Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

[shadyh8er]

The #1 rule about handling guns; treat them like they're loaded, even if it's pointed at you. And I've seen pellet guns that I thought were real myself.

 

[Kopikatsu]

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?

Using non-lethal weapons when the suspect has a lethal weapon when a large number of lives are at stake is an absolutely pants-on-head retarded thing to do. (Yes, it was a pellet gun, but at the time they thought it was a real gun. This is because the kid filed off the orange safety tip and claimed that he was going to kill everyone)

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?

Guns are here to stay. You can pass legislation saying that they're illegal, but nobody is actually going to give them up. Attempting to prosecute people with guns is a retarded thing to do, too. Remember how prohibition turned out for us? Yeah.

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?

Again, they don't use non-lethal weaponry to take down a suspect using a lethal weapon for what should be obvious reasons. Real life isn't like a video game. Someone who is tased WILL fire a gun if they're holding one, and a beanbag gun isn't going to prevent the kid from shooting the cops.

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.

The kid was taking aim at the cops when they shot him. And you can't assume that the first bullet is going to miss. That is, again, a pants-on-head retarded thing to do.

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.

Nice generalization. Herp.

 

[Huddo]

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.

But this kid was 15, by far old enough to be able to fire a gun correctly, or take a hit from a beanbag gun. It's entirely possible that the kid, fuelled by adrenaline, would barely notice the beanbag and continue to shoot an officer or innocent classmate dead. So would you rather be sure that the target is down and certain not to pose any more harm to anyone, or take the chance of the non-lethal weapon not being effective, resulting in the target becoming enraged and possibly harming another?

Your "any sign of aggression you take the first shot" was kinda already played out, most likely (but worded differently) when the officers asked the guy to put the gun down. There WAS a sign of aggression, in that he raised the gun to point at the police, a stance which could have any of them killed in an instant. So they opened fire. I don't see how that argument got you anywhere, because you just proved the pro-police people's point correct.

And on the subject of tazers, they aren't a good idea at all. A shock from a tazer causes the muscles of the body to contract, even the fingers, which, you guessed it, would pull the trigger of the gun.

The bottom line is, the kid had already assaulted someone, threatened to kill those around him, refused demands to lower his gun AND pointed it at officers. Of course, they had no idea whether it was a real gun or not, and it's always best to assume the worst in a situation like this, so they opened fire, totally and completely terminating the threat. Had they used non-lethal force, the kid could still have shot from the ground. Whether said shot would hit anyone directly or not, there's always ricocheting to take into account or a shot travelling upwards penetrating the ceiling and injuring someone on the level above.

 

[senordesol]

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.

Is taking that chance worth gambling your life? Is that what you'd want on your tomb while your wife and children weep? 'What were the odds?'

 

[FarleShadow]

Guns are well and truly part of American culture now, for better or worse.

But introducing guns to the UK police forces would be a bad idea. One which would lead to criminals buying a lot more of them.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I have found the one sane person on the internet. Bow before our new lord and master!

What a load of piffle. To use a word I rarely get to.

It is laughable that someone can suggest that 'Cops shouldn't have guns, because then criminals will', what is that? "Oh if we're nice, maybe they won't shoot at us?"

So maybe Police officers should just use kind words and Nerf! balls to subdue violent offenders?

 

[omega 616]

Nice generalization. Herp.

I knew I shouldn't have posted in this thread, 3 quotes in a row .... -.-

I didn't know the kid but I am pretty sure he would have just shit himself if he got shot with a beanbag gun. Tazer makes muscles contract which is why I theoretical prefer them, like those things can knock you on your ass.

In the UK a guy had a machete and a whole police department turned up with nothing more than sticks, it seems the cops in the US would be turning up with glocks at the ready.

It's not pants on head retarded, it's trying to reduce loss rather than the quick fix.

I am in no doubt guns will never leave America, I just think it's a very immature safety blanket. Should only have a gun if you need it, farmers and specialist police etc. If somebody mugs you on the street is the $15 dollars in your wallet and your phone really worth pulling your gun for?

Not to mention those funny people in sitcoms who have a handgun in there nightstand and the ammo in the wardrobe. So somebody breaks in, you sleeply wake up, get your gun, get your ammo, combine the 2 (resident evil style), the "clear" every room in your house? I don't think so.

