Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

[Ramare]

As others have surely said: Why was there three shots? Police training. You have to shoot? Shoot. Just do it. Good, now steady your aim and shoot again. Target not on the ground dead or dying? Shoot again. Repeat for as many bullets as you have in your weapon or until they're down.

Also, what if there was more than one policeperson? Maybe three of them shot simultaneously, and didn't find it necessary to shoot any more since three shots had been fired, and the suspect was likely on the floor by that point. Maybe there was two, and one fired twice, one once. I doubt they issue these to police since it's non-standard military-grade (not sure on that last bit, but it certainly is non-standard) hardware; but maybe it was just one dude/chick with an M93.

Glad to finally hear a story about a policeman/woman on the Escapist with just as much long-term mental damage to someone as most stories that doesn't make America's police look like a bunch of morally questionable, under-equipped mercenaries. There's pretty much a consensus (So far I've seen, anyway) that the kid was asking for it-- literally, albeit indirectly, depending on who you ask.

 

[MahMahnator2992]

I grew up about 45 minutes from Brownsville (where the shooting took place), and something that I don't think has been mentioned is the fact that the kid would've had to have been held back in school at least a year, possibly two. If a child hasn't been held back any grade levels, then when he is in 8th grade he should be either 13 or 14, since he was 15, he should have been in either 9th or 10th. Truth be told, the education system in the area sets the bar pretty low already (it's one of, if not the poorest area in the United States), so if the kid was held back he was either A. A complete idiot, or B. A troublemaker. Glad I finally managed to get out of there and make it to relative civilization.

 

[jimbob123432]

I don't agree with that either. The judge should just reply with 'be thankful you're not dead.' Obviously a drastic change like the one I'm talking about would require a change to legislation. Unless the person shot was found to be completely innocent in the situation, they shouldn't have the right sue.

And a real rubber round, not a riot round. Is going to incapacitate as quickly as a normal gun. Because it fires with practically the same muzzle velocity. Not to mention the round is bigger. It does move slower but the impact is just as devastating. It only doesn't penetrate.

It's just as effective as handgun but with the chance it doesn't kill. With live ammo it's the shock of the impact that takes the person down. Not the fact it blew a hole in them. Two or three shots with large rubber rounds (as is standard practice with normal rounds) is going to put anybody down. I don't care if your name is Arnold Bruce Stalone. You're not posing a threat.

A semi-automatic pistol is a low level threat in comparison to gang armed with fully automatic rifles and pistols. Which is what we were talking about. And as I said, a rubber round hand gun is just as effective as a normal one when it comes to taking people down. There is nomore gambling with lives that there is now with live ammo.

No, we're not talking about a gang with fully automatic pistols. We're talking about a kid waving a gun in school. And rubber rounds, yeah, have a very small chance of killing. But what happens when you fire it at 8 meters away? That's a little over 25 feet, not far at all. They break bones, they shatter skulls, they collapse lungs at that distance. The last two end in death. Shock and adrenaline are funny things, a hit to the torso could definitely knock them down, but they could remain conscious, and now your bullet did nothing but get him to pull the trigger.

And yes, I agree in cases of police being sued for taking down someone the judge should always tell the person to eff off. But that's not the case.

Jesus christ I've already fucking said that. My point isn't that they're a completely safe and idealistic alternative. It's that they're better than live ammo.

For fucks sake, I've been repeating myself all night. But that's the first time someones told me something I've already written as if it's an argument against what I'm saying.

Fuck.

Also 3 rounds to the chest (as is standard practice). Unless he has like 5 adrenal glands. He isn't getting up. Let alone going to have the wherewithal to aim and fire.

And my point is, the same can be said for live rounds. Like I said, the shock is what downs people. Not the hole or the bloodloss. It can take 15 minutes for the bloodloss from a normal bullet wound to seriously effect someone. The shock of the impact is what causes the immediate damage. The same shock a rubbercoated round gives.

Not to stir up anything more on this topic, but I just have a point to make. If I was a cop, I would much prefer to have live ammo in my sidearm over rubber bullet just in case the guy I was shooting at didn't go down (ie: a perp who is drunk/high on PCP). If the adrenaline kicks in and they do shrug off the first 2-3 shots, what's 5 or 6 more rounds going to do? At least with live ammo, you can put a round in the heart or the head to ensure a kill.

A headshot doesn't ensure anything. People have opened doors, ran, returned fire and much much more after being shot in the head.

The grim truth of it is that guns aren't always 100% effective until way past when they need to be. IF you popsomeone in the head with the one of the rounds I'm talking about, if the person doesn't immediately drop to the ground and go unconscious (likely to die later) it's a bloody fluke. Just like it would be with a live round.

I understand (sort of) what you're saying. There's also a psychological factor in this. If a cop, or anyone for that matter, is in a position of needing to put someone down, a live ammo is going to put a lot more confidence into the shooter and thus it'll be safer for everyone (except the guy being shot). A cop's pistol already has around a 12lb trigger pull on it, so it's not the easiest to aim; add nerves brought on by the uncertainty of being able to 100% put the other guy down, and everyone in the direction of fire is in trouble.

