Barring further information than what is described here, I'd have to side with the cops. It sounds like they took all the reasonable precautions and the kid was waving around an object that very closely resembled a lethal weapon. It's unfortunate that it had to happen, but I don't blame the cops for doing it.
Police shoot an "armed" middle school student
- Thread starter Kenbo Slice
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Hmmm, if you think about it:Abandon4093 said:
rubber bullets are not designed to tear shit up and potentially kill on impact and cannot compare in stopping power of a bullet- they are designed to bounce off the target and cause immense pain and disruption.
It does not guarantee that the assailant will drop the weapon when hit, let alone remove the assailant's ability to squeeze a tiny little trigger. Get desperate enough with veins full of adrenaline - you'll probably have an furious, writhing-in-agony assailant flailing his arms around WHILE firing his weapon; with the assailant hopefully hitting the person bouncing painful rubber balls off him.
Also think- rubber bullets have much more slower muzzle-velocity than conventional rounds - think about how much time it would take for a handfull of rubber bits bouncing off a person to bring them down as opposed to the stopping power of a few bullets that'll simply end them a lot sooner.
It's not about the kid getting up or not. It's just making sure the kid has NO CHANCE of being able to fire a round from that gun at all. It's just not worth the risk, nope.
Well, I don't blame the police. If someone thinks it's a good idea to wave real enough looking toyguns around, they need to deal with the consequences. And in the US, where the police are quite trigger happy, that consequence is usually getting shot.
So perhaps it's a good thing that airsoft guns are forbidden down here. They are in the Law of Weapons and Munitions, which basically states that under no circumstances are you allowed to posess one of those guns. That of course doesn't stop people from having them, you can easily import one from Germany or Belgium or any coutry which falls under the Schengen Treaties, where you can cross borders without having to pass through customs.
But this is still pointless, it happend in a country where you can get real guns just as easy as fake ones, so this is just another incident, and I doubt that it will be the last.
So perhaps it's a good thing that airsoft guns are forbidden down here. They are in the Law of Weapons and Munitions, which basically states that under no circumstances are you allowed to posess one of those guns. That of course doesn't stop people from having them, you can easily import one from Germany or Belgium or any coutry which falls under the Schengen Treaties, where you can cross borders without having to pass through customs.
But this is still pointless, it happend in a country where you can get real guns just as easy as fake ones, so this is just another incident, and I doubt that it will be the last.
Now maybe I'm just getting older and seeing things in a more simplistic fashion than I did once upon a time. However, it seems to me that if you don't want to be fatally shot in school then maybe, just maybe, bringing what looks like a very real gun and telling your classmates your going to kill everyone may not be the route to go. Just a thought. . . .
However, to everyone saying that the officers' actions were over the top let me ask you this. Imagine you are in their position. You are facing down a kid with what looks like a real gun in a hallway with other innocent bystanders. You've given this kid every opportunity to drop the gun but he isn't listening. Are you willing to bet your own life, the lives of the bystanders, the chance your kids may grow up without a father just to save this one kid's life? He forfeited his life when he pulled a gun in a school.
The bottom line is he put himself in that situation. He made his own choices. You do stupid things and there are consequences. What did he think was going to happen when he pulled a gun in school?
However, to everyone saying that the officers' actions were over the top let me ask you this. Imagine you are in their position. You are facing down a kid with what looks like a real gun in a hallway with other innocent bystanders. You've given this kid every opportunity to drop the gun but he isn't listening. Are you willing to bet your own life, the lives of the bystanders, the chance your kids may grow up without a father just to save this one kid's life? He forfeited his life when he pulled a gun in a school.
The bottom line is he put himself in that situation. He made his own choices. You do stupid things and there are consequences. What did he think was going to happen when he pulled a gun in school?
This! I carry a firearm and thankfully I've never had to use it. However, if someone points a gun at me and I'm able to get my gun out I'm going to shoot them and continue to do so until I'm good and damn sure they are no longer a threat (read: dead). I was raised by a father and grandfather that taught me about guns growing up and the one thing they stressed on me was never EVER point any kind of weapon at anyone unless you have good reason.Heimir said:
Wouldn't a taser cause the muscles in the target's hand to contract? In that case, there'd probably be a certain risk of him firing a shot as well, though it would only be one shot, with no aim.Dastardly said:
If not, then yeah, you're right, this is exactly the kind of situation where a taser should be available to police officers. It would have saved the kids life, as well as a lot of grief and guilt for everyone else involved. However, while tasers and non lethal weapons shouldn't be banned, they should be better controlled. The police should have to use them, or at least have immediate access to them, in a situation like this where their dealing with an aggressive, armed or potentially armed suspect. They should not be able to use these kinds of weapons- and they are still weapons- in situations like the Occupy protests, or similar situations where the crowd in general was relatively peaceful. So many of the stories of police using non lethal weapons against protestors for me bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the stories of the army shooting at protestors in Egypt and Libya- regardless of whether the weapon is unlikely to kill, or extremely likely, they're still firing indiscriminately into a large crowd.