Like I said I know guns are there to stay and that's why I will never go to America, y'all crazy!

Exactly how do you know a beanbag gun wont stop a kid from shooting at cops? Is it a 100% fail rate on them, I doubt it. I know life isn't like a video game but do you? He was pointing a gun at cops "KILL HIM!!!" (hyperbole FTW!).

There must have been a time when the kid had the gun aimed at the floor or away from people, the second he lifts the gun, hit him with something to knock him on his ass or even the gun. Instead of waiting for the gun to aimed at them and unloading 3 each.

Is the generalization wrong? From what I have seen (which isn't all the posts but there have been other American police shootings on these forums) all Americans are "be the polices ***** or be shot". There is only 1 time I have witnessed that this forum was split down the middle on a "guns in America" thread.

A thread in which a man was arrested for carrying a visible gun in the street, he had his papers on him which he was willing to show but the cop just didn't want to see them and arrested him.

On to the next quoter!

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.

But this kid was 15, by far old enough to be able to fire a gun correctly, or take a hit from a beanbag gun. It's entirely possible that the kid, fuelled by adrenaline, would barely notice the beanbag and continue to shoot an officer or innocent classmate dead. So would you rather be sure that the target is down and certain not to pose any more harm to anyone, or take the chance of the non-lethal weapon not being effective, resulting in the target becoming enraged and possibly harming another?

Your "any sign of aggression you take the first shot" was kinda already played out, most likely (but worded differently) when the officers asked the guy to put the gun down. There WAS a sign of aggression, in that he raised the gun to point at the police, a stance which could have any of them killed in an instant. So they opened fire. I don't see how that argument got you anywhere, because you just proved the pro-police people's point correct.

And on the subject of tazers, they aren't a good idea at all. A shock from a tazer causes the muscles of the body to contract, even the fingers, which, you guessed it, would pull the trigger of the gun.

The bottom line is, the kid had already assaulted someone, threatened to kill those around him, refused demands to lower his gun AND pointed it at officers. Of course, they had no idea whether it was a real gun or not, and it's always best to assume the worst in a situation like this, so they opened fire, totally and completely terminating the threat. Had they used non-lethal force, the kid could still have shot from the ground. Whether said shot would hit anyone directly or not, there's always ricocheting to take into account or a shot travelling upwards penetrating the ceiling and injuring someone on the level above.

You (and every other person pro gun) make it sound like non-lethal means are totally ineffective, which can't be true otherwise they wouldn't exist. Do you think beanbag guns or tazers barely pack a punch? Tazers drop people quickly and beanbag guns leave one hell of a bruise, so it's not like it's thrown at you!

I think there are two ways to raise a gun, 1) is slow and accurate ... which means the person can be put down before he ever even aims. He has to aim and fire before cops can just fire (they are already aiming). 2) is fast and inaccurate, which is going out in a blaze of glory but again cops are already aiming so all they have to do is pull the trigger, still faster than him

Non-lethal means give the police time to rush him or something, I don't claim to a professional police tactics officer but if the Uk police can do what the American police can without laying waste to people then why do American police need to kill? We have armed gangs as well.

Have you ever been sucker punched or accidently pushed hard by surprise? You don't automatically take instinctual action, for a second you are thinking "WTF just happened" ... times that by being hit by a car and your more than "WTF just happened".

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.

Is taking that chance worth gambling your life? Is that what you'd want on your tomb while your wife and children weep? 'What were the odds?'

Like I keep saying, if UK police can do it why can't American police?

 

[senordesol]

Maybe Americans love their families more. I ain't gonna take a bullet for some teenager too stupid to drop his gun when staring down the barrel of three more.

 

[Prosis]

I'm afraid I don't understand.

I think the cops actions were justified.

If you say the cop shouldn't have fired, then you accept the fact that other people could have died.


I would like to note this. This wasn't a spur of the moment whip out your pistols and fire moment. This kid had refused to put down the gun long enough for the cops to show up. He refused to listen to teachers or authority. He threatened his classmates. Everyone in that hall probably thought there was a good chance that they would die.

Let's have a test Escapist. Below I shall post two pictures. One is a real gun, the other is a pellet gun.

Which is which?


The one on top is the fake gun. Most people can probably determine this due to the pellet gun being made of plastic, and having less detail.

But could you determine it, if it was held in someone's hands fifteen feet away? Would you be willing to risk the lives of other people if you're wrong?

