Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

[jklinders]

Well I'm not pro-tazer. I just feel they have their place right next to other tools used by law enforcement from Cuffs to batons to sidearms.

Anyone who claims that they are safe is drinking cool aid. It's not safe to be struck in the noggin by a baton either.

Besides as already stated they are the wrong tool for this situation as the natural reaction to getting shocked is to clench your hands, leading to a shot being fired. That is not to say that they should not have tazers at all, just to use them when it is appropriate. Just like all their other tools.

 

[Reiterpallasch]

I think this thread is one of the reasons i just lurk all the time rather than post.

I read the whole thread and not much else needs to be said. I do agree with the cops on this one. Not because I'm American or that i think guns are the best thing ever, but because in the same situation in which i was being visibly threatened by something I thought was a gun I would have defended myself and everyone in that school.

Look, it's sad that the kid had to die. I get what a lot of foreigners are saying about gun use and non lethal weapons. Things are different here across the ocean and the border. It's difficult for any of you to understand just like it is for Americans to understand foreigners. Sometimes you just have to act in a way that can guarantee the safety of yourselves, your fellow officers, and everyone around you.

Im a foriegner and against the use of Personal firearms for defence, and Im still with the Police.

Being a former Brit Special Constable at that point I'd be calling the ARU who if the kid didnt move after the 3 warnings would still shoot him- thats what caused all the stupid so-called riots over here last year

He had a right to shoot the kid. But three shots? That's ridiculous. He's a kid. 1 is enough, and he might even live, too.

And why in the chest? Why not in the leg or arm? Wouldn't that effectively disarm him?

I agree, the police had a right to shoot him, but the way they shot him was uncalled for.

umm, If it comes down to drawing your firearm its always about lethal force so the officer shoots as many times to make sure the suspect is dead.

Why in the chest?: simple its the largest area on the human body and therefore easier to hit and less chance of giving the suspect time to cuase harm to anyone else by missing or hitting the suspect somewhere where they might ignore it.

I only hope the officers dont get villified by the press, family and themselves =(

Unfortunately, the Huffington Post article that started this thread put a "police brutality" spin on the whole thing, and the parents agree.
Understandable on the parents' part, but the Post has no excuse for that sort of thing.

 

[jklinders]

I think this thread is one of the reasons i just lurk all the time rather than post.

I read the whole thread and not much else needs to be said. I do agree with the cops on this one. Not because I'm American or that i think guns are the best thing ever, but because in the same situation in which i was being visibly threatened by something I thought was a gun I would have defended myself and everyone in that school.

Look, it's sad that the kid had to die. I get what a lot of foreigners are saying about gun use and non lethal weapons. Things are different here across the ocean and the border. It's difficult for any of you to understand just like it is for Americans to understand foreigners. Sometimes you just have to act in a way that can guarantee the safety of yourselves, your fellow officers, and everyone around you.

Im a foriegner and against the use of Personal firearms for defence, and Im still with the Police.

Being a former Brit Special Constable at that point I'd be calling the ARU who if the kid didnt move after the 3 warnings would still shoot him- thats what caused all the stupid so-called riots over here last year

He had a right to shoot the kid. But three shots? That's ridiculous. He's a kid. 1 is enough, and he might even live, too.

And why in the chest? Why not in the leg or arm? Wouldn't that effectively disarm him?

I agree, the police had a right to shoot him, but the way they shot him was uncalled for.

umm, If it comes down to drawing your firearm its always about lethal force so the officer shoots as many times to make sure the suspect is dead.

Why in the chest?: simple its the largest area on the human body and therefore easier to hit and less chance of giving the suspect time to cuase harm to anyone else by missing or hitting the suspect somewhere where they might ignore it.

I only hope the officers dont get villified by the press, family and themselves =(

Unfortunately, the Huffington Post article that started this thread put a "police brutality" spin on the whole thing, and the parents agree.
Understandable on the parents' part, but the Post has no excuse for that sort of thing.

