Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

[jdun]

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.

There is no 3 shot rule. It's stupid and will get you kill. You shoot until the threat is dead. Period.

With that said there are dills that limit the number of rounds in a target. For example: The round dill put five round into the target immediately. Asset if there is other threats.

 

[crom jr]

if someone points a gun at me, I hope to god I have a gun and not a taser to shoot at them with...

a taser??? the same thing the cast of jackass 3 were able to walk through an obstacle course full of?

get out of here

 

[crom jr]

also, its easy to not get shot by the police...

all you have to do is

OBEY THE LAW!!!!!

 

[NightHawk21]

Here's the thing. If you're told to do something by a cop, especially when they got a bead on you, you should probably do what they say. Not to mention that some pellet guns are almost indistinguishable from real guns. Shit I had a pellet gun that looked real (minus a little decal on the side) and even had a magazine that came out with a weight to give it a realistic feel.

 

[laggyteabag]

Do i feel sorry for the parents? Yes
Do i feel that it was excessive police force? No

He pulled out what could have been a gun, he refused to put it down after being warned numerous times. So he was shot. What if it was a real gun? More people would have been killed. To me the police were just doing their job to protect the majority of lives from what was an armed threat.

It was his fault and the police were just dong their jobs

 

[Gyrohelix]

Why didn't they shoot out his legs instead and pile on him when he's down? Justified shooting my ass.

Besides, it was a HANDGUN, he couldn't murder half a classroom with it, let alone a school, you think the other kids his age would let that fly?

 

[jdun]

Why didn't they shoot out his legs instead and pile on him when he's down? Justified shooting my ass.

Besides, it was a HANDGUN, he couldn't murder half a classroom with it, let alone a school, you think the other kids his age would let that fly?

Do not confuse reality with fantasy.

 

[The Bucket]

Why didn't they shoot out his legs instead and pile on him when he's down? Justified shooting my ass.

Read some of the rest of the posts. You're using movie logic, in real life shooting someones legs out is very difficult (you should always aim for the centre of mass), dangerous (a richochet could kill someone) and they are still very capable of shooting you and any innocents around when they are on the ground. They did the only responsible thing that minimised risk to bystanders.

Besides, it was a HANDGUN, he couldn't murder half a classroom with it, let alone a school, you think the other kids his age would let that fly?

Allowing him a chance to kill even a single innocent would have been wrong.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

This is why it was a good idea to introduce this legislation for the UK:

"Unrealistic imitation firearms (IF's) must be more than 50% transparent, bright red, bright orange, bright yellow, bright blue, bright green, bright pink or bright purple or have dimensions of no more than a height of 38 millimetres and a length of 70 millimetres (as defined in the Home Office regulations for the VCRA)"

If the weapon is a close enough imitation of the real thing then I'm pretty sure the law stipulates that it's going to be treated as such.

 

[lunavixen]

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?

you'd be surprised what people can survive, there was a story a few years ago, i was in high school at the time of a kid about the same age, who was shot in the head with a colt 45, took about a third of his head off, and he's still alive, and like Dastardly said (quoted below)

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).

Exactly this, police training and self preservation senses come into effect as well. though one thing you didn't mention Dastardly was that 'wounding' shots could also result in lawsuits and that the wounded person could bleed to death anyway

 

[jdun]

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.

Don't confuse reality with fantasy.

You do not sneak up on an arm opponent from the back. That's only happen in movies and TV shows.

Cops do not have to yell "FREEZE!" or "DROP GUN!" before shooting. That only happen in movies and TV shows.

When a gun is pointing at you. What does that tell you? You're behind the reaction curve. By yelling FREEZE or DROP GUN you're putting yourself even more behind. In most cases the cop will pull out his gun and start shooting.

 

[senordesol]

This is why it was a good idea to introduce this legislation for the UK:

"Unrealistic imitation firearms (IF's) must be more than 50% transparent, bright red, bright orange, bright yellow, bright blue, bright green, bright pink or bright purple or have dimensions of no more than a height of 38 millimetres and a length of 70 millimetres (as defined in the Home Office regulations for the VCRA)"

If the weapon is a close enough imitation of the real thing then I'm pretty sure the law stipulates that it's going to be treated as such.