I don't think so. So you use circumstantial evidence. You have a kid who was willing to draw a weapon, and threaten other people. Although he's probably a decent kid (since being a little kid obviously means he's innocent of any evil), as an officer, you know that school shootings do occur.

There are several possible outcomes.

He puts the gun down. After at least 10 minutes of talking (between the teachers, the students, and the police arriving and talking), he still refuses to do so.

The police try to take him down. This is difficult. He is a gunman in an open hallway. Tazers or physical force require you to be very close, and that range cannot be reached as long as he has a gun. Tear gas and other means will not work either, as it may cause him to fire in retalliation.

Kid fires. In best case scenario, he drops the gun in a panic, and the bullet misses. In the worst, he shoots 1 or more people before the police shoot him, most likely killing him.

The police fire in order to disarm or wound him. Despite what TV may show, trickshots to disarm or disable a target are not hard. They're near impossible. Keep in mind that it has to be a shot good enough so that it doesn't kill him, but forces him FOR SURE to drop the gun. This is why in most cop/criminal shootouts, the criminal winds up dead. Not because he deserves it, but because there is no way to disarm them.

The kid's gun is fake This would be the best outcome, but unfortunately, there is no way to confirm or deny this. You would like to believe in a world where children would never murder another person, but at the same time, you know that bullying has pushed school students to do terrible things. At best, the chance of the gun being fake is 50/50.

The police shoots the kid. It is horrible to do this, as he is so young, and he could definitely change. At the same time though, there are lives in danger. This boy has the power to kill, and is unwilling to put it down.



Would it have been better if the cops knew it was a fake gun? Definitely. Wouldn't it be better if there were some other way? Definitely. However, there was no way to know that it was a pellet gun. And there were no other options.

 

[jimbob123432]

snip

There are different kinds of rubber rounds, the ones I'm talking about pack the same punch as live bullets. They just don't penetrate. They aren't used by western governments anymore because people die from them. Just not as much as live rounds.

And two guns really wouldn't be an issue. Not if they thought of them as two separate entities. Like they do a tazer and their normal side arm. You'd be surprised what reflexive training does for you.

My point still stands though. In the case of a taser vs a gun as you bring up, cops can decide well before which they're going to use. For example, someone with a knife in a domestic assault will warrant a taser, although the cop's PARTNER will still have their gun drawn on the subject.

If you're complaining about the lethal levels of force of live ammo over the LTL capabilities of rubber bullets, you contradicted yourself by stating that "they aren't used by western governments anymore because people die from them". I'd rather cops kill someone they meant to kill than they accidentally kill someone they didn't mean to.

Finally, you still haven't answered my question about your thought on rubber rounds being used in the military. With all the public complaints about the deaths of "innocent civilians" overseas, should the militaries of the world being using rubber rounds or tasers in ambiguous situations like you're suggested our police forces do?

you people can't see the forest through the trees. I didn't contradict anything, I've said multiple times that the rubber rounds I'm talking about aren't some amazing idealistic alternative. They're just better than normal bullets. If you get shot 3 times in the chest with live ammo, you're dead. You're not surviving that. If you get popped 3 times in the chest with rubber coated rounds, you may not die. You'll be in hospital, probably have a cracked rib or two. But you might live.

THAT'S THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE. There is no contradiction in what I'm saying, you people are just too hung up on matching force with the exact same kind of force you can't see it.

And I didn't answer that question because I answered it about 12 comments back, I explicitly said I wasn't talking about replacing the militaries ammo for live combat. They actually already use rubber rounds for certain operations.

But then the military isn't the police and they shouldn't be treated as the same beast. In most situations where the police draw and fire their sidearms, an alternative would be fine. I'm not talking about when facing down a gang using automatic rifles etc. But really, in that situation, a TAU would be a better option than a normal officer with a 9mm. I'm talking about those times one person has a gun drawn, or when someone's suspected of having a weapon and they're shot as they reach for their phone.

Instead of making these pointless arguments, perhaps we should be looking for more technologically advanced NLW alternatives. Rubber bullets were in use 40 years ago, do you really think we couldn't develop some sort of means to take down a threat with a gun other than another gun? But no ones looking for it, because everyones perfectly happy with guns.

It's pretty sad.

