Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

[JMan]

The thing I see about shooting him with a tazer at this point would've been bad had it been a real handgun. If they hit him it's likely that his hand could've clinched up, firing a bullet that could've hit someone. I think that the killing was justified since he decided to be stupid and brandish a pellet gun at a school. The parents don't want to admit that what their child did was stupid. Most people in their right mind normally don't point any weapon-looking object at people. I only pointed a handgun at a group of people once because the four guys threatened to rob me.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

Good shoot.

If it had been a real gun and the kid had gone columbine, everyone would be calling the cops pussies for not waxing the kid. Talk about a no-win situation. I feel sorry for the cops who have to live with this for the rest of their lives.

 

[runic knight]

In order to stop a potential threat, police inacted a preventative measure that would have only been justifiable action by the state after any crime if he had been found guilty of said serious crime. Interesting arguments to be had in this.
On one side it is the state's duty to protect the lives of it's citizenry, so using any force required to protect the law abiding members has justification. Including shooting down kids waving guns like they are planning on taking shots off.
On the other, there is the aspect that the action of shooting the kid is equivalent of judging him guilty of a crime before he committed it and carried out punishment of said crime.
There is also the aspect of the rise of police powers in contrast to decreasing citizen rights where a citizen in the same situation putting a bullet into the kid would most certainly be arrested and charged even if everything else was the same. Hell, even if the kid had already shot someone, they would likely still have been arrested where the cop is not. Granted, training, weaponry and some privileges are aspects of the job, but I have to wonder if law enforcement are becoming the sole defenders of life, even at the expense of our own rights to defend it ourselves.

As for my thoughts, I do see the killing a justifiable precaution in order to save lives from a potentially very deadly threat, but I still dislike the growing gap in powers the police are gaining above citizens in terms of ability to defend themselves. That is to say nothing of the abuse police can inact with them, as examples of the Wall street protests have shown with mace and other methods on perfectly peaceful, if annoying, protestors. And I could probably make a case about the non-leathal alternatives being used more freely and not only in place of more dangerous methods, but as a tool of their own which is what causes the distrust and fear of them in the first place. If tazers were only used on people who would have been whacked with the baton if they didn't have the tazers, then no one would ***** about them like they do when old women get zapped for raising their voices.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

In order to stop a potential threat, police inacted a preventative measure that would have only been justifiable action by the state after any crime if he had been found guilty of said serious crime. Interesting arguments to be had in this.
On one side it is the state's duty to protect the lives of it's citizenry, so using any force required to protect the law abiding members has justification. Including shooting down kids waving guns like they are planning on taking shots off.
On the other, there is the aspect that the action of shooting the kid is equivalent of judging him guilty of a crime before he committed it and carried out punishment of said crime.
There is also the aspect of the rise of police powers in contrast to decreasing citizen rights where a citizen in the same situation putting a bullet into the kid would most certainly be arrested and charged even if everything else was the same. Hell, even if the kid had already shot someone, they would likely still have been arrested where the cop is not. Granted, training, weaponry and some privileges are aspects of the job, but I have to wonder if law enforcement are becoming the sole defenders of life, even at the expense of our own rights to defend it ourselves.

As for my thoughts, I do see the killing a justifiable precaution in order to save lives from a potentially very deadly threat, but I still dislike the growing gap in powers the police are gaining above citizens in terms of ability to defend themselves. That is to say nothing of the abuse police can inact with them, as examples of the Wall street protests have shown with mace and other methods on perfectly peaceful, if annoying, protestors. And I could probably make a case about the non-leathal alternatives being used more freely and not only in place of more dangerous methods, but as a tool of their own which is what causes the distrust and fear of them in the first place. If tazers were only used on people who would have been whacked with the baton if they didn't have the tazers, then no one would ***** about them like they do when old women get zapped for raising their voices.

I think the flaw in your argument there is the assumption that it's acceptable for the state to execute someone after they have committed a crime. An execution is cold blooded murder, a pre-meditated killing of a person who was once a threat, but as a prisoner is now neutralized. A cop drawing his gun in the line of duty, on the other hand, is a clear cut case of self defense -- at least when they do it properly, which they did here.


Edit: to be clear, if a private citizen did what the cop did, there would probably be a court case, but said citizen would almost definitely be found to have been acting in self defense, which is not illegal in the U.S..

Edit Edit: If, on the other hand, the private citizen neutralized the attacker non-lethally and then decided to kill him anyway, that would be cold blooded murder, and would merit the death penalty -- which is ironic, because the crime I just described is quite literally the death penalty.

