Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

[senordesol]

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.

Yeah but at least then it's all on the kid.

How is it not 'all on the kid' now? He DELIBERATELY modified his weapon to look real.

 

[dfphetteplace]

If I were the police, I would have done the same thing. They needed to protect themselves and the other people in that building. The kid was an idiot. It is a shame someone had to die, but they couldn't run the risk of him killing more people.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Let me just start by saying there are ways of disarming someone, there are ways of warning the kid to "Put the gun down, or get shot"
Aren't cops supposed to do that in every situation,
don't they do that in like every situation?

I swear, I want to move to Europe.

 

[Robert Ewing]

He thought it was the real thing. Seems to justify this as nothing more than a fatal mistake.

The cop did overall the right thing. Imagine if it was a real hand-gun, opening fire on both the cop and students. He would of been absolutely smashed if he hadn't of done what he did. Not to mention all of the deaths that may of occurred. And may I say to the people slamming him for not realizing it was a pellet gun... In that situation, you don't stop and analyze what make of gun it is... You need to fucking act, fast. It could be over in under a second. The cop needed to make a split-second decision, and given the rough area, the gun LOOKING real, and the fact that the gun is even in the school, anybody would of instantly thought 'hostile.'

And to put the icing on the cake, he didn't whack out his desert eagle to blow the kids head off, he smartly taze'd him. It's not SUPPOSED to be fatal, it's just purely bad luck that it was. I'm trying to paint a picture of the situation, did the kid seriously expect anything different? I assume he was waving the gun around with the cop in the same hallway, and I did a little digging on the school, apparently it's a tad on the rough side. Go figure.

Cut some slack to the police officer, anybody would of done what he did in his situation, maybe even worse than he did. He followed all the right paths, and took all the right measures, it's just a shame things ended up the way they did.

 

[Shavon513]

What gets me is the firing of *3* bullets. Use one to disable the target, not 3 to risk killing. Especially a child. It's a little uncalled for.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Let me just start by saying there are ways of disarming someone, there are ways of warning the kid to "Put the gun down, or get shot"
Aren't cops supposed to do that in every situation,
don't they do that in like every situation?

I swear, I want to move to Europe.

They are trained to, and they did. The kid refused. And life is not a movie, you do not physically try to disarm them if the starting position is not point blank with your arm already on them and the barrel pointed away from you. And even then, I think only the military teaches it.

So, the Military gives the right of disarm to people who don't even have the same rights as us, and police foreces don't?
Now, I can understand a direct need for that in the military, but still, you'd think we could shave off a little of the unecisary death.
But then again, The kid did seem sort of dumb, especially if the cops gave him a chance not to die.

Still doesn't piss me off as much as those cops barging into that marines house, not announcing who they were, and then killed him because he was prepairing to defend his family.

 

[Kopikatsu]

What gets me is the firing of *3* bullets. Use one to disable the target, not 3 to risk killing. Especially a child. It's a little uncalled for.

'Not 3 to risk killing'? They were shooting to kill. They were trying to kill him. And they succeeded.

They (understandably) felt lethal force was being threatened and they responded with lethal force. As they're supposed to.

 

[Torrasque]

My 2 bits:

1. In a potentially life-death situation, it is very difficult to know what is a threat to your life and what is not a threat to your life. I'm sure in hindsight some lawyer or parent or internet attorney will say "that doesn't look ANYTHING like a lethal gun!", but unless you were there in that situation, you really cannot say.

2. Police (and most people trained in the use of firearms) are trained to aim for center mass. None of that hollywood "shoot the gun from their hand" nonsense or gamer "aim for the head" crap, they aim for the part of the body that is the easiest to hit. Yes, some police take the incentive to aim for arms and legs, props to them, but that doesn't change the fact that in a gun vs. gun scenario, the best place for a police officer to aim is the chest.

I'll also add that it is rather useless to discuss what they should have done. At this point, all that can be said is that they did what they did and in the future, hopefully they won't have to kill a kid again.

 

[AstylahAthrys]

The kid had the option of putting the gun down and going quietly. He's the one who brought the gun to school, I have no sympathy for him in this situation. If it was a suicide by cop, I do feel bad for the kid, because death was what he wanted and to get to the place to want to do that is just dark and horrible.

If the kid was threatening to shoot people and never made an attempt to correct the assumption, the police had no choice but to assume that it was a real gun and he wanted to hurt people. They couldn't risk it being fake. If it was real and shooting was his intent, that kid could have killed a bunch of people. Their job was to protect the other students and faculty, so they made the right call. I doubt any of them felt good about what happened. I don't think any of the cops went out there with the intent of killing a 15-year-old.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

What gets me is the firing of *3* bullets. Use one to disable the target, not 3 to risk killing. Especially a child. It's a little uncalled for.