MY point that I'm trying to make is: Why fix what isn't broke? Maybe it's because I was raised in Canada, a country where it's extremely hard to acquire a firearm (despite what people in Toronto say) and where we don't have much gun crime (again, despite what Torontonians say). I just can't see why anyone would suggest a LTL solution to a problem when it's escalated to the point where the people we've entrusted with our safety have determined it's in everyone's best interests to use lethal force. I see it as adding a whole new level of decision-making that is not really required. Guns are not a major part of our culture up here (I think we have around 1/80 of the guns in the US) and people here are taught that certain actions have certain consequences. ie: pointing a gun at cops results in you getting shot. There is no alternative. Maybe that's why I can't understand your point of view.

Also, rather than put money into fancy LTL systems, why not put the money into education/rehab/social programs so that the situations that breed kids who take guns to their schools?

 

[Huddo]

You (and every other person pro gun) make it sound like non-lethal means are totally ineffective, which can't be true otherwise they wouldn't exist. Do you think beanbag guns or tazers barely pack a punch? Tazers drop people quickly and beanbag guns leave one hell of a bruise, so it's not like it's thrown at you!

You misunderstand me. I'm not 'pro-gun', rather, I think that in this situation, lethal force was the best option. Nowhere did I say that non-lethal weapons are useless, just that they are less efficient than lethal weapons (a point which any sane person would agree with). I'm saying that in the context of this situation, where there are multiple lives at immediate risk, lethal weapons are the best course of action if a suspect refuses to stand down. If the police were chasing a single guy through a deserted street or back alley, and the guy won't give up the chase, by all means, use a non-lethal weapon.
But where the lives of many others are concerned, a lethal choice is the way to go so you don't have to deal with how a non-lethal can be unpredictable. You people forget that everyone handles injury differently, some will collapse in a heap after one shot, some will take half a dozen or more shots to down them. The police had no way of knowing whether this kid would simply be aggravated by a beanbag or tazer (ignoring the contracting of muscles via them I brought up that you seem to have ignored) and keep on shooting.

I think there are two ways to raise a gun, 1) is slow and accurate ... which means the person can be put down before he ever even aims. He has to aim and fire before cops can just fire (they are already aiming). 2) is fast and inaccurate, which is going out in a blaze of glory but again cops are already aiming so all they have to do is pull the trigger, still faster than him

While we're on the topic of aiming, someone shot with a non-lethal weapon is bound to be on the ground moving around. You might say its hard for the guy to aim when he hurriedly tries to raise a gun from the ground, when in fact it's just as hard for the police to keep their aim focused on the moving target. And if any one of them misses their intended target, a bullet could ricochet or pass through walls and cause injury or death, which, you'll find, is what they're trying to AVOID.

Non-lethal means give the police time to rush him or something, I don't claim to a professional police tactics officer but if the Uk police can do what the American police can without laying waste to people then why do American police need to kill? We have armed gangs as well.

Have you ever been sucker punched or accidently pushed hard by surprise? You don't automatically take instinctual action, for a second you are thinking "WTF just happened" ... times that by being hit by a car and your more than "WTF just happened".

Surely you're not saying that a shot fired by the police would be unexpected? This guy, who I suspect was committing suicide-by-cop, would have well known he would be fired upon by raising his gun. Bracing yourself for an impact reduces the time that you are incapacitated by it. Meaning, again, that he could have turned and fired on an innocent.

Don't misunderstand me and call me pro-gun. What I'm trying to say is that there are times to use lethal force, and times to use non-lethal force. It was in these circumstances, where many lives were at risk, that lethal force was required.

 

[gphjr14]

Most BB and pellet guns I've seen do not have the red cap. My first pellet gun looked almost identical to a Beretta 9FS if you were more than 5 feet away from it.

Kid was dumb enough to take it to school.
Kid was dumb enough to pull it out while at school.
Kid was dumb enough not to comply with the officer when ordered to drop it.
Kid gets killed.

If anything I feel bad for the officer.

 

[omega 616]

And you know, its impossible to tell what 15 year old has experience with what. A number of my classmates in middle and high school were damn good with firearms as we live in a rural area, but hey if where you live the cops are equipped with something that tells them exactly how skilled a person is with an item before they have to encounter the individual perhaps you can have your goverment ship a few over to the US as those would be very useful for avoiding these sorts of situations.

