves. But there were a dozen BETTER options in this situation xD

 

[ThreeWords]

I'm also wondering if this was a suicide by cop.

Jaime's best friend, 16-year-old Star Rodriguez, said her favorite memory was when Jaime came to her party Dec. 29 and they danced and sang together.

"He was like a brother to me," she said.

There's your answer: dude thought he was in there with a close friend, danced with her on New Years, then got told he was 'like a brother'

I think I know who's fault this is.

Am I failing to detect sarcasm here? Or do you really think that it's her "fault"?

I wouldn't want to live in a world where girls have to start a relationship with anybody who shows interest, just in case they do something as stupid as this when rejected.

If you are being sarcastic, then that's okay.

Proof of Poe's Law [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law], if ever I saw one.

 

[The Bucket]

Arnt cops only supposed to return fire if they themselves are fired on?

And how did they get into this position anyway? Just run out in the open and yell "Put your gun down"? I can see a dozen ways they could have avoided this. Just waiting behind a wall telling him to put the gun down for an hour would have been a better solution.

But no, "Lets shoot him 3 times in the chest when his gun may not be real, may not be loaded, and he hasn't done anything with it yet."

Dont get me wrong, im all for police protecting themselves. But if they purposely put themselves in front of a person with a gun, they need to be berated.

Do you know how insane that sounds? Wait for the guy to shoot you before you can shoot back? Yeah, that's what my wife and kids want to hear as they put me in the ground. No, an officer will open fire if he is reasonably certain that he (or another person) is in immediate mortal peril. Meaning that just because someone has a weapon doesn't mean they shoot, but if you point a weapon at an officer (and you ALWAYS assume it's loaded); it's lights out.

But they put themselves in a position to be shot right? Isnt that their own fault? Arnt they taught to always be behind cover? And im sure the concrete/brick walls of a school are perfectly fine cover from a small caliber handgun.

As i said, dont get me wrong, but putting yourself in a dangerous situation, and then shooting first when the weapon may be no threat isnt good practice. They couldnt have waited behind the walls for a while for backup to arrive? Or aim for non-lethal locations on the body? He was 15, i doubt he could take a shot to the arm, leg or stomach and still have the will to shoot back.

as i said, the police have the right to protect themselves. But there were a dozen BETTER options in this situation xD

The school was filled with people still. He might have wandered into a classroom and killed someone. They couldnt just huddle behind a wall (thats assuming they would even have time to fins cover)

You're using movie logic, people can still be perfectly capable of shooting back if you hit them in the arm or leg (that is, if you dont miss the small and often moving limbs, causing the bullet to richochet and kill someone else.) Basically all gun training teaches you to aim for the centre of mass (i.e. the only place you can near guarantee you can hit) and not stop til the target is neutralised, because you dont draw your gun if you arent willing to do that.

 

[kouriichi]

Arnt cops only supposed to return fire if they themselves are fired on?

And how did they get into this position anyway? Just run out in the open and yell "Put your gun down"? I can see a dozen ways they could have avoided this. Just waiting behind a wall telling him to put the gun down for an hour would have been a better solution.

But no, "Lets shoot him 3 times in the chest when his gun may not be real, may not be loaded, and he hasn't done anything with it yet."

Dont get me wrong, im all for police protecting themselves. But if they purposely put themselves in front of a person with a gun, they need to be berated.

Nope, they are trained to fire whenever they or someone else is in mortal peril, it'd be crazy if someone is waving a gun around to only take them down when they kill someone. And no, its important that they lock him down so he cant run around the school, into classrooms potentially filled with children and kill everyone (which he was threatening to do).

They warned him to put the gun down, he refused. One of the first rules of gun safety is always assume a gun is loaded and dangerous.

Yes, i understand they need to lock him down, but theres a dozen other ways to do it. Not every shot has to be the the chest. Putting one in the stomach is much less likely to kill, and would easily put down a 15 year old. 3 shots probably wernt necessary either. Im sure most people would be down for the count from the first round to the chest.