And, no, "popping" someone with a rubber bullet in the head is not necessarily going to put someone down and it won't be a fluke. A guy high on PCP (like in my example) will NOT notice that. Rubber bullets are usually only fired by a primer or a small amount of charge (so that they don't penetrate) so the force isn't as much as a bullet (it'll hurt though). I direct you to this video of a guy getting shot by a bean bag round at close range:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_ymNErgGkQ
Notice how short of a period the guy is downed, and he was expecting it! He could have easily fired several rounds at officers very quickly as he was getting up. And that was from a short distance, much further away and it probably not even knocked him down, just bruised him.

Finally, there have been several deaths in situations where cops have used rubber or bean bag rounds because they accidentally confused them for live rounds. I doubt proponents of LTL (less-than-lethal) methods would be very happy about any more situations like this, more than likely blaming cops for "being too brutal".

In short, Keep It Simple Stupid applies: the less the cops have to worried about what to use and when to use it, the faster they can deal with situations where other people are in danger.

P.S. I would like to know what you think of the idea of soldiers using rubber rounds in combat situations. After all, that guy driving up to a checkpoint really fast could just not understand English or be really nervous. If it's better for using on "people who haven't done anything yet" at home, shouldn't that logic follow through to other countries and their people "who haven't done anything yet"?

 

[jimbob123432]

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.

Well it's not what I'd suggest but if you really think the psychological effect of live ammo is as important as that. How about carrying two weapons. One standard issue live ammunition piece and one with rubber rounds? With training that expressed how they should draw the rubber round side arm first. And if that fails move onto deadly force. But honestly, it wouldn't fail.

And unfortunately, the net is full of videos of police panicking and shooting people that weren't doing anything they shouldn't have been. If their first instinct would have been to draw the rubber coated round side arm. Then perhaps some of those people wouldn't have died.

2 guns? Really? Scenario: You've got a guy coming at you with a full-auto rifle, at least you think so, but he hasn't done anything yet. Which one do you draw? In the time you took to think about that, you've been shot.

 

[Zeren]

The gun on the right is an airsoft pistol. The gun on the left is a 9mm Glock 17. From a distance you would not be able to tell which was real.

If the story played out as stated, the shooting was justified.

 

[Starke]

The shooting was justified, pretty sure why 3 rounds were fired. Usually you fire twice and then fire a third round if the person doesn't go down, it's called a failure to stop shot. Not sure if it was needed as I wasn't there so I'm not judging... after all, there are pellet guns out there that would be indistinguishable from the real thing if someone was pointing it at you.

(I'm guessing the bottom one is the pellet gun as it doesn't have the lanyard hoop on the handle, also the bottom one doesn't seem to have a magazine)

That's not a really safe way to make an assessment though.

This is a 6mm pellet pistol I just dug out of the closet.

EDIT: For reference, the gun is from about a decade ago, before the orange caps laws existed, or at least before they existed in their current form, so I didn't go and illegally modify it.

 

[Bat Vader]

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.

The article does state that the teen had plenty of chances to drop the gun and listen to the orders the officers gave him. In the end the teen brought it on himself by not dropping his weapon when he was ordered to. A fifteen year old person should know if police officers have their guns pointed at them. It is best to put their hands in the air and cooperate.

 

[TheSteeleStrap]

I heard about this story. I feel for the kid's family, and I understand why they are calling police brutality, because I somewhat agree with that. The kid was carrying a pellet gun that looked real, as so many of them do. With all of the school shootings that have happened, cops in a school are on edge. So when they tell you to drop the gun, you drop the damn gun, before something like this happens. So there's two sides to it. pick your favorite.

 

[Sovvolf]

I heard about this story. I feel for the kid's family, and I understand why they are calling police brutality, because I somewhat agree with that. The kid was carrying a pellet gun that looked real, as so many of them do. With all of the school shootings that have happened, cops in a school are on edge. So when they tell you to drop the gun, you drop the damn gun, before something like this happens. So there's two sides to it. pick your favorite.

I feel for the family but I can't really see how this is police brutality. Their actions seemed reasonable enough. Myself in that situation, I can't imagine I'd have acted any differently. The kid in question was asked to put it down, instead he brought the gun up to aim at the officers, at that point, I can't say I wouldn't have opened fire.

Kid was carrying a pellet gun that looked real, the only way of finding out it wasn't was if he dropped it for inspection or he fired it... Waiting for him to fire it isn't such a hot idea, cause if your wrong, it could be you, your fellow officer or some other poor innocent kid in the school. I can't think of many other ways to resolve the situation.

 

[Tommeh Brownleh]

Natural selection at it's finest. Kid shows up with something that looks like a real weapon and can't be immediately distinguished as anything else, in a place where weapons of any sort are not allowed. (Hell, where I go, most of the time you're not even allowed to speak of weapons) Then, points it at a cop and gets shot. Suicide by cop or not, one less complete retard in the world.

 

[kaizen2468]

Sounds like the kid brought it upon himself, for some reason. For all the cops knew, it was real. It happens with kids these days getting their hands on real guns. If the kid shot one of the cops in the head, would it be all right? Needing to wait for someone else to die before reacting?