I had stated that before. Not all crimes are gun related.

I said MW2 as a joke, the reason you have the right to bear arms is to stop invaders and since nobody is going to invade America and MW2's story has Russia invading America, I made a joke about it. Joking =/=trolling ....

So it's either 1 dead or 3+? There can't be Seriously injured or "after a police stand off everybody walked away unharmed"? Somebody has to die? That's where the problem is, no thinking outside the box or of another way, just "shoot first, claim innocence and lay blame later!".

Yeah, I have seen a guy get shot in the neck and be walking round saying holy fuck and one guy drop after being shot in the stomach. Like I said I am no police tactician but if UK police can stop gun crime without killing why can't you guys.

I know 8 year old kids in Rio are running round AK's but I still bet very few people can go from not aiming to aiming and accurately hitting somebody quicker than there target can just fire.

There is just something wrong about how nonchalantly people are saying "deserved it" ... I know he shouldn't have been fucking around but deserves to die, REALLY?

 

[jumjalalabash]

If you are dumb enough to hold up any kinda gun up in front of police you deserve anything you get.

 

[FarleShadow]

I would never be a police officer, because even if you're right, the public will moan that your use of 'force' was 'excessive' (Regardless of what the criminal was doing).

And if you get it wrong, you'll be tried as a common criminal, even if your intention was to stop what you perceived as a crime from occuring.

This case is a good example of that, real or not real, those cops were screwed from the moment they went into it.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Yup, absolutely true. This is a peice of advice that my father did give me and it has served me well in my life, especially on the day when as a 16 year old I found my car surrounded by police cars and half a dozen guns pointed at me as they yelled "hands on the wheel, don't move". My hands went on the wheel an I didn't budget a muscle until they told me to. Guess what, I'm still here.

If I might ask, what was the context behind that? That is, if you don't mind telling us.

 

[jimbob123432]

MY point that I'm trying to make is: Why fix what isn't broke? Maybe it's because I was raised in Canada, a country where it's extremely hard to acquire a firearm (despite what people in Toronto say) and where we don't have much gun crime (again, despite what Torontonians say). I just can't see why anyone would suggest a LTL solution to a problem when it's escalated to the point where the people we've entrusted with our safety have determined it's in everyone's best interests to use lethal force. I see it as adding a whole new level of decision-making that is not really required. Guns are not a major part of our culture up here (I think we have around 1/80 of the guns in the US) and people here are taught that certain actions have certain consequences. ie: pointing a gun at cops results in you getting shot. There is no alternative. Maybe that's why I can't understand your point of view.

Also, rather than put money into fancy LTL systems, why not put the money into education/rehab/social programs so that the situations that breed kids who take guns to their schools?

Well I'm actually from the UK, so we don't get a lot of guncrime either.

What bothers me is the amount of people that die in the states when a police officer eventually makes a mistake. They're only human, and giving them authority and lethal weapons garners the occasional accident. Unfortunately it's usually a fatal accident.

And I'm all for the programs you described. Indeed they are the ideal, but even if we implemented them, there is still going to be crime. You cannot eradicate crime completely. And I'd much rather think of a future where the police managed to fire some sort of temporary paralysing microwave out of a specialised implament, than exploding bullets that scatter in all directions taking out as many perps as possible.

Well then, I'm glad we've come to point we both agree on. I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's something I'd get behind simply because I think the threat of lethal force is part of what keeps some criminals from acting. That, and here in Canada, most of that stuff would sit on the shelf for a long time and rarely get used.

 

[Chaos1228]

The cops shooting this kid was completely justified. He was waving a realistic looking pellet gun at the cops and shouted that he was going to kill everybody.

As for non-lethal force, shooting him in say the arm or leg is more difficult to do than in the chest, along with the fact that a pissed off injured person with a gun (they had no idea if it was real or not) is probably going to try to shoot. And in a lot of areas in america, cops are actually told to shoot to kill, not to maim. Plus, the article said that the area gets a lot of overflow from mexican drug wars, giving police even more reason to think he was serious.

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.

I really dont think it would be wise to bring a tazer to a gun fight, plus a lot of things can go wrong trying to bring a gunman down with a tazer.

Off-topic: I saw what looked like a 10 year-old shooting a high-powered rifle at the gun range with his dad today, so a 15 year old that's accurate with a handgun doesnt seem impossible.