Seeing as the HU-PO is the left's answer to Faux News I am not surprised and as such decline to use them as a source for anything. Better to try and find less overtly biased sources. Or at least take them with a real big grain of salt. If you have a strong stomach, check out the comments there. Trolls on both sides of the debate baiting each other all over the place. I almost wish my troll hunting license was up to date. Almost.

 

[Reiterpallasch]

I'm sure the Huffington Post wasn't the only publication that spun the story that way either. :|

 

[jklinders]

I'm sure the Huffington Post wasn't the only publication that spun the story that way either. :|

I agree. They are just the most blatant about it.

I have little connection to law enforcement myself, but I know it is a very unpopular job where everyone second guesses your every action. Then we get this TV based fantasy malarkey from a lot of folks(not you, you seem to speak from experience) spouted by a bunch of folks with healthy doses of "what if."

I get pretty angry at the media in general when I see garbage like that.

 

[Jegsimmons]

THIS KID HAD IT COMING

Besides the fact he was threatening people with it, and that school gun violence is the scariest thing we could have in the US (see virginia tech and columbine) and he THREATENED POLICE WHO THOUGHT IT WAS REAL, he was asking to have a few rounds put in him, the police did their job and did it well, what if that dumb bastard has a real gun?* Many people could be dead, and then what? ***** at the cops anyway?

*note, im not anti-gun at all, but keep them away from schools because kids are stupid

 

[Reiterpallasch]

Well I personally think that this was a (successful) suicide by cop.

 

[jklinders]

My thoughts as well.

 

[Saltyk]

It's also just more humane to kill quickly with a few shots than to have them bleed to death in agony.

And I forgot to cover the whole "gunshots to extremities will still kill" angle in my post too, thanks for posting that.

Were those directed at me? If so, no problem. The only way to defeat ignorance is education. Most of the people against the cops actions just seem to be uninformed as the the reality of firearms. Most likely they just don't care, are rather anti-gun, or are from foreign countries with heavy regulations or outright bans on personal firearms. Once upon a time, I wold have thought that a gunshot to the leg would not kill a person and thought handguns were fairly accurate. Still, even then I wouldn't blame the police for killing the kid in this situation.

 

[Reiterpallasch]

It's also just more humane to kill quickly with a few shots than to have them bleed to death in agony.

And I forgot to cover the whole "gunshots to extremities will still kill" angle in my post too, thanks for posting that.

Were those directed at me? If so, no problem. The only way to defeat ignorance is education. Most of the people against the cops actions just seem to be uninformed as the the reality of firearms. Most likely they just don't care, are rather anti-gun, or are from foreign countries with heavy regulations or outright bans on personal firearms. Once upon a time, I wold have thought that a gunshot to the leg would not kill a person and thought handguns were fairly accurate. Still, even then I wouldn't blame the police for killing the kid in this situation.

It seems like people need something to be outraged at, and situations like this are an easy target.

 

[SD-Fiend]

Honestly, I wish cops didn't have the right to use lethal force, we have technology now that can subdue ANYONE in a matter of seconds. There's no reason that the people who are supposed to protect us should be able to kill us it's counter-intuitive.

like what? there are quite a few posts saying other methods wouldn't have worked or could have made things worse.

Uhh.. I feel like hitting the boy with a taser and then restraining him, followed by psychological counseling would be far better than... you know murdering him. Clearly the boy was troubled, he didn't need to be put down, he needed to be helped up.

Also, the boy had a pellet gun, they didn't even have to taze him, they could have just walked up and restrained him easy as you please. My thing is, I feel like cops shouldn't be looking out for their safety by shooting first, I think they should be above this, I know that's a hard call but that's supposed to be their thing isn't it? It's easy to tell the difference between a real gun and a pellet gun the second the trigger is pulled, if the cops hadn't just opened fire on an innocent, if stupid, kid then there would be one more life, and don't think that didn't affect that whole community, including the police.

What I'm saying is at some point cop tactics switched to protecting their asses over being worried about hurting civilians. I think cops look at most civilians as enemies, just waiting to break a law, and I think that's totally unacceptable.