 

[Lesd3vil]

My personal opinion, is that we should all just shut the f@$% up and let the people who are trained to deal with these kinds of situations deal with them.

Since that's not gonna happen because everybody including myself is an opinionated asshole, I'm gonna say this: the police aren't bloody psychic and as far as they're concerened they're there to minimise casualties and fatalities. Which is exactly what they did in this situation. It may seem cold and calculating but one potential killer is worth less than however many people he can kill before he's taken down. Unfortunate that the weapon in this situation wasn't a real gun, but they weren't to know, so, good show in protecting the people around them in this situation >>

One thing (off-topic) I would like to say, though, is that I will never understand why there always has to be at least one person - usually more - who regurgitates the old 'police are all trigger-happy assholes' bullshit.

Because they're not.

Is it that difficult to accept that yes, the police may work under a corporate government and as a whole they may or may not work to protect the corporate interest rather than the individual interest, but many individuals join the police force for altruistic reasons - to protect and serve the public? They're doing the best job they can within the confines of their contract, and they don't deserve retards tarring them all with the same brush because of a few overly publicized negative incidents.

It's like saying only sociopaths join the armed forces, or only people with a fetish for blood become surgeons. Immature, stupid point of view, lowering the value of individuality by stereotyping, just because you can't see the difference between one person and a group of people.

Also off topic, how long before they find the kid's 360 or PS3 and launch a new tirade to ban whatever videogame he played last? 'Videogame causes troubled child to act out violent fantasy on schoolmates! Ban this filth!'

I seriously hope it was Kirby's Epic Yarn...

 

[spartan231490]

Incidents like these always make me feel angry when people campaign against tasers. If a cop feels threatened, he will pull a weapon. However, if tasers have been banned the only choice is to shoot the person in the chest. Tasers may not be perfect but in incidents like these it is preferable to killing the youngster.

I heard about a killing in my province where a kid was waving a painted black airsoft pistol at police.

My problem with tasers is that police use them when there is no threat. There was a tv show about female cops in florida(i think it was florida) and they tased a guy that they had handcuffed while he was laying facedown in the pavement.

As to the above incident, it was one of those air-soft guns that look real. and the kid waved the "gun" at the cops, and refused to lower the weapon. Cops need to be fast, the average police engagement occurs at 21 feet, and the average person can cover that distance from a standstill before a cop can draw and fire. That means if the cop doesn't draw quick, even a guy with a knife could kill him, and if the guy has a gun it's even worse. That means that they make mistakes, but you can't blame them for trying to keep themselves alive.

Maybe the kid shouldn't have started waving his pellet gun at cops. Maybe he shouldn't have been playing such a stupid game.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Incidents like these always make me feel angry when people campaign against tasers. If a cop feels threatened, he will pull a weapon. However, if tasers have been banned the only choice is to shoot the person in the chest. Tasers may not be perfect but in incidents like these it is preferable to killing the youngster.

...tasers...

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).

That's what I don't get about the US police. Why aren't they armed with rubber bullets for their handguns as standard. I said this in my earlier post. I know you said they're dangerous, but they're not as dangerous as live ammo. And they get the job done.

I really don't see why thy aren't armed with rubber bullets as standard. Save the live ammo for when the occasion really calls for it. Which in all honesty would be a very rare occasion. Even calling a TAU or Swat team as you guys call it, Rifles and shotguns armed with rubber ammo will take down more or less anyone. Barring those wearing kevlar etc.

No, rubber bullets don't get the job done. They hurt, but the hurt still living person has deadly bullets in their gun and can kill you before you can switch to leathal rounds. Seriously, its like punching someone when they have a gun pointed at you, you are asking to die.

Yeah. Rubber bullets are for riot control, they're supposed to make a stampeding crowd start heading the other way. If you start shooting them at an individual, you usually just wind up making them mad, which if they happen to be armed...

 

[senordesol]

Incidents like these always make me feel angry when people campaign against tasers. If a cop feels threatened, he will pull a weapon. However, if tasers have been banned the only choice is to shoot the person in the chest. Tasers may not be perfect but in incidents like these it is preferable to killing the youngster.

...tasers...

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).

That's what I don't get about the US police. Why aren't they armed with rubber bullets for their handguns as standard. I said this in my earlier post. I know you said they're dangerous, but they're not as dangerous as live ammo. And they get the job done.

I really don't see why thy aren't armed with rubber bullets as standard. Save the live ammo for when the occasion really calls for it. Which in all honesty would be a very rare occasion. Even calling a TAU or Swat team as you guys call it, Rifles and shotguns armed with rubber ammo will take down more or less anyone. Barring those wearing kevlar etc.

