Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

[Lovely Mixture]

At first I accidentally read that the kid was eight-years old and so I didn't know what to think. Then I read that the kid was 15 and I was more inclined to understand the police's actions.

I think officers should have non-lethal options, but in a situation where you are under pressure, life-or-death, suspect not complying. I don't think they could have responded nay other way.

There have been many instances of police abuse, but I have no reason to think this was one of them. See this video for more info on the abuse I mentioned. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH9k8L3oDa4]

 

[boyvirgo666]

Also they followed training and police procedure. He had what appeared to be a gun and they had evidence that it wasnt a gun. He pointed it at them. They shoot him. He had it coming.
I wont be popular for saying this but I dont feel sorry for the kid at all, clears some stupid out of the gene pool.
And dont quote me i dont wanna hear it.

Quoted just to spite you.

Is it me or is it hypocritical to post an opinion and finish it off with, "Don't quote me, I don't care what you have to say." Sounds a lot like certain religious people we don't like.

Just so yuh don't freak out, I agree with yuh 100%

Nah its not that i dont wanna hear the comments against me; Its just that the kid had it coming and I know a lot of people who will still go "but ethan he was just a kid he didnt know any better" and I dont like that kind of rational.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

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

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

Actually, it's among the highest in Ireland, although it's certainly comparatively low (EDIT: to the US).

 

[Nielas]

If officers think someone has a gun AND they tell him to put it down AND they don't, then it's not the officer's fault. The problem is that, in America, police are allowed to carry guns and therefore have the option to shoot someone. If they didn't have this option the, slightly deranged, kid would still be alive. The officers could have found another way round it and realize that the weapon wasn't real.

And if the weapon was real, we'd have three dead officers. Yeah. That's better.

If the weapon was real and the kid really was on a shooting spree, we would probably have a few dead teachers and students as well.

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

What i hate most about this sort of story, apart from the loss of a possible depressed teenager, is the fact that it wasn't the cops fault, they are doing their jobs. they also have family and friends, and the poor sods who shot the kid are going to have to live with that. Policemen are human, and quite frankly, they were looking to prevent another columbine incident. Seriously, google it and find out what "innocent teenagers" are capable of.
Its death By armed police, he would have offed himself sooner or later, he just chose this way.

 

[Sovvolf]

If officers think someone has a gun AND they tell him to put it down AND they don't, then it's not the officer's fault. The problem is that, in America, police are allowed to carry guns and therefore have the option to shoot someone. If they didn't have this option the, slightly deranged, kid would still be alive. The officers could have found another way round it and realize that the weapon wasn't real.

And if the weapon was real, we'd have three dead officers. Yeah. That's better.

If the weapon was real and the kid really was on a shooting spree, we would probably have a few dead teachers and students as well.

.

Followed more than likely by the teens suicide when he starts getting short on ammo. It would be a media sensation and we'd have 13 page of people saying "fuck the police". So you could potentially have 3 police officers, a few teachers and students dead along with the teen.

 

[Skillswords]

sounds like a manic episode, perhaps he is a bipolar kid who had a history of temperament.
or perhaps he just wanted a hug...
or perhaps he was an suicidal,
idk, but one thing i do know is hes gone

 

[cheese_wizington]

If they think that a kid is going to cause multiple others harm, they are going to kill him. That's just what police do in that situation. In my opinion that is 100% justified as if this was a real situation many others could have been killed.

 

[USSR]

A taser would have sufficed, seeing how a 15 year old wouldn't have the best accuracy with an "actual" handgun.

Although the justice of this being questioned is absolutely ridiculous. They had no other option.

If anything should come out of this, it should be that every officer as of now should be equipped/trained with a tazer.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Can't blame 'em for the shot, but damn, why didn't they have access to less-lethal weapons? It's just sad that the officers had no other choice but to actually shoot him, not try to taze him down or something.

Whoever denied them that option should be looked at in this situation. The cops really cannot be blamed here.

 

[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.

 

[senordesol]

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.

 

[Kopikatsu]

A taser would have sufficed, seeing how a 15 year old wouldn't have the best accuracy with an "actual" handgun.

Although the justice of this being questioned is absolutely ridiculous. They had no other option.

If anything should come out of this, it should be that every officer as of now should be equipped/trained with a tazer.

Tazers have a short range, aren't very effective, occasionally don't work (Because of clothing and such) are occasionally fatal, and cause the muscles to convulse. As in, if you taze someone holding a gun, they're going to shoot whether they want to or not.

Besides, cops are supposed to match force. The kid filed off the safety tip to make the gun look real, then punched another student and threatened to kill everyone. As far as the police knew, it was lethal force that was being threatened. So they responded with lethal force.

They never use non-lethal means in a potentially lethal situation because...well...it would be stupid to.

 

[Icyheart]

Oh, good god not this crap again. Where I went to school cops shooting "armed" kids was almost as routine as the stabbings that took place in the locker and bathrooms. Maybe those three years desensitized me to this kind of thing, but my point is the cops' reaction followed proper protocol. If a kid brings a weapon to a school, and especially if he points it at a cop, the kid will be put down. And those airsoft guns look pretty damn real without the orange tip.

 

[senordesol]

Oh, good god not this crap again. Where I went to school cops shooting "armed" kids was almost as routine as the stabbings that took place in the locker and bathrooms. Maybe those three years desensitized me to this kind of thing, but my point is the cops' reaction followed proper protocol. If a kid brings a weapon to a school, and especially if he points it at a cop, the kid will be put down. And those airsoft guns look pretty damn real without the orange tip.

Where the hell did you go to school where cops shooting kids was routine?

 

[omega 616]

Do American police have a quota to fill? Was a beanbag gun in the another car? Or was it more of a case of "well I already have this one aimed at him"? Tazer just too much hassle to get out?

I think American's seriously need to have a long hard think about there gun culture, the time when you actually needed them is long passed! You know MW2's story will never happen, right?

Should the kid have been waving a gun at the cops? Nope. Should the cops have went to deadly force as a second step? No!

Is it so far beyond the realm of possibility that they could have had one beanbag gun aimed at the kid with orders "any sign of aggression you take the first shot" if he misses and there is still a sign of aggression shoot to kill? Or even having a secondary non-lethal gun?

I mean what are the chances of a kid going from a not-ready-to-fire stance to shooting at cops and hitting with the first shot, with no training at all? 'cos it's seems pretty obvious the cops would already be aiming at the kid and are trained to shoot accurately.

I know American's have had guns instilled in them as good things and they MUST have guns to be safe and lethal force is ok to use most of the time but things like this are still messed up.