I understand why they did it, but they had quite a few options that was better then just "Tell him to put the weapon down and open fire". Sure, its a step up from just "Open fire" but its not the only option they had available.

 

[senordesol]

But they put themselves in a position to be shot right? Isnt that their own fault? Arnt they taught to always be behind cover? And im sure the concrete/brick walls of a school are perfectly fine cover from a small caliber handgun.

As i said, dont get me wrong, but putting yourself in a dangerous situation, and then shooting first when the weapon may be no threat isnt good practice. They couldnt have waited behind the walls for a while for backup to arrive? Or aim for non-lethal locations on the body? He was 15, i doubt he could take a shot to the arm, leg or stomach and still have the will to shoot back.

as i said, the police have the right to protect themselves. But there were a dozen BETTER options in this situation xD

They are not necessarily trained to be behind cover when the guns are out. The school was not empty so if they didn't confront him, it was possible (if it was a real weapon, which was the assumption at the time) that he could just walk into a classroom and kill everybody so waiting wasn't an option. He wasn't barricaded with hostages, he was out and exposed RIGHT THEN. Also, they are not trained to shoot to wound, the police ALWAYS shoot for the center of mass (and a gut shot can kill, make no mistake). His age was irrelevant, a 15 year old with a gun can kill you just as dead as a 20 year old or a 115 year old.

 

[The Bucket]

Arnt cops only supposed to return fire if they themselves are fired on?

And how did they get into this position anyway? Just run out in the open and yell "Put your gun down"? I can see a dozen ways they could have avoided this. Just waiting behind a wall telling him to put the gun down for an hour would have been a better solution.

But no, "Lets shoot him 3 times in the chest when his gun may not be real, may not be loaded, and he hasn't done anything with it yet."

Dont get me wrong, im all for police protecting themselves. But if they purposely put themselves in front of a person with a gun, they need to be berated.

Nope, they are trained to fire whenever they or someone else is in mortal peril, it'd be crazy if someone is waving a gun around to only take them down when they kill someone. And no, its important that they lock him down so he cant run around the school, into classrooms potentially filled with children and kill everyone (which he was threatening to do).

They warned him to put the gun down, he refused. One of the first rules of gun safety is always assume a gun is loaded and dangerous.

Yes, i understand they need to lock him down, but theres a dozen other ways to do it. Not every shot has to be the the chest. Putting one in the stomach is much less likely to kill, and would easily put down a 15 year old. 3 shots probably wernt necessary either. Im sure most people would be down for the count from the first round to the chest.

I understand why they did it, but they had quite a few options that was better then just "Tell him to put the weapon down and open fire". Sure, its a step up from just "Open fire" but its not the only option they had available.

Considering there was three police officers there,and they couldn't co-ordinate who opens fire, I think 3 shots is pretty restrained. And anyway, procedure is when you open fire, you don't give the threat a chance to fire back. He refused to lay down his arms, any other action they took could have easily backfired and caused the deaths of themselves or innocents. They neutralised the threat in the safest way they could. People have shrugged off 9mm shots to the chest before anyway (as someone pointed out earlier, adrenaline or drugs or both can cause it)

 

[Tanis]

Cops did the right thing, kid got what he deserved.
End of story.

Is that misconstruing your point or do you actually believe that a kid waving a BB gun around deserves to be killed?

'Kid' waves, aims a gun, at cops have REPEATEDLY being told to drop it.
Doesn't do as he's told.
Gun LOOKS great, cops have families to think about and collateral damage.
They do their job.

They, introspect, used 'excessive force', but at the time they thought he had a old fashion gun.
You know, the kind that kills people, so they did their job.

Some kid/adult points a gun at me that LOOK real; not orange or painted like Rainbow Dash; you DAMN RIGHT I'll shoot first if I have the chance.

My life > the life of someone point a weapon at me.
Every...Single...Time.

 

[Li Mu]

The Police told him repeatedly to drop his weapon. If you continue to wave a gun at police (and it looks pretty damn real) after they have told you to drop the weapon then you have a death wish.
He was given several chances. He had already attacked and beaten up a fellow student several moments before, so the police have already been informed that this kid is in an aggressive and violent state.
Now if I am a cop and I see a kid who I know has attacked other students and is now waving around a gun and refusing to drop it I would want to put him down before he killed someone.
Maybe he wouldn't shoot at me, perhaps he would kill another kid or his teacher, either way, I would want to stop this from happening.