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Kid should have put it down when they told him to. If he had, he'd be alive today. It's a clean shoot though. Kid had what appeared to be a weapon. To be honest most cops I know wouldn't have even considered a taser in this situation.


Sucks for the family

Sucks just as hard for the cop since he has to live with it too.

 

[GenericAmerican]

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.

3 shots means he got lucky, 2 officers should have put out a combined 6 rounds; as far as i'm concerned they went easy on him/didn't follow training. Also our officers don't carry Kalashnikovs...they have handguns, and usually a shotgun in the squad car.

And about a shot to his leg...I'll agree with you as soon as you can reliably make that shot (with a handgun) on a non-static and armed target within split seconds of it leveling a weapon at you.

 

[Sovvolf]

I'm just going to say how i feel on this one so don't bother hating.
Your country makes me fucking sick that you can be justified in killing a child who had what is essentially a toy, and it makes me sicker that some of you think that's just alright. Fuck you

This would have been the reaction regardless of the country. The kid held up a school with what looked like a real pistol, refused to put it down after being warned, then pulled up the gun to aim at a police officer. For all anyone knew, that gun could have been real and the kid could have went on to massacre the school.

It was only discovered that it was a pellet pistol until after the fact.

How would you have handled it I wonder?

Also you can't go and say "Don't bother hating" when you finish your post by saying fuck you to everyone who believe shooting what appears to be an harmed unhinged ready to snap, raising his potentially real gun at police officer teenager is justified.

 

[Fishehh]

"Why was so much excess force used on a minor?" he asked. "Three shots. Why not one that would bring him down?"
If you ask any officer, after an incident involving a shooting on their side, how many rounds they fired, they won't know. They'll have to check and they'll probably find no rounds left in the gun. They shoot to stop. You never shoot a warning shot or "Shoot to wound" you shoot to kill. Every time.

 

[GenericAmerican]

I'm just going to say how i feel on this one so don't bother hating.
Your country makes me fucking sick that you can be justified in killing a child who had what is essentially a toy, and it makes me sicker that some of you think that's just alright. Fuck you

Not a toy mate, from any sort of distance most pellet guns can and are easily mistaken for a real firearm. Pellet guns can kill too, they are a weapon, not a toy. A bb gun is a toy, and even that can still put your eye out.

Don't know if you know, but there have been several school shootings here in the past, it's created a bit of paranoia, so when a student is at school with a weapon I don't know what else was expected to happen, but officers to show up expecting the worst.

When he refuses the commands of the officers to put the weapon down, and then raises the weapon at them; I expect nothing less but for them to respond to that threat.

So in the end, they were justified; don't say otherwise unless you are willing to step into the officers shoes and let an armed suspect aim a weapon at you.

Besides, this is just another case of Suicide by cop. Sadly, common around here.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Spoiler

I'd just like to remind everyone that real life is not at all like the movies or video games. "Warning shots" are really a myth. A bullet's gotta go somewhere. This kid was by every means a threat, and the cops were justified in their use of force.

 

[nackertash]

I'm just going to say how i feel on this one so don't bother hating.
Your country makes me fucking sick that you can be justified in killing a child who had what is essentially a toy, and it makes me sicker that some of you think that's just alright. Fuck you

Not a toy mate, from any sort of distance most pellet guns can and are easily mistaken for a real firearm. Pellet guns can kill too, they are a weapon, not a toy. A bb gun is a toy, and even that can still put your eye out.

Don't know if you know, but there have been several school shootings here in the past, it's created a bit of paranoia, so when a student is at school with a weapon I don't know what else was expected to happen, but officers to show up expecting the worst.

When he refuses the commands of the officers to put the weapon down, and then raises the weapon at them; I expect nothing less but for them to respond to that threat.

So in the end, they were justified; don't say otherwise unless you are willing to step into the officers shoes and let an armed suspect aim a weapon at you.

Besides, this is just another case of Suicide by cop. Sadly, common around here.

My police force would never have to deal with the problem as even the idea of a child having a gun in Ireland is ridiculous and if he did manage to get one the cops couldn't shoot him anyway. Just the way it should be.

 

[Sovvolf]

My police force would never have to deal with the problem as even the idea of a child having a gun in Ireland is ridiculous and if he did manage to get one the cops couldn't shoot him anyway. Just the way it should be.

Are you actually trolling here? So if a child (at 15 years) managed to get hold of what could resemble a gun in Ireland (which you deem impossible but I know isn't cause depending on which side of Ireland, your gun laws are the same as Englands and the other side is even more lax) then he could just go on a murder spree without an ARU coming and taking him out?

And if they did take him out to stop him from a potential murder spree, they'd be unjustified.

That's not even going into the fact that you addressed nothing of the situation.

 

[nackertash]

My police force would never have to deal with the problem as even the idea of a child having a gun in Ireland is ridiculous and if he did manage to get one the cops couldn't shoot him anyway. Just the way it should be.

Are you actually trolling here?

What? So you are saying that it's better the way it is in America? ha.