You know in Scotland they're still called Guards? I like that so much more, conveys the concept better: They are Guarding the Citizens... not Policing them.

this has been said many times but:
1: they did not know it was a pellet gun from their perspective it was real he had not shot anyone yet but was parading the gun around like it was real and threatening to shoot.
2: a taser could have caused his muscles to contract causing him to fire the gun.
3. the job of a policeman/woman is not to put their life on the line but to get rid of the threat before people are harmed.

Okay, so then:

1) They should know, before they kill someone.
2) Oh, well god forbid he should fire off a pellet....
3) And that is bullshit. It is their code to lay their life on the line for our safety, unless it changed since the 90's, and if that is the case, then that is sickening and selfish. No wonder this kind of shit happens so often with this mind set. Shoot first ask questions later is NOT okay, under ANY circumstances.

I tell you what, picture it's your kid lying in a morgue because some cop thought he had a real gun? Even if you don't have a kid I'm sure you've got some sort of imagination, or if not picture it's a family member you care about or a loved one who just snapped, had a mental break down and did something crazy looking for attention, because that's exactly what that boy was doing if you think about it for two seconds rather than defend his murders. Like I said, picture your friends or family members dead over some stupid misunderstanding when they could have been easily just restrained and helped. You still with the cops on this one? If so then I hope never to be your friend.

If you had been paying attention you would realize this is my whole issue with our bullshit police force, who should all be investigated and possibly replaced if you ask me. They are supposed to protect us, not murder us in the streets to protect themselves.

misunderstanding? how was it a misunderstanding? he brought what looked like a gun to school was told to put it down, did not put it down threatened to shoot and was shot to make sure that he wouldn't kill anyone. by your logic I should be able to go to an airport, strap on a plastic bomb made to look real and not get taken out because it may or may not be real

 

[Queen Michael]

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.

Edit: Alright guys, you can stop quoting me. I'm not taking sides on this thing at all. I just thought it was interesting.

First of all, yes you're taking sides. You're saying that the police used excessive force but you don't criticize the boy's behaviour at all.
Secondly, in my opinion you should have mentioned how, exactly, it could have been done better, because otherwise I'd like to know how you can be sure there must have been a better way, when you can't think of one.

 

[Raesvelg]

FMJs, due to their high speed, fragment the copper jacket and tumble, creating a bigger temporary cavity than frangible rounds.

Under ideal circumstances, yes, the FMJ round will tumble and fragment, though any attempt to get the round to do so on purpose is a violation of the Hague Conventions and, by extension, illegal to use in a weapon of war.

And when we start discussing temporary cavities, hydrostatic shock, and all the other nifty little poorly-understood concepts that surround the debated topic of "stopping power", we're venturing into speculation.

FMJ rounds tend to overpenetrate. This much is difficult to dispute. Overpenetration results in less energy transmitted to the target. This is also difficult to dispute.

What I said was that the round was able to knock him down by simple transfer of forward momentum onto his arm, creating rotation.

What you said was this:

He caught one in his elbow, he said it was like he got hammered by a huge mass. He spun twice and hit the ground with the sheer force of the impact.

Don't correct yourself after the fact and claim that your statement said something it did not.

I dare you to take a 5.56x45mm on your elbow and not rotating, even if you have been preparing yourself for days. Of course, this is only hypothetical, because I know for a fact you can't "prepare" yourself for a hit.

Technically you can prepare yourself just about anything. It's why you'll see people doing vest tests that can take the hit and respond, and others who are shot unaware with the exact same round, under the exact same circumstances, get knocked down.

Hell, it's the fundamental principle behind all those annoying "energy bracelets with the power of magnets!" tests you see being pushed on television in the wee hours of morning. Running someone through the same set of tests a second time will invariably result in a better performance, whether they think they're prepared for it nor not. They know what's coming, and they know what to do to prevent themselves from getting pulled off balance, pushed over, or whatever tests the shill trying to sell you a couple cheap magnets attached to a rubber wristband is putting them through.

Plus, the buttstock of a weapon has a bigger surface area than a spitzer bullet. I don't know what you're talking about.