Now, the parents have said, "Why three shots?"
I'm actually surprised they didn't ask something dumber such as "Why didn't you shoot him in the hands to disarm him?"
When you have 2 or 3 seconds to react and you have to do something truly terrible your body is pumped full of adrenaline. Your body goes into a kind of autopilot and you react.
You shoot until this boy cannot harm anyone else. You have already decided that this is a dangerous situation so you go through with it all the way.

You simply don't have time to carefully aim at his fingers and try to pick them off one by one, disarming him while keeping him alive. Perhaps someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger could do it in his films, but in reality it's just not going to happen.
It's understandable that his parents are upset and they want someone to blame for what has happened. You can see that they understand to a point that it's their own son's fault, but it's hard for them to place all the blame on him. So they clutch at straws and find reasons to blame the police. I'm sure in the coming weeks they will blame the school and the teachers for not helping their "troubled child". They may even blame themselves, but I think that would only last 3.5 seconds before they go back to blaming someone else.


If you jump into a lion's cage and get eaten by a lion the lion shouldn't really take the blame for your own stupidity.

 

[Tanis]

You misunderstood my point, just like the last guy... I was referring to this part:

kid got what he deserved

And before you say that's out of context... that's not out of context.

I stick by it.
Given the circumstances, kid got what was coming to him.

You do NOT bring a gun to school and threaten cops/students/staff with it.
I was told this BEFORE Columbine ever happened, and when it did it was drilled in even MORE.

If you get on a plane and claim you have a bomb strapped to you, even if it's just some clay bricks, and you get shot.
...well...
you got what was coming to you.

 

[DeltaEdge]

With the cops on this one. Cops are human too, and they are risking their lives pretty much every day to apprehend criminals. Not to excessively glorify them because they are by no means perfect, but any normal person would fear for their life if someone pulled what seemed to be a real gun and pointed it at them. If some creep walked up to me and pointed a gun at me, I wouldn't think "Oh hey, that's a cute pellet gun kid, go play with your friends with it!", I would either submit or attack with my own lethal weapon as to not get harmed myself. The 8th grader fucked up, and he paid with his life. I dunno what else to say except, that really sucks..

 

[Treblaine]

Arnt cops only supposed to return fire if they themselves are fired on?

And how did they get into this position anyway? Just run out in the open and yell "Put your gun down"? I can see a dozen ways they could have avoided this. Just waiting behind a wall telling him to put the gun down for an hour would have been a better solution.

But no, "Lets shoot him 3 times in the chest when his gun may not be real, may not be loaded, and he hasn't done anything with it yet."

Dont get me wrong, im all for police protecting themselves. But if they purposely put themselves in front of a person with a gun, they need to be berated.

Nope, they are trained to fire whenever they or someone else is in mortal peril, it'd be crazy if someone is waving a gun around to only take them down when they kill someone. And no, its important that they lock him down so he cant run around the school, into classrooms potentially filled with children and kill everyone (which he was threatening to do).

They warned him to put the gun down, he refused. One of the first rules of gun safety is always assume a gun is loaded and dangerous.

Yes, i understand they need to lock him down, but theres a dozen other ways to do it. Not every shot has to be the the chest. Putting one in the stomach is much less likely to kill, and would easily put down a 15 year old. 3 shots probably wernt necessary either. Im sure most people would be down for the count from the first round to the chest.

I understand why they did it, but they had quite a few options that was better then just "Tell him to put the weapon down and open fire". Sure, its a step up from just "Open fire" but its not the only option they had available.

Cops are trained to aim for the "centre mass" and keep firing till the threat is neutralised. Training to take "trick shots" like quickly aiming for a small body part is something for the movies or very rare circumstances when you have plenty of time to aim with no worry of immediately being killed.