Back on topic though, these officers did the right thing. Any half decent airsoft gun is indistinguishable from a real one when its being pointed at your face. Given the events at the time, they would have to have examined that weapon beforehand to know it wasn't a threat.
The Police seem to keep forgetting that they are paid to die for us if necessary. They took the job, but won't take the consequence of going into a situation. The policeman responsible for this should face action, at least professionally and possibly for criminal responsibility.
Just because the Police have firearms does not licence them to kill people.
I can't believe all the people on here who believe that the Police have a right to shoot on sight anyone they may believe to be carrying a weapon. Was the weapon discharged by the boy at all? No. The Police had no evidence to indicate it was a real weapon, its more likely that they boy would've been able to get a fake. They should get some proper discipline and some proper training if they wan't to carry real weapons and stop pretending that they're the untouchables or something. They aren't. They're cowards. They signed on a dotted line to risk their lives, they take the pay and the pension but won't man up to take a risk when required.
This case isn't an argument for the police having tasers. This case is an argument for policeman to have to earn the right post training to carry a weapon.
Just because the Police have firearms does not licence them to kill people.
I can't believe all the people on here who believe that the Police have a right to shoot on sight anyone they may believe to be carrying a weapon. Was the weapon discharged by the boy at all? No. The Police had no evidence to indicate it was a real weapon, its more likely that they boy would've been able to get a fake. They should get some proper discipline and some proper training if they wan't to carry real weapons and stop pretending that they're the untouchables or something. They aren't. They're cowards. They signed on a dotted line to risk their lives, they take the pay and the pension but won't man up to take a risk when required.
This case isn't an argument for the police having tasers. This case is an argument for policeman to have to earn the right post training to carry a weapon.
You can't totally absolve the kid of all responsibility either; he may have been raised by a teacup and a shoe or something to that effect; but this kid was in middle school- a teenager capable of logical and reasonable thought.Heimir said:
He may have been raised irresponsibly and poorly, that can contribute to the circumstance.
But don't forget that the kid willfully did what he did, a conscious choice he made that he decided will result in something he wants. He whipped the gun out and waved it around.
I've been tempted to do a lot of things in my life. But at the end of the day, I hold no illusions about who chooses to do them or not, and that's me. If the kid truly did not ever make his own decisions in his life - he probably wouldn't have gone to that extreme and chose the actions he took. Circumstance is a double-edged sword - it may force us down a particular path, but we can still choose how we follow it and where/when to divert its course when possible.
Tough break for that kid. Plenty of airsoft and pellet guns look 1:1. That officer did what was right. Yeah, sure, a taser would have worked too unless the gun was real and he did shoot someone. A nother way to look at this is... one less idiot in the world.
I don't think the issue is with the lethality of rubber weapons vs live ammunition, but with the risk of the confrontation escalating against acceptable force.Abandon4093 said:
There's a good reason why the police in both the US and the UK don't deploy live ammunition against rioting crowds. While a rioter without a gun can still throw a bottle, they're having to use their own strength to throw it. When you're being pelted with medium velocity, hard rubber rounds, it's a little hard to concentrate on anything apart from the pain.
Now, if you take someone with a gun, and pelt them with the same hard rubber, medium velocity rounds, then even if they are on the floor, they can still aim and fire at you, so live ammunition is a more appropriate response to a potentially deadly threat.
No. I cannot fathom just how fucking stupid that first line is. The police are not paid to die for anyone. They are paid to serve and protect the public from threats. If someone waves a realistic looking weapon around, especially something designed to look like a firearm, and refuses demands to disarm themselves, then the mandate of the police is to protect the public from threats. That mandate allows for reasonable force to be used in situations, and the second that child refused to put their weapon down, they ceased being a member of the public, and became a threat, which the police are paid to protect the public from.davros3000 said:
Someone comes at them with a large pipe, and swings it around, then yes, shooting them may be excessive force, unless that person presents significant enough of a threat to nearby people.