Obviously nobody is putting sharp pointy spikes on the buttstocks. As for time, however, that much is self-evident; a bullet is accelerating as it travels down the barrel, because ideally the powder charge is calibrated that way. If the bullet is not accelerating, then the barrel is too long, a problem that they had in early black powder cannon design.

So a 5.56 out of an M-16 has 20" worth of time, so to speak, to accelerate, and if we're using a well-designed frangible round, perhaps as few as 4" to shed that accumulated energy.

Oh, and assuming that the rifle is properly tucked in, the man and gun form a system. Yes, you can have some measure of recoil absorption by the weapon, but if the butt is in contact with the shoulder... not much. The rifle is just adding another few pounds to the system as a whole, meaning that the man/rifle system is pushed back a little less far than he would be otherwise.

No it cannot.

Yes it can.

Do the math, if you're so inclined.

A 340 grain (22 gram) .44 Magnum slug moving at 1,325 ft/s (or 404 m/s) carries about 1795 joules of kinetic energy. (.5*.022)*404^2=1795

A 77 grain (5 gram) .223 Remington slug moving at 2,750 ft/s (or 840 m/s) carries about 1764 joules of kinetic energy. (.5*.005)*840^2=1764

Basic physics.

Neither round is the most powerful one that can be fired from the respective weapons, and on average the .223 rounds carry more energy, but not by a lot, typically around 10% or so.

.50 AE rounds, however, hit harder than .223 almost universally. .454 Casull, .460 and .500 S&W Magnum; these rounds all carry vastly more energy than any .223 round in existence.

And, technically, they're pistol ammo. If you've got hands like canned hams and forearms like a gorilla, at least.

 

[ElPatron]

Under ideal circumstances, yes, the FMJ round will tumble and fragment, though any attempt to get the round to do so on purpose is a violation of the Hague Conventions and, by extension, illegal to use in a weapon of war.

False. The round shatters because of the sheer speed it hits. The bullet bends and the crimp is a structurally weak point that allows the round to break away and have the jacket stripped.

It is not because of the bullet design itself. It was not designed to do so. It is the speed that causes it, not the bullet design. It is not against the Hague convention because it does not flatten nor expand, and it does not have incisions that make it structurally unstable, just weak points.

FMJ rounds tend to overpenetrate. This much is difficult to dispute. Overpenetration results in less energy transmitted to the target. This is also difficult to dispute.

And? If I remember correctly, military personnel is not supposed to run around naked.

What I said was that the round was able to knock him down by simple transfer of forward momentum onto his arm, creating rotation.

What you said was this:

He caught one in his elbow, he said it was like he got hammered by a huge mass. He spun twice and hit the ground with the sheer force of the impact.

Don't correct yourself after the fact and claim that your statement said something it did not

It's the same thing. A hammer hitting you on the elbow with enough speed will transfer it's momentum into you, making you rotate.

Now you're just chasing ghosts, because I cannot see how those statements are contradictory


Technically you can prepare yourself just about anything.
But not for a gunshot. Getting a vest hit is like a punch, it's blunt force. Bullets crush tissue. Completely unrelated, I can't believe you are actually saying you would try to counter a bullet into your elbow just by expecting it.

No it cannot.

Yes it can.

Do the math, if you're so inclined.

A 340 grain (22 gram) .44 Magnum slug moving at 1,325 ft/s (or 404 m/s) carries about 1795 joules of kinetic energy. (.5*.022)*404^2=1795

63 gr 5.56 @ 3,070 ft/s = 1,796 J lol won by 1 J

A 77 grain (5 gram) .223 Remington slug moving at 2,750 ft/s (or 840 m/s) carries about 1764 joules of kinetic energy. (.5*.005)*840^2=1764

Basic physics. At the muzzle. Pistol rounds bleed energy really quickly.

At 300m the .44 Mag is no match for a rifle. Don't forget that the 5.56 at 700m is still carrying a lot more energy than the .44 Magnum

.50 AE rounds, however, hit harder than .223 almost universally. .454 Casull, .460 and .500 S&W Magnum; these rounds all carry vastly more energy than any .223 round in existence

Let's go back again, shall we?