With the huge variety of ways people dress it is simply too hard to try to aim at specific body parts, at least not with any speed. And 3 shots probably WERE necessary. A teenage male is about the size and build of a whitetail deer, now in deer hunting a 9mm or .40 calibre pistol is not considered powerful enough to take down a deer in one shot. A single deep-slug or high-velocity .30 rifle round, this is determined by experts who deem what is a suitable load for hunting. Multiple shots ARE needed from a pistol to stop an living being of that size and build.

"Im sure most people would be down for the count from the first round to the chest."

Where did you read that? Eventually it would likely be very fatal but not quick enough. The 1986 FBI-Miami shootout suspect took a 9mm bullet solidly to the chest and kept on fighting, went on to shoot down a squad of highly trained federal agents and almost escaped.

How about you read some accounts of police shootings, you'll find a lot of cases of suspects shot once who then go on to kill the officer who shot them "just once".

There are "dozens or way to do it" and then there is the RIGHT way to do it. This is not excessive force.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Arnt cops only supposed to return fire if they themselves are fired on?

And how did they get into this position anyway? Just run out in the open and yell "Put your gun down"? I can see a dozen ways they could have avoided this. Just waiting behind a wall telling him to put the gun down for an hour would have been a better solution.

No, they had to address the kid head on because he was standing in a school corridor with a deadly weapon and only an unlocked classroom door between him and a room full of unarmed, innocent children. If they waited behind a wall for an hour for him to calm down he could have massacred half the school.
You can't really wait around for someone to possibly calm down when they are threatening to murder people they have unimpeded access to.

Dont get me wrong, im all for police protecting themselves. But if they purposely put themselves in front of a person with a gun, they need to be berated.

Yes, they got themselves in front of a person with a gun, because the alternative was letting him get in front of a room full of defenceless kids with a gun, and that never [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre] turns [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre] out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lake_Senior_High_School_massacre] well [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westside_Middle_School_shooting]

But no, "Lets shoot him 3 times in the chest when his gun may not be real, may not be loaded, and he hasn't done anything with it yet."

As other people have mentioned, the gun was almost certainly a dead ringer for a real handgun. The police had to assume the most dangerous likely senario. Tazers and other non-lethal methods are not reliable and safe enough to warrant their use in these sorts of circumstances. The police approached him, gave him multiple chances to drop the gun, he reportedly told them he was going to murder everyone in the school, and then he raised the gun at the police. Only then did they shoot, and they only shot 3 times, one of which missed.

Yes, it is an absolute tragedy. I don't know what went through the kids mind to provoke him into performing such a strange act, but it was his fault. He created a situation that he had no hope of walking away from. Sometimes the police can be trigger happy maniacs, but this was definitely not one of those times.

 

[jdun]

The shooting was justified, pretty sure why 3 rounds were fired. Usually you fire twice and then fire a third round if the person doesn't go down, it's called a failure to stop shot. Not sure if it was needed as I wasn't there so I'm not judging... after all, there are pellet guns out there that would be indistinguishable from the real thing if someone was pointing it at you.

(I'm guessing the bottom one is the pellet gun as it doesn't have the lanyard hoop on the handle, also the bottom one doesn't seem to have a magazine)

That's BS. You keep shooting until your opponent is dead. That's how people are trained. You do not point anything that look like a firearms to police officers or any person that are armed. They will react the same way as that cop did.

Do stupid things win stupid prizes.

 

[jdun]

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 keep fighting until you're dead. In order for you to survive a gun fight you must kill your opponent. If your opponent can pull the trigger than he/she is still a threat. Real life isn't like a movie.

Civilian gun fight on avg last for 2 seconds. From the first shot to to last it 2 seconds between life or death.

 

[willis888]

Assuming the story as reported is correct, the police did the right thing. If someone has drawn a gun, says they are going to kill you, then points the gun in your direction, you don't wait until they make good on their threat - you neutralize them using the most effective means at your disposal before they have the opportunity to carry it out.

However, all the reported responses from the police, the school, and the parents sound like pre-packaged, Cover Your Ass bullshit.

There is a lot more to this story we are not hearing about.

 

[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.