Someone has a gun, even if it is a replica or a very realistic looking airsoft weapon, and refuses to disarm themselves, they then become an imminent, lethal threat to the surrounding people, which an imminent lethal threat, then justifies a lethal response.
This is, without a doubt, one of the most idiotic things I've ever read on a forum, and that says a lot. The naivety and utter ignorance of the statement is astounding and makes me curious to what kind of protective bubble that the writer lives in.davros3000 said:
Pellet guns are GUNS. They are built and shaped exactly like real fire arms, often built to be exact replicas, or very close, of real fire arms with the exception of firing pellets instead of bullets. Also , yes they usually come with an orange tip, which can be painted over in about three seconds by someone who wants to look like a legitimate threat.
No, it is not more likely that the boy would have been able to get a fake. Obtaining a fire arm in the US, or any other country (sorry European nations, it's true), is not hard. If you want a gun and have a few hundred bucks from mowing laws and Christmas, you can EASILY find a black market one or a legitimate owner who just doesn't follow the laws like he should. Or, considering the amount of 2nd amendment "enthusiasts" in Texas, he could have stolen one from family or a neighbor who didn't store their guns properly.
You want the police to make sure the gun is real when he's pointing it at them in the middle of a school full of people? Just out of curiosity how do they verify that without getting shot ? Think he's just gonna stand there while the cops take a good close examination of the weapon? But ya know what, if some mugger or whatever pulls a gun on you, go with your instinct and assume it's fake. See how that works for you.
You seem to also completely skirt concept behind the actual job of the police: "To protect and to serve".davros3000 said:
So far, your post has been hilarious to read, due to the following points:
1. The police had no evidence to indicate it was a fake weapon either. Your argument is like saying "Jumping down a big black hole is okay because there's no evidence to say there isn't a pile of soft comfy mattresses at the bottom". If you re-read your post, you're still asking the police to 'guess' the gun is a fake ("it's more likely..."). If they DID have actual evidence that the gun was fake- well the kid wouldn't have been shot then, would they? but there was nothing to say that gun was fake. I live in Australia where guns are highly prohibited. Even knowing this fact- if someone- a kid or a granny or whatever pulls a gun on me, I am not going to GUESS that it's a fake gun and neither will OUR police.
2. You have also forgotten that the police owe a responsibility to their own colleagues who are also human beings - joining the police does not mean "throw your lives away at the whim of a brainless teenager with a weapon that can potentially kill"; as a policeman, you protect EVERYONE. This protection comes at whatever necessary cost- if they have to shoot one stupid teen waving a gun at people to reduce the risk of innocent people getting killed- then to do their job, they MUST shoot.
3. Take what risk? you keep saying that these policemen should have dropped all their weapons and assume the kid has a fake gun? - in America where finding a weapon is probably as easy as taking a peek in your dad's wardrobe after he's left for work?. The police are not hired to simply TAKE risk, they are hired to reduce and remove risk. The kid was a high risk of death and injury to other people; the police removed that risk. Job done; effectively and efficiently- with the LEAST risk to everyone around them. Your idea of simply TAKING risk is impractical and can actually cause even more harm; being in the police is a job as a civil servant, not a death sentence.
4. The Police have firearms SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of MATCHING the threat presented in a situation. You accuse those police of having a 'license to kill' mentality. In essence, they do- if they have to use that weapon to take the life of one dangerous person that can cause death and harm to others, then they will. As I said- they matched the threat- the police saw a deadly weapon- they matched the threat, and in protecting others- they used their weapon before the kid had a chance to use his (I mentioned in an earlier post- if the kid managed to use his weapon before the police could, while they had their weapons drawn on the kid- the police have failed at their jobs).
You think shooting a kid, at a school- surrounded by other kids and parents is easy? who are you to judge those people who had to make the difficult decision to take the life of a young person who just happened to find themselves on the wrong side of the law? do you know these policemen personally? did they tell you that they don't feel bad having to shoot a kid in order to protect others?
You are the coward here- sitting in front of your computer comfortably and blindly judging others with hardly a thought about the situation or putting yourself in their shoes.
Think before reacting - you'll sound a lot more intelligent at least. What you described is heroics seen in comic books, movies and computer games. What happened in the news is real life, involving real people, where death is permanent and the value of a life is both unseen and insurmountable; this kid decided to put himself in a position where he was seen disregarding the value of the lives of others, putting his own life above others- then that is justification enough to stop him with necessary force.