A 300 grain or so .44 Magnum round will actually hit harder

I said it wouldn't. I did not mean kinetic energy, I meant energy dissipation. ("hit harder" =/= "shoot harder")

A .44 Magnum will rely on it's expansion to transfer energy into the body.

The 5.56 will tumble and fragment, creating a larger temporary cavity, effectively dumping most of it's energy in a body.


This is pretty irrelevant because both will kill anyone dead. But pistol ammo relies to expansion to be able to transfer energy.

 

[Raesvelg]

False. The round shatters because of the sheer speed it hits. The bullet bends and the crimp is a structurally weak point that allows the round to break away and have the jacket stripped.

The round tumbles, the jacket strips, yes. All of these things occur under ideal circumstances.

Of course, the round tumbling and coming apart typically doesn't happen until it's gone through about four inches of flesh, but hey, who's counting?

Again, under ideal circumstances.

You can make a better bullet than FMJ. It has been done. They're not allowed to shoot them out of military weapons.

What are you arguing about?!?!?

And? If I remember correctly, military personnel is not supposed to run around naked.

And if we're going to start talking about how much energy the round bleeds going through a vest, or clothing, and what effect that will have on overpenetration (particularly after you admitted that once a FMJ 5.56 in particular slows down, it loses a great deal of its killing power), I'm gonna start pulling my hair out, if I had any left.

It's the same thing. A hammer hitting you on the elbow with enough speed will transfer it's momentum into you, making you rotate.

Now you're just chasing ghosts, because I cannot see how those statements are contradictory

They're clearly contradictory. Initially you state the the round spun him around twice and knocked him down, "with the sheer force of the impact". It may not have been what you meant to say, but it is what you said.

Now you've corrected yourself to say that he apparently spun himself around twice and fell over.

At 300m the .44 Mag is no match for a rifle. Don't forget that the 5.56 at 700m is still carrying a lot more energy than the .44 Magnum

Um...

Duh?

Good lord, did you actually read what I said, or did you just go off on some random white-knight "MUST DEFEND THE HONOR OF FMJ ROUNDS AND THE SUPREMACY OF THE RIFLE AT ALL COSTS" tangent?

Short version; muzzle velocity matters quite a bit, but ammunition type can have an equal measure of importance. A pistol with the right ammunition is probably at least as deadly as a rifle using the arguably wrong ammunition, within short ranges and in competent hands, of course.

Note the caveats.

Though it's worth noting that the speed drop-off on an M4 leaves it distinctly less dangerous after about 150-300 feet or so, depending on the precise round fired (M855 being less effective in some ways than the M193).

This is pretty irrelevant because both will kill anyone dead.

Which was entirely my point, if you were paying attention.

 

[Pierce Graham]

I'm not saying it's an iron-clad argument, I'm just saying that the kid might have been saved if the cops had used a taser. We'll never know.

 

[MorganL4]

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.

This exactly this

 

[Reiterpallasch]

I'm not saying it's an iron-clad argument, I'm just saying that the kid might have been saved if the cops had used a taser. We'll never know.

pierce, two things.
1) the police were not close enough to be able to use tasers.
2) Even if they were, the officers had full reason to believe that he was carrying a fully functional and loaded firearm. Operating under this assumption, yeah, the kid might have survived, but perhaps at the cost of the life of one of the officers or an innocent bystander. When a human body is struck with an electric shock (especially one as powerful as a taser emits), the muscles convulse. If you're carrying a loaded gun and your finger is on the trigger, as soon as that shock hits his fingers would curl in, discharging the weapon at least once, if not multiple times. That is of course, assuming that the taser does anything at all. People that have a hardy enough constitution (or have enough adrenaline coursing through their bloodstream) can take multiple taser shots before succumbing. The perp could easily get off multiple shots, even partially aimed ones, depending on how badly the taser affected him, with the possibility of seriously injuring or killing either the police officers or a bystander.

