It's a very sensitive and tough decision really, but I think a lack of real firepower with police although suitable in situations like this would make dealing with the real thing that much more dificult. What chance would a police officer with a taser have defending someone who is being shot at by any gun? Unfortunately this is a tragic event with no one really to blame. It is understandable but that doesn't make it right, but at the same is extremely sad but that doesn't make it wrong. It is a very grey are in my book.Redlin5 said:
Police shoot an "armed" middle school student
- Thread starter Kenbo Slice
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If the gun was real: there's probably a dozen rounds in the clip of that gun. The trigger is but a tiny flick of the finger away - can get a shot off in milliseconds. Also, anyone can pull the trigger of a gun. This is an able-bodied teenager, he will be fast and has a full range of motion.Scarim Coral said:
1. If the kid were shot in the arm: that doesn't guarantee that he'll drop the weapon or prevent it's use. Best case scenario - it'll shock the kid into firing the gun randomly and hopefully the kid misses hitting anyone. Worst case scenario: it'll piss the kid off and the kid's probably put a few bullets into a few other kids/cops by now.
2. If the kid were shot in the leg: the kid is probably on the ground now; but I'm sure you can use a gun from the ground. Unless he's holding the gun with his foot. If that's the case- then apply example 1. except imagine the kid is using the gun with his feet instead.
3. Our limbs and extremities are thin, and moves easily. Our core is thick, full of padding and does not move so easily. If you were to shoot at something- best to aim at something large and thick - that way it's harder to miss. An actual tragedy would be: in confronting a kid with a problem who has only managed to think of a selfish and cowardly way to solve his problems, that someone ACTUALLY innocent is killed or maimed by a stray bullet.
These are not probabilities anyone who is charged with the protection and safety of others should be taken chances with. You take the least risk possible and you get the most effective result you can get.
Save your tears and heart for someone who can think a bit more beyond themselves, someone worthy and deserving of your compassion; rather than someone who selfishly causes a scene, bringing pain and difficulty to those who actually cared for someone who obviously didn't care enough.
Redlin5 said:
You can't tase someone holding a gun. Their muscles will tighten, pulling the trigger of the gun. They needed (but wouldn't have on hand, since they're only used for very specific, crowd-control circumstances) rubber bullets or a bean bag gun (both of which are still really dangerous).Dastardly said:
On the one hand, somewhat sad. On the other hand, the officers did exactly the right thing.
ETA:
You don't want that. Guns are lethal weapons. Getting shot is often fatal no matter where you get shot. If you start training police officers to "just wound" criminals, cops are going to start "just wounding" criminals that really don't need to be shot, and lots of people will die who don't need to. The only purpose for a police officer's gun is to kill someone before they kill another person.Scarim Coral said:
Just read through the story. Shot three times and shoot to kill? The hell. Was there no attempt at all to scare the kid? It reads like they yelled at him once then thought screw this and shot him. Also according to the story he was in the school corridor when they shot him. I hardly think if they charged him whilst wearing riot armour (this was in Texas) that the shooting would be necessary. But still unless you have actually been shot at by the kid you don't bloody well shoot to kill. Heck, you shouldn't even be shooting to incapacitate unless the kid had shot someone. Though the kid may have been unstable and was classified as dnagerous after he punched the other kid but I find that situation questionable and where did the gun come from I have to ask? Did he secretly buy it or did it belong to someone else? I mean they aren't cheap and he would have need parental permission if he got it himself so I wonder...
Edit: Also take into account that this happened in a school and I reinterate that he was in the corridor and not a classroom when he was shot. They could have easily had someone sneak up on him from another entrance.
Edit: Also take into account that this happened in a school and I reinterate that he was in the corridor and not a classroom when he was shot. They could have easily had someone sneak up on him from another entrance.
3 shots is most likely just a very well measured response with balancing risk to others to necessity - it's just enough to get the job done - it doesn't say how scrawny the kid is, but of course- you'd think someone who looks like you can snap in half would take less rounds to put down than a walking meat-wall.Baby Tea said:
That and don't forget, it's in a school, it's a teenager, the scene is surrounded by despairing kids and parents; the police are already well aware that this is could very well be a political and PR shitstorm. Last thing they need is to be labelled as 'trigger-happy' by world news. To be honest, they did good in that regard.
That and consider, there was more than one cop there - 3 bullets to immobilize and neutralize threat. If they saw any further threat- I'm sure the backup can put an extra 9 rounds into the kid and decide that the kid is definitely down.