A law defeated with but a can of spray paint. Given the kid knowingly removed what imitation identifiers did exist, I don't think that law will really do anything other than give him another rule to break.

 

[jdun]

Why didn't they shoot out his legs instead and pile on him when he's down? Justified shooting my ass.

Read some of the rest of the posts. You're using movie logic, in real life shooting someones legs out is very difficult (you should always aim for the centre of mass), dangerous (a richochet could kill someone) and they are still very capable of shooting you and any innocents around when they are on the ground. They did the only responsible thing that minimised risk to bystanders.

Besides, it was a HANDGUN, he couldn't murder half a classroom with it, let alone a school, you think the other kids his age would let that fly?

Allowing him a chance to kill even a single innocent would have been wrong.

It amaze me that so many people in our modern society can't tell the difference between what on TV/Games and real life. Their head are so mix up that they think everything on the tube is a reflection of real life.

 

[Doc Theta Sigma]

To be fair, he was given warnings and didn't heed them. His own fault. You don't brandish what looks like a gun at a police officer, especially in the US. Christ I'd have to be downright insane to do it at an armed police officer here in the UK and they look uncomfortable to even be holding firearms.

 

[DoctorSun]

I'm going to have to say that the child was putting himself in a position where he was considered dangerous enough to be shot. He pointed a "gun" at a cop, the cop shot him, it was justified.

 

[Fiad]

I see no problem with this. The kid had what by all accounts was a gun at school, even a pellet gun can kill someone. He was told to drop it, he didn't. The police were going on the information they had. They made the right choice.

 

[jdun]

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.

You do not used non-lethal force against lethal force. Tasers are define as non-lethal weapons. Yes on rare occasions they can cause death.

There are people that are highly resistant to tasers. Heavy clothing nullified the effect of tasers. My friend's taser went of inside his winter coat and all he felt was a warm sensation.

He is a video testing the effect of arm students.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxCyAWmF2uI

 

[Hugga_Bear]

Seriously cut the "He was just a kid!" crap. 15 is not a child, not really, a 15 year old is capable of seriously harming or killing any other individual, throw a firearm in the mix and you can go a lot younger.

I'm not going to rant about how shitty guns are, it's not due here but well...would be better without 'em...

Anyway, police seem to be justified, it's hard to tell sometimes, it really is. I did my officer training and honestly at a distance, under pressure it's damned near impossible to tell the difference between plastic toy and actual firearm, mostly go off how it's being held, if they're holding it in a threatening way and are putting yourself or others at actual risk then the call is there to be made and it's hard to judge someone for making it the wrong way.

In a country where access to firearms is so easy I would not be willing to take the risk. As for 3 shots, well it could be if the kid simply didn't drop, a lot of people can take a bullet and still pull a trigger, you should double tap for a kill and if they don't go down you fire a third round.

eta: The more I read the more it sounds like suicide by cop and/or pure insanity, I can't see how the police weren't justified here. He had multiple choices and actively threatened to murder people and was in a position to do so, then he raised his pistol...

 

[Tsaba]

Do stupid things win stupid prizes.

You... you earned this sir, I could not stop laughing at how right you are.

Why didn't they shoot out his legs instead and pile on him when he's down? Justified shooting my ass.

Besides, it was a HANDGUN, he couldn't murder half a classroom with it, let alone a school, you think the other kids his age would let that fly?

You sir, are a moron and it shows how little you know. Read up on history and come back when you learn something.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Middle_School_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Middle_School_shooting

every single one you would like to know about right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting

EDIT: At the end of the day it may have been a pellet gun, but, he carried a perceived firearm into a highly populated area and was treated with extreme prejudice.

 

[marioandsonic]

Honestly, I think this was a "suicide by cop" situation.