That is NOT an acceptable risk. When someone is brandishing a firearm, a police officer's primary directive is to protect the lives of innocent bystanders first and himself and his fellow officers second. If they can take down the perp without killing him, great. But police do not meet lethal force with non-lethal force. They meet lethal force with lethal force.

As soon as the officers drew their weapons, that meant that they were prepared to use lethal force unless the kid backed down. He had multiple opportunities to disarm, but he didn't. He is the only one to blame here. The policeman did their jobs and they did it well.

 

[Reiterpallasch]

also, ElPatron and Raesvlg, the discussion on the stopping power of various bullets is a bit off-topic, don't you think?

 

[ElPatron]

I'm not saying it's an iron-clad argument, I'm just saying that the kid might have been saved if the cops had used a taser. We'll never know.

Kid had a real gun, tazer made him pull the trigger and someone would be dead.

No real advantage. No room for error.

You can make a better bullet than FMJ. It has been done. They're not allowed to shoot them out of military weapons.

I disagree. For military purposes FMJ is the best.

And? If I remember correctly, military personnel is not supposed to run around naked.

And if we're going to start talking about how much energy the round bleeds going through a vest, or clothing, and what effect that will have on overpenetration (particularly after you admitted that once a FMJ 5.56 in particular slows down, it loses a great deal of its killing power), I'm gonna start pulling my hair out, if I had any left.

Look, overpenetration will occur with 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 5.45x39, 9x19, .45ACP, etc

While pistol rounds designed to expand won't have noticeable yaw, they will keel going forward like they are supposed to. Not overpenetrating means that if you shot a criminal in the arm it might not reach vital organs.

If that is true with self-defence pistol ammo, why should overpenetration matter on a battlefiled? As long as you transfer a certain amount of energy (and a 5.56 tumbling or even fragmenting will deal a lot of energy) everything is good.

There was one victim of the 5.56 that got hit in his abdomen, it did not fragment but it came out of his shoulder. I bet his internal organs did not look pretty, and it still overpenetrated without fragmenting.

That means that not even the most favorable outcome of shooting someone with 5.56 will prevent it from being more effective than a 7.62x51mm in the same situation.



Now you've corrected yourself to say that he apparently spun himself around twice and fell over.

They are still the same to me. I'll say again.

Bullet hit. He rotated 2 times. He was on the ground. It wasn't him losing balance or tripping like a drunk, it was the force that threw him out of his feet. This is the definite version and what he and the people who saw that accident told me.

At 300m the .44 Mag is no match for a rifle. Don't forget that the 5.56 at 700m is still carrying a lot more energy than the .44 Magnum

Um...

Duh?

Good lord, did you actually read what I said, or did you just go off on some random white-knight "MUST DEFEND THE HONOR OF FMJ ROUNDS AND THE SUPREMACY OF THE RIFLE AT ALL COSTS" tangent?

Did I say it would have to be FMJ? Soft point, polymer tipped, hollow point, match grade open tip, all of those designs, assuming similar ballistic coefficients, will allow more energy at range, which was not the point of handguns.

As soon as it leaves the muzzle, handgun ammo will already be bleeding off energy at a rate that rifle ammo can't afford to lose.

Ever heard of 10mm auto having more energy at 100m than .45 ACP at the muzzle? Or that .408 can retain more energy at longer ranges than the mighty .50 BMG?

Or the fact that the Mk 262 is a 5.56 round designed to kill at 700m after being fired by the SPR?

Short version; muzzle velocity matters quite a bit, but ammunition type can have an equal measure of importance. A pistol with the right ammunition is probably at least as deadly as a rifle using the arguably wrong ammunition, within short ranges and in competent hands, of course.

So a rifle chambered in 5.56 has a higher chance of being fed with wrong ammo and should be re-chambered ASAP?

I know they have batches of ammo with different jackets and that affects performance, but that's a bit far fetched.

They are still getting shot.

And let's not mention that M855A1 performs better against hardened steel than 7.62x51!


Basically the 5.56x45 was not a flawed design. It just required a lot of changes because sometimes it needs to be used against armored targets, sometimes against targets beyond 700m.