Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

Recommended Videos

senordesol

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,301
0
0
Azure-Supernova said:
senordesol said:
Azure-Supernova said:
senordesol said:
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.
As far as I'm aware there aren't any laws forbidding the removal of the orange cap.
But there are laws against assault, resisting arrest, and threatening a police officer. If he was willing to ignore all of those, what measurable difference would a law about 'removing the orange cap' make?

Laws can only be punitive, not preventative.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
17,491
10,275
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
MASTACHIEFPWN said:
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.
Ahem. From the article:
Article you really should have read said:
Fifteen-year-old Jaime Gonzalez "had plenty of opportunities to lower the gun and listen to the officers' orders, and he didn't want to," Interim Police Chief Orlando Rodriguez said.
And then:

MASTACHIEFPWN said:
He likely would have put his gun down if one of those cops shot a bullet at the celing.
And potentially injured/killed someone on the floor above. Stop watching so much television- there is NO SUCH THING as police firing warning shots. Every bullet goes somewhere. Or if the kid panics and starts shooting? Now you've got a cop with his gun pointed in the air while taking bullets.

If ever there were a cut-and-dry case of "reasonable response" it would be this. Two police officers fired a combined total of three shots to bring down someone who was, by all indications, armed and not in his right mind. His being fifteen years old has NOTHING to do with it- bullets don't care about the age of the person who fires them.

Some of you really will go to any lengths to blame police. I recommend you move to Somalia- no cops there to harsh your mellow.
 

Darren716

New member
Jul 7, 2011
784
0
0
By the time your in 8th grade you should know that cops have the right to use lethal force if you seem to be holding a firearm and the kid should have dropped the gun the moment he saw the cops come and explain that it wasn't real.
 

beniki

New member
May 28, 2009
745
0
0
Darren716 said:
By the time your in 8th grade you should know that cops have the right to use lethal force if you seem to be holding a firearm and the kid should have dropped the gun the moment he saw the cops come and explain that it wasn't real.
Yeah that's my thoughts on it. At his age, and particularly in the area where he lived, he should have known better.

He was warned. He didn't back down. Whatever his reasons were, it was a damn silly thing for him to do, and unfortunately, not one he can learn from any more.

It's been said before, but if a police officer tells you to put the gun down, you better damn well put the gun down.

Captcha: "heyoft Shame" ... seems appropriate.
 

BoogieManFL

New member
Apr 14, 2008
1,284
0
0
What if I walked around a store with what looked like bomb strapped to my chest and holding what looked like a detonator? Would it be tragic if the cops wasted my ass for looking like I was a danger to those around me? No.

No different if he appeared to be wielding a deadly weapon. If you point something that looks like a gun at US Police, expect to get shot because they will.
 

implodinggoat

New member
Apr 3, 2009
35
0
0
If you point something that looks like a gun at someone who has a real gun you shouldn't be surprised when you get shot.

I'm not a fan of the cops; but if they feel their lives are being threatened then they have the right to defend themselves just as you or I would.
 

senordesol

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,301
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
Are you serious? How are they better? The fact that they're less likely to kill, that's fucking how. My god, how do you form coherent sentences?

People don't generally die from small arms until a few seconds after being shot (depending where). Way after they fall down.

And yes, it can have odd effects. Like the woman who got up after being ran over by a car, ran for her life and managed to fend off 5 police officers. Are we to take that as the rule or the exception?

And like I said, that's why they'd fire 3, as is standard practice. Honestly are you even reading?

Honestly, it's like Americans have some sort of blinkers on when you even suggest a means of retaliation that isn't a standard gun. Is it some sort of cultural brainwashing?

I don't know and I've gone past caring. A rubber coated round is more than enough to deal with the average threat. It will drop people as quick as a normal round with less chance of death. Win win as far as I'm concerned. But it doesn't have that cool appeal that hole in the chest has, so yea. I see your counterpoint.
Easy now, I resemble those remarks. :)

The main concern is denying an LEO vital tools they may need in a particular situation. Funny things happen to your brain when you go up against a suspect who wants to KILL you or worse; kill someone else. And, hey, we Americans are all about equality. If that mofo wants to kill me, I should be able to kill him right back. That's the mentality. You can call it cultural 'brainwashing' if you like, I'd just call it...our culture.

The fact is, if neither of us are LEOs, then we can't possibly fathom all the scenarios were lethal force would be REQUIRED to end the threat to officers and the innocent; but when that scenario comes around, we don't like the idea of potentially hamstringing those we trust to protect and serve.

And for me, it boils down to this: Don't want to get shot by a police officer? Don't give the man with the 9mm any reason to think you're a threat.
 

Ziadaine_v1legacy

Flamboyant Homosexual
Apr 11, 2009
1,604
0
0
Fair enough, they had to disarm him, he threatened them with what looked like the real thing etc etc, but 3 shots to a 16 year old? Why dont we just arm Police with fucking gatling guns now. They didnt even mention anything like "We warned him to drop the weapon or we will open fire", they just jump in and get trigger happy. Kinda glad we have nanny gun laws in Australia, both because people aren't retarded enough to do that (kid's case) and because our officers don't carry AK-47's as a weapon of disarming.