No, rubber bullets don't get the job done. They hurt, but the hurt still living person has deadly bullets in their gun and can kill you before you can switch to leathal rounds. Seriously, its like punching someone when they have a gun pointed at you, you are asking to die.

No it's not and I'm sick of saying the same thing over and over again.

Rubber bullets can kill people and they do incapacitate people. You are not getting up any time soon when you've been punted with a rubber round in the chest. You'll be finding it hard enough to breath, never mind find the wherewithal to stand up and take aim.

And people manage to shoot back after being shot with live ammo, even after being shot in the head. There is no foolproof method of taking down a lethal target. But rubber ammo is just as effective as live when it comes to downing a lightly armed threat.

Try and remember this isn't the movies. People don't brush off rubber objects being fired at high speed simply because it doesn't take your arm off or something. You'd be surprised precisely how little force is required to render you... unthreatening.

You don't have to 'stand up' to take aim. And getting into a shootout with a guy using lethal force while you are using less-lethal is deliberately hamstringing your effectiveness. Police never know when they'll need to fire their weapons, they may have to shoot out a tire or through glass, or even armored suspects. Hell, they may be so coked up all but the most critical of shots don't even warrant their notice.

Bottom line: Police deal with the scum of society every day, people who have no respect for the law, or their lives. As such, a seemingly tame situation can turn deadly in less time than it took to read this sentence. When that happens, I don't want to ask my officers to waste precious time fiddling for the lethal rounds.

 

[imnot]

I heard about a killing in my province where a kid was waving a painted black airsoft pistol at police.

In fairness,waving what looks like a weapon at police is generaly not a smart thing to do.

And if I saw someone pointing what looked like a weapon at me I would wet myself shoot at them with my non existant gun.

 

[ccggenius12]

I would say the reason most criminals in the UK don't carry is because the police don't.

They are available, but completely unnecessary. Knives usually do what they want and because police don't carry, there's no reason to up the sentence if you get caught by carrying a gun. That's not the case in the US.

Just a bit of clarification for my sake. I hope you're not implying that removing guns from US police would lead to gangs similarly disarming. I'd like to think you're not implying something that asinine, but your post is a bit vague.

 

[runic knight]

I think the flaw in your argument there is the assumption that it's acceptable for the state to execute someone after they have committed a crime. An execution is cold blooded murder, a pre-meditated killing of a person who was once a threat, but as a prisoner is now neutralized. A cop drawing his gun in the line of duty, on the other hand, is a clear cut case of self defense -- at least when they do it properly, which they did here.


Edit: to be clear, if a private citizen did what the cop did, there would probably be a court case, but said citizen would almost definitely be found to have been acting in self defense, which is not illegal in the U.S..

Edit Edit: If, on the other hand, the private citizen neutralized the attacker non-lethally and then decided to kill him anyway, that would be cold blooded murder, and would merit the death penalty -- which is ironic, because the crime I just described is quite literally the death penalty.

I wasn't making the claim it is or is not acceptable, merely it could be interpreted as such and argued from that position. Though my point was more based on the guilt aspect and how, especially in this case, it was perceived guilty before any crime committed and acted upon compared to rule of law where guilty would be executed after the crime. While it could be argued the potential for escape, however small, the lack of possibility for rehabilitation, and the cost of maintaining the life of someone deemed a detriment to society to the point to never be allowed back into it could be justifying of the death penalty, my main point here was of guilt and the idea of innocent until proven in American law while lawenforcers can be seen as superseding the notion..

Yes, I see the irony of the same situation resulting in the same outcome could be seen under two lights with two different outcomes based on if the target was nonlethally neutralized first. And how the second described is itself the death penalty in a nutshell. Still, I have read of numerous stories where people have acted in self defense, or, like this example, percieved self defense and still ended up with manslaughter convictions and jail time. Not all states have the same reaction to such occurrences and not all judges respond the same.

 

[Vykrel]

ive heard about this. it wasnt excessive force at all. they believed it to be a real weapon (and unless you are a total gun nut, you cant tell the difference... especially in a heated situation like that) and they gave him MULTIPLE warnings to put down the weapon. he refused. this may have even been a suicide-by-cop.

 

[senordesol]

Incidents like these always make me feel angry when people campaign against tasers. If a cop feels threatened, he will pull a weapon. However, if tasers have been banned the only choice is to shoot the person in the chest. Tasers may not be perfect but in incidents like these it is preferable to killing the youngster.

...tasers...

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).