Let's scare the teenager who is waving a gun around. That'll end well.Nile McMorrow said:
Did you read it? He was given multiple chances to put the gun down. He refused.Nile McMorrow said:
Herp. Wearing body armor doesn't mean that you can tank bullets like Rambo. Most body armor can only absorb a single low to mid caliber bullet. The exception is extremely heavy armor, but that's reserved for OED/PSBD. (Bomb Squad, basically). Also, yes you do. Why would they wait for the kid to kill someone before putting him down? They told him to drop the gun, he refused, they shot him. That's procedure.Nile McMorrow said:
5Herp. There is no such thing as 'shooting to incapacitate'. You shoot to kill, or you don't shoot at all. Even a shot to the arm or leg can be fatal, so there is no reason to bother with it. As for how he got it...does it matter? He had it.[/quote]Nile McMorrow said:
Rubber bullets are used for riot control; not when lives could potentially be on the line. Besides...shooting someone holding a gun with rubber bullets isn't going to 'take them down'. They can still...you know...shoot people.Abandon4093 said:
Literally two pages of people defending the police's right to shoot to kill. Great response from everyone, I'm just glad that I don't live in a place where this sort of sh*t's legal.
There's no such thing as "shoot to not-kill". Officers are trained to fire two shots (minimum). With multiple cops firing, I'm surprised it was only three times.Nile McMorrow said:
Someone is pointing a gun at you. You yell at them to drop it. They keep waving the gun at you and your friends. Any second now, they could pull the trigger and kill you or one of your friends.Nile McMorrow said:
Right, the average Texan police officer wears riot armor 24/7. This is a kid in a school with a gun; you don't wait around to get dressed. Anyway, they probably don't even have riot armor in Brownsville, so you want them to wait while they fly some in from San Antonio or somewhere?Nile McMorrow said:
Once again, there's no such thing as shoot to incapacitate. "Shoot to kill" is redundant.Nile McMorrow said:
Beyond that, if you're pointing a gun at someone and refuse to drop it when ordered by police, you get shot. This is exactly what should happen. The only reasonable way to change this would be to outlaw--and somehow get rid of--all the guns in the country, as New Zealand did. No shootings in New Zealand.
Of course, that's easy on a small pair of islands without a right to bear arms.
Thank you. Every time I hear someone say "Why did they shoot more than once?" it makes me want to punch something...Unless you have actually been in a life or death situation there is no way of knowing how you will react.Dastardly said:
Frankly I would be more worried if they COULD stop after one shot. That means they had complete control of their thoughts, which is usually only the case when it comes to serial killers. Most people that kill in self defense are doing so on reflex alone. That's where training comes into play.
As for tasers, what most non-law enforcement people fail to realize is nearly every police officer is tased during their training. They are also pepper sprayed. If every cop has to be on the receiving end of it to even graduate the academy it isn't going to kill/cause permanent harm.
Shoot him in the leg? Disarm him? Wound him? What are you talking about, we are not living in a movie, the police are not Lucky Luke. If you point a gun to a police officer and you don't comply, you are going to die. Oh, but he was just a kid with a BB gun - no he wasn't, he was an armed threat in police officers' eyes and they did their job.
Rubber bullets are used for riot control; not when lives could potentially be on the line. Besides...shooting someone holding a gun with rubber bullets isn't going to 'take them down'. They can still...you know...shoot people.[/quote]Abandon4093 said:
You've never been shot with rubber bullets, have you? Imagine getting shot, but maybe you don't die. Three to the chest will probably break ribs, and could easily puncture a lung. Unless you're the Hulk, you're not shooting anyone after being shot with rubber bullets.
Scare the kid? into doing what? firing his gun?. In a tenacious situation- causing panic to the assailant is only going to make them react more unpredictably and more likely to discharge their firearm.Nile McMorrow said:
It reads like it reads- they told the kid to drop the weapon multiple times, the kid refused and motioned to point it at another human being. That instantly warrants being shot and killed. The moment you can anticipate a trajectory from the assailant's weapon towards another person- you stop/kill that person. No questions asked.
The idea of shooting the kid first is to PREVENT the kid from being able to fire his first shot; especially in a high risk situation occasioning actual harm or death to other people. If the kid was able to fire his weapon at someone while the police had weapons drawn and trained on the kid- then the police have failed miserably at their jobs and would need serious high-risk situation re-training and fire-arms re-training.
I don't know what planet you come from where you would let the kid shoot first and possibly allow the kid to kill someone else first before taking the kid down. But remember- the general police motto is: "To protect and to serve", not "Only do something after someone is maimed/killed"
If your contingency in law enforcement in the use of fire-arms is "let the assailant shoot first and probably kill someone, then do something after that" - I definitely won't be electing you as a police chief, that's for sure.