1 shot to disable is non existent. if the person is still alive they can and will pull the trigger. Congratulations, rather than saving an innocent and condemning a guilty, you condemned an innocent to save a guilty.
There is no such thing as a disabling shot. Never. Any gunshot wound on the body can result in death from massive blood loss, but never before they have the chance to return fire.

Most humans don't have the willpower to fire back after they've had a bullet rip through there cheast.
Most of the disable comes from shock, and you'd expect that from a 13 year old kid. 3 bullets was overkill.

 

[Kopikatsu]

What gets me is the firing of *3* bullets. Use one to disable the target, not 3 to risk killing. Especially a child. It's a little uncalled for.

1 shot to disable is non existent. if the person is still alive they can and will pull the trigger. Congratulations, rather than saving an innocent and condemning a guilty, you condemned an innocent to save a guilty.
There is no such thing as a disabling shot. Never. Any gunshot wound on the body can result in death from massive blood loss, but never before they have the chance to return fire.

Most humans don't have the willpower to fire back after they've had a bullet rip through there cheast.
Most of the disable comes from shock, and you'd expect that from a 13 year old kid. 3 bullets was overkill.

Adrenalin is a magical chemical. People have been known to tank multiple gunshot wounds and continue fighting.

Three bullets isn't overkill when they were trying to kill someone. They were trying to kill him. They succeeded.

If they shot him 20 times, sure, that'd be excessive. Three is enough to put him down for good.

 

[JackWestJr]

We can't really judge, we weren't there, but I kinda feel sorry for the kid, but it was absolutely the right decision by the cops at the time. Obviously something has happened to the kid to make him snap, but there is no way to blame the police for shooting the kid when it looked like he a legitimate firearm and was wavering it around despite being to to put it down.

He may have wanted a death by cop, but it is still quite a saddening story, whichever way you look at it. Copper is gonna feel absolutely terrible, family is gonna be pissed at copper.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

What gets me is the firing of *3* bullets. Use one to disable the target, not 3 to risk killing. Especially a child. It's a little uncalled for.

1 shot to disable is non existent. if the person is still alive they can and will pull the trigger. Congratulations, rather than saving an innocent and condemning a guilty, you condemned an innocent to save a guilty.
There is no such thing as a disabling shot. Never. Any gunshot wound on the body can result in death from massive blood loss, but never before they have the chance to return fire.

Most humans don't have the willpower to fire back after they've had a bullet rip through there cheast.
Most of the disable comes from shock, and you'd expect that from a 13 year old kid. 3 bullets was overkill.

Adrenalin is a magical chemical. People have been known to tank multiple gunshot wounds and continue fighting.

Three bullets isn't overkill when they were trying to kill someone. They were trying to kill him. They succeeded.

If they shot him 20 times, sure, that'd be excessive. Three is enough to put him down for good.

Yes, and these men were mostly SOLDIERS. Men whose only knowledge might as well be kill or be killed. This kid likely wasn't expecting to be shot. He likely would have put his gun down if one of those cops shot a bullet at the celing. When you don't expect something, it's a lot fucking worse. Most kids his age have not experanced any notable pain, and don't know what dying is like.

 

[Kopikatsu]

What gets me is the firing of *3* bullets. Use one to disable the target, not 3 to risk killing. Especially a child. It's a little uncalled for.

1 shot to disable is non existent. if the person is still alive they can and will pull the trigger. Congratulations, rather than saving an innocent and condemning a guilty, you condemned an innocent to save a guilty.
There is no such thing as a disabling shot. Never. Any gunshot wound on the body can result in death from massive blood loss, but never before they have the chance to return fire.

Most humans don't have the willpower to fire back after they've had a bullet rip through there cheast.
Most of the disable comes from shock, and you'd expect that from a 13 year old kid. 3 bullets was overkill.

Adrenalin is a magical chemical. People have been known to tank multiple gunshot wounds and continue fighting.

Three bullets isn't overkill when they were trying to kill someone. They were trying to kill him. They succeeded.

If they shot him 20 times, sure, that'd be excessive. Three is enough to put him down for good.

Yes, and these men were mostly SOLDIERS. Men whose only knowledge might as well be kill or be killed. This kid likely wasn't expecting to be shot. He likely would have put his gun down if one of those cops shot a bullet at the celing. When you don't expect something, it's a lot fucking worse. Most kids his age have not experanced any notable pain, and don't know what dying is like.

Well, he certainly knows now, doesn't he?

Anyway, with a gun, an 8 year old can kill you just as dead as a 120 year old. His age is irrelevant. They thought he had a real gun, he refused to comply when they told him to drop it, they shot him. The officers acted as they should have.

Also, if they shot the ceiling, the bullet probably would have ricocheted. Besides, you don't want to scare someone with a gun. That's a retarded thing to do.

Edit: Here's a lesson for parents to teach their kids. "If an armed police officer tells you to put a gun down, you put the fuckin' gun down." A rather large number of people have been getting shot lately for failing to comply with police commands. Know how to solve that? Comply with police commands!