Pretty sure a shot to his lower leg/foot would have both disarmed him AND not killed him.
 

Hipsy_Gypsy

New member
Jun 2, 2011
329
0
0
Jedoro said:
Fifteen-year-old Jaime Gonzalez "had plenty of opportunities to lower the gun and listen to the officers' orders, and he didn't want to," Interim Police Chief Orlando Rodriguez said.
He had time to lower it. Frankly, cops aren't paid to die for us, and the best way to survive against someone who is using what you honestly believe to be lethal force, is to use it first.
Exactly. If a police officer feels threatened, then s/he is completely justified to pull out a weapon, as somebody else here has already stated. Also;

Kenbo Slice said:
[...]
I put quotations on the word armed because the kid only had a pellet gun.

[...]
Air guns can cause quite a bit of damage. People have been killed because of those, so pellet guns are no different, really.
 

Amizrael

New member
Nov 12, 2009
15
0
0
I hope this story does not result in a change in policy, local or otherwise. Statistically, it's inevitable that a teenager is going to do something which will result in their death, just think of all of the deaths due to drunk driving. Only now with the internet, everyone gets to hear about it.
 

Sovvolf

New member
Mar 23, 2009
2,341
0
0
Azure-Supernova said:
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.
Even so you can still acquire fairly realistic guns here by legal means through a sports gun store (Stores for selling air rifles and such) as a collector of air rifles and an avid target shooter I've seen plenty of gun stores in Briton and not one of them had anything that was transparent or coloured outside of blank guns.

The one I currently own looks like this:


Given that it is under 8.5 joule (the gun is 3 joule) you don't even require a license to own it. You can simply walk into a local air rifle store and buy one and take it home that same day (as I did) granted you've got to have photo I.D on you first and they tend to put you on their data base. However its still reasonable easy to purchase a fairly realistic looking pellet pistol in this country. Personally I wish they'd put a license on anything that looks like this because idiots have free access to them and do stupid things with them that give legitimate hobbyist like myself and my cousin a bad name.

As for the incident, I cannot blame the police here. Usually when it comes to stuff like this you can find something controversial and often people look for it as a means of "fuck the police" however in this article fairly few have been able to point anything like that out and those arguments have been quickly quashed due mainly to ignorance of how fire arms or police procedure works.

They had no choice from the looks of it, having been round quite a few of these pellet guns (if you've seen the pic above of my firearm you should know how realistic it looks to even the trained eye) I know how real they can seem and outside of close inspection they'd look like a firearm and should be treated as such. If I went around waving my handcannon on a school ground and at the police I'd expect to be shot dead and I wouldn't blame them.

As for words of "shoot to wound" there's no such thing. First of all its near impossible, if you've never shot anything closely resembling a gun then you might not be as savvy on the subject however, unlike in movies or video games, they don't tend to go exactly where you point it. They get affected by wind, recoil, drop, the sight may not be 100% accurate, your hands aren't completely steady trying to hit a limb which tend to be fairly skinny compared to the rest of your body is extremely difficult.

Now take into account that these limbs are moving and waving around, so not only are they small targets, they're also moving targets. You can easily miss, causing the shooter to panic and fire, also, the bullet that didn't hit as to go somewhere, it will hit a hard surface and bounce off, hopefully losing power and stopping, or it will hit something soft and gooey like another human. Its not worth the risk.

You aim for the center mass cause its far easier to hit, even if you're bullet doesn't go exactly on the mark you intended, unless your aim is really off or your a pathetic shot, its going to hit the target somewhere in the center area.

I can't exactly vouch for the whole 3 shot thing though from what I've heard from people that have had the unfortunate task of shooting someone, people don't tend to go down in one hit unless your packing something seriously heavy. One shot may be enough to kill someone, however it could take anything from minutes to days for that to happen, in the mean time he could be shooting you. So you need to shoot until you put them down. Excessive force would have been if they went to the fellows wounded body and started to unload the whole clip point blank in the face.

There's my two pence on it all.
 

Sovvolf

New member
Mar 23, 2009
2,341
0
0
Ziadaine said:
Fair enough, they had to disarm him, he threatened them with what looked like the real thing etc etc, but 3 shots to a 16 year old? Why dont we just arm Police with fucking gatling guns now.
2 shots is the minimum police in the US tend to fire, given what I've read here, its well justified. A single shot as a good chance of killing, however it won't immediately drop a target, you don't shoot to wound, you shoot to kill. Other lives were in danger.

Ziadaine said:
They didnt even mention anything like "We warned him to drop the weapon or we will open fire", they just jump in and get trigger happy.
From the article: Fifteen-year-old Jaime Gonzalez "had plenty of opportunities to lower the gun and listen to the officers' orders, and he didn't want to," Interim Police Chief Orlando Rodriguez said.


Ziadaine said:
Pretty sure a shot to his lower leg/foot would have both disarmed him AND not killed him.
Its extremely hard to hit a small, relatively thin moving target with a gun and there's still a good chance it could have killed him. Along with the fact that the fellow could have still been able to fire the weapon before he bled out.

Real life isn't like a video game or movie. Guns work differently.