Sneaking up behind the kid? it sounds like you're putting more of your imagination into the news article than what reality actually presents. To set up an ambush like that, it takes time, planning and simply way too much risk- people were in danger, the situation was tense and warranted immediate action. No one is going to wait until someone's found a way through a window/find their way up a fire escape and around the floor. You talk as if you thought the kid was a mission objective in a computer game. No, the kid was a real risk to real human lives.
Even if the gun did turn out to be a toy in the end - it was not worth the risk.
You also sound as if you didn't read the article completely (or with an objective mind - think logically and reasonably, not with your feelings- your feelings cannot stop bullets or murder).
It's generally a bad idea to scare someone that has a gun. Panic isn't the most useful emotional state in which to put someone who already appears very dangerous. Middle school children are also not famed for their rationality to begin with.Nile McMorrow said:
It certainly does read that way. It's called "sensationalism." No media outlet wants to give the impression that they wanted the kid dead, but they also can't pass up a story like this... so they paint the cops as the "bad guys" and get the best of both worlds.
The cops aren't just trying not to get themselves shot. They don't want anyone to get shot by this kid. If Iyou run at the kid with armor, but the kid just fires into the nearest classroom door or window, what then? You just made the kid kill some people (if you're the officer), and the media has a field day with you anyway.
Cops are under absolutely no obligation to wait until they are actually shot at, because at that point they could be dead (or someone else could be). And a dead cop can't help anyone, so the subject is then free to shoot everyone else. But also, please understand that due to physics, medical science, and law: There is only "shoot to kill. There's no such thing as "shoot to wound" or "shoot to scare" or "shoot to disarm."
If you shoot at an arm or leg, it's small. You might miss, and that bullet continues... where? Who knows? And that's a big problem. If you fire a "warning shot" into the air or ground, again, uncontrolled ricochets can be deadly, too. Cops are trained to put every shot on-target and know where every bullet goes. Gunfights are chaos already, and mistakes will be made, so no point increasing the chances of another.
Who? Another cop? What if the kid turns his head ten degrees to the left? Suddenly, he sees the "sneaky" cop and panics. Bullets everywhere. Or maybe the cop is wearing that riot armor? Well... now he's way too noisy to "sneak up" on a kid. Ever seen that stuff close up? But then let's say the cop gets to the kid and grabs him... what then?
Can you guarantee the kid can't squeeze off a shot before the cop brings him down? Maybe he hits the cop while they struggle (it's not as easy to grab something out of someone's hand as you might imagine). Maybe he shoots someone else instead.
A cop's job is to gain control of the situation in the way that endangers the least innocent bystanders and himself or herself. Too many of us think cops should do all of these magical things we've seen work in movies and TV. People have tried them in real life, failed miserably, endangered innocents (or gotten them killed), and that's exactly why the police have these policies and training requirements.
There's always a chance of the subject squeezing off a shot, unfortunately. Even the mythical "headshot" doesn't kill instantly -- people have run, opened doors, shouted, and all kinds of things after gunshots to the head. I agree that tasers aren't a perfect option, either. It's more just a general idea that we should give cops more non-lethal options if we're going to get so pissy when they have to use force like this...Azuaron said:
But the main reason cops wouldn't use tasers to bring down someone with a gun is that they are generally trained to match force. If the subject is using deadly force, you respond with deadly force. You don't over-shoot and meet non-lethal force with lethal force, but you also don't endanger others by under-shooting and failing to control the situation.
Agreed on both. Just because a situation is tragic doesn't mean we have to pick through the surviving people and blame one of them. The kid is to blame, and he's dead now. That's sad, and my heart goes out to the family... but "justice" is done. The person at fault has been punished.
This. Again. Same thing I've been trying to get across, but every time a new person pops into the thread, they say the same thing, "Shoot the gun out of his hand!" or "Shoot the leg, geez!" Too many movies and video games. If all of us just put the above clause (or something similar) right at the beginning of our posts, it might head things off...
(I wish)
I would just like to add to your excellent post, that even if shot in a leg (like, the thigh), there is a good chance the bullet will pierce the main artery there, and the kid will bleed out in minutes (or even seconds). Happened to a bouncer in my town about 10 years ago, the killer "only wanted to hurt him."Dastardly said:
Other than that, I have nothing meaningful to add to this conversation. The cops did a good job on a dumb kid. If you want to blame something, blame the politics that made your society so riddled with guns and crime.
This sums it up really. If you're told to do something by an armed officer, and don't do it, then its tough shit what happens to you. Same thing happened in the UK with a suspected terrorist - he was told to stop by armed police and didn't, so they shot him.