That's what I don't get about the US police. Why aren't they armed with rubber bullets for their handguns as standard. I said this in my earlier post. I know you said they're dangerous, but they're not as dangerous as live ammo. And they get the job done.

I really don't see why thy aren't armed with rubber bullets as standard. Save the live ammo for when the occasion really calls for it. Which in all honesty would be a very rare occasion. Even calling a TAU or Swat team as you guys call it, Rifles and shotguns armed with rubber ammo will take down more or less anyone. Barring those wearing kevlar etc.

No, rubber bullets don't get the job done. They hurt, but the hurt still living person has deadly bullets in their gun and can kill you before you can switch to leathal rounds. Seriously, its like punching someone when they have a gun pointed at you, you are asking to die.

No it's not and I'm sick of saying the same thing over and over again.

Rubber bullets can kill people and they do incapacitate people. You are not getting up any time soon when you've been punted with a rubber round in the chest. You'll be finding it hard enough to breath, never mind find the wherewithal to stand up and take aim.

And people manage to shoot back after being shot with live ammo, even after being shot in the head. There is no foolproof method of taking down a lethal target. But rubber ammo is just as effective as live when it comes to downing a lightly armed threat.

Try and remember this isn't the movies. People don't brush off rubber objects being fired at high speed simply because it doesn't take your arm off or something. You'd be surprised precisely how little force is required to render you... unthreatening.

You don't have to 'stand up' to take aim. And getting into a shootout with a guy using lethal force while you are using less-lethal is deliberately hamstringing your effectiveness. Police never know when they'll need to fire their weapons, they may have to shoot out a tire or through glass, or even armored suspects. Hell, they may be so coked up all but the most critical of shots don't even warrant their notice.

Bottom line: Police deal with the scum of society every day, people who have no respect for the law, or their lives. As such, a seemingly tame situation can turn deadly in less time than it took to read this sentence. When that happens, I don't want to ask my officers to waste precious time fiddling for the lethal rounds.

I'm sick of repeating this. You're not going to be doing anything after taking a hit or two from a rubber round. No matter how 'coked up'. They don't have to be dead to be neutralised. And you're outlining the entire problem the US police forces attitude. Meeting force with equal force is not the only way to do it.

And a rubber bullet will go through a windshield. As for shooting out tires. I think you'll be disappointed to find out that's not standard police practice when you're not Arnold Swatzapecka or Sylvester Steelballs.

Way too many variables for it to be practical. If you can't get them through the windshield you call the traffic units. They have a multitude of means for taking out tyres that don't involved supernatural, steely eyed marksmen making 9mm bullets pass through 2 inches of spinning rubber. Not to mention the officer would be charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon if they make the shot. (So I've been told.)

I'm really tiring of this now, will you people stop thinking in movie terms. You are not getting up if you're shot with a rubber round. You are fucking down, that's it. You do not pose a threat for the foreseeable future. And a hospital trip is most certainly in order.

I beg to differ. I've seen people take a hit from a rubber bullet and remain functional. I've seen people hopped up on peyote taking real bullets, and not going down. They'll lose effectiveness, yes, but not necessarily 'stopped'. Adrenaline does some truly amazing things.

Police already have access to several non-lethal options, but in a scenario where it's do or die; it simply makes no logical sense to give all the power to the criminals. In these situations, you have to trust your equipment to do what it needs to do to get you (and everyone else at risk) out alive.

 

[krazykidd]

It's sad, it really is. That being said, there really was no safe alternative action that could have been taken. Hindsight is 20/20, and while the police wouldn't have shot had they known the kid was "armed" with a pellet gun, they really had know way of knowing. People have been shot for brandishing cell phones like guns, so it's not out of the question that people can be shot for brandishing fake weapons.

I can only hope that the child's family and friends are able to endure the task of carrying on in life. Same goes for the police officers, as they'll likely struggle through huge amounts of pain, regret, and depression due to taking the life of a child.

Because a child has never killed anyone ... EVER . Right?

OT: anyone, pretending or not , to have a real or fake gun , in a public place should be taken down .especially if he is waving it around . Tragic ? Not even . Stupidity should never be pardonned ( especially for things like this ). Parents do your job properly and this wouldn't happened .

 

[Loud Hawk]

I'm also wondering if this was a suicide by cop.

Jaime's best friend, 16-year-old Star Rodriguez, said her favorite memory was when Jaime came to her party Dec. 29 and they danced and sang together.

"He was like a brother to me," she said.

There's your answer: dude thought he was in there with a close friend, danced with her on New Years, then got told he was 'like a brother'

I think I know who's fault this is.

The "Friend Zone" takes it's latest victim.

OT: Fully justified.