Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

[Dastardly]

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.

I would caution you against this statement, simply because there are a few instances in which someone was killed by a taser -- maybe it induced a heart attack (or fatal asthma attack, with pepper spray) or something. But it has happened in the past.

I certainly don't think this invalidates then, however. It's also possible to drown in a spoonful of water, but I don't recommend banning spoons or water as a result. Just so you know, people will often argue the outside chance of death as though it was happening every single time.

 

[davros3000]

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.

@ the above.

The Police are there to protect and serve. That incurs risk and managing risk. The Police in the UK do not have firearms as a rule. This is not because criminals do not, some do. It is about managing risk all round. The Police have signed up to do a dangerous job, like those in the Fire Service or the Armed Forces. These jobs all involve managing risk versus benefits. My point is that the Police have to manage such situations better.

In this particular case the Police reaction seems to be that this was another potential shooting spree, so they needed to act swiftly. That's fine. But the fact that no one had been shot, there had been no shots or a spree, should've indicated the case is different.

Thats not comic book heroics, that's looking at the evidence and managing the risks. The Police failed in this situation.

 

[Hamish Durie]

trigger happy cops >.> 3 times is excessive and they shouldve known that 3 shots wouldve killed a 15 year old

 

[Pandaman1911]

"Both he and his wife, Noralva, questioned why police repeatedly shot at their son and called the shooting unjustified.

"Why was so much excess force used on a minor?" he asked. "Three shots. Why not one that would bring him down?""

Because that's SOP. You fire twice, and if they're not down, fire again. The officers saw a kid waving a real firearm around, and took what they thought were necessary precautions to protect the children and teachers around them. And to be honest, in that kind of situation, stopping to analyze very closely can get innocent people killed. "Is that a real gun he's holding?" Well I'll tell you what, the guy holding it knows, and he's sure not going to wait five seconds for you to figure out.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

Thanks for the up-vote! I do want to toss in an unrelated clarifier to your last comment, though...

As an American, I don't believe it is the politics alone that have allowed guns to proliferate in our country. And I don't think the presence of guns is bad, per se. In this case, it's more just history and geography that led to guns being here.

In our early "pioneer" days, people needed firearms to hunt and defend themselves from raiders/animals/etc. And, at the time, having a budding nation spread over this much territory was a pretty new thing. People needed to fend for themselves, and firearms allowed them to do so. Even the Native Americans recognized the superiority of firearm hunting over bow hunting (which is why many groups traded for guns).

(BIG NOTE: Not getting into the atrocities committed against Native Americans. I recognize them, but they are unrelated to the current topic. Just in case anyone was worried that I was glossing over them.)

Later on, American inventors took the lead in a lot of areas -- firearm innovation being just one of them. The Colt revolver was a biggie. Repeating rifles, like the Henry rifle, were another. These were far more convenient, so they took precedent over the older models. It was during this time that handguns really took their place as a convenient, portable piece of personal armament.

At this point, the proverbial genie was out of the bottle. Firearms had been a part of our rural lives, and there was no way to round them all up and get rid of them. They'd simply be re-invented and distributed by someone else. Our laws from that point on have to deal with the fact that guns are out there. And we have to decide whether we want to pretend they don't... or try to take them away, so that only the law-abiding are disarmed... or deal with reality as it is.

Some smaller countries, with political cultures that tend more toward socialist policies, have had success with mandated disarmament. America is large, spread very far, and is not founded on the same political ideology. As a result, telling the law-abiding to turn in their guns isn't a practical solution.

 

[Toaster Hunter]

You wave a realistic weapon at police, this sort of thing happens. Police do not draw their weapons for no reason, only if their lives or someone else is threatened. If they have a gun pointed at you, they are willing to kill you, they do not draw a weapon to bluff you. End of story. All shots are meant to be fatal, "shoot to wound" is only for movies and TV.

Also, about the three shots thing, police procedure is that once lethal force is used, keep shooting until the target is no longer a threat, meaning fire until they drop. It is also a myth that a person will fall after one shot, so follow ups are often necessary.

In summary, if police have drawn weapons on you, and repeatedly tell you to put what you have in your hands down, do it, or you will be shot.

 

[hatseflats]

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.

That's great in theory, ut in practice it comes down to cops still shooting at people with arms while dealing with unarmed people with the taser because that's easier than wrestling them into some handcuffs. And tasers can be lethal as well. Which just means more people die.

 

[Dastardly]

The Police are there to protect and serve. That incurs risk and managing risk. The Police in the UK do not have firearms as a rule. This is not because criminals do not, some do. It is about managing risk all round. The Police have signed up to do a dangerous job, like those in the Fire Service or the Armed Forces. These jobs all involve managing risk versus benefits. My point is that the Police have to manage such situations better.

And when there's a subject with a gun, demonstrating via his behavior that he means harm to others, how do the UK cops handle it? We could benefit from a more specific example.

In this particular case the Police reaction seems to be that this was another potential shooting spree, so they needed to act swiftly. That's fine. But the fact that no one had been shot, there had been no shots or a spree, should've indicated the case is different.

No, it indicated the case wasn't there yet. But if you see someone in your yard, uninvited, headed toward your house with a jug of gasoline and a torch, are you going to wait until he actually begins lighting things on fire before you try to stop him? Of course not -- an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. You know once the fire gets started, it's infinitely harder to stop it than it would have been to prevent it.

The Police failed in this situation.

But I don't feel you've provided an adequate alternative. The situation was imperfect, so it stands to reason the solution would be, too. What would you have done, specifically?

 

[Mr.Tophat]

There's a reason its illegal in most places to wave around anything that resembles a dangerous weapon threateningly. Hell, in some places its even illegal to carry around a real-looking weapon in public places.

Cause shit like this happens.

Cops are, reasonably, trained to fire upon anyone who poses any sort of immediate life threatening danger to anyone nearby. Sure, its tragic, but really, in a situation like this, I understand the cops being better safe than sorry.

edit: Granted. A rubber bullet would have sufficed. And I WOULD like to see such non-lethal methods implemented more widely (Rubber bullets are much less dangerous and about just as effective as tazers, so...). But that's a long term issue, when talking about this single incident, yes, it COULD have been done better, but in the immediate situation surrounding the shooting, I understand and sympathize with the cops choice.

 

[Timberwolf0924]

Say what you will, this is just thinning the gene pool. If some idiot thinks he's immune to laws because he's young, then he deserves what he gets. If it was a school shooting and the cops only shot him after he shot a cop then you'd be all "why didn't they shoot him first!? He had a gun." I support the cops in this, they did what they thought was right. My best friend has many many airsoft pellet guns, and each and every one of them look like a real gun and he bought them that way, he just painted the orange tip black or silver and you can't tell. I'm sure if anyone aimed them at a cop, they'd be put down.

 

[R3dF41c0n]

It's tragic but the kid should have known better than to point a gun at a cop and then precede to not comply. I wasn't there and can only speculate but it sounds like the kid wanted to die.

It's sad, very sad.

 

[Kopikatsu]

trigger happy cops >.> 3 times is excessive and they shouldve known that 3 shots wouldve killed a 15 year old

Er...they were trying to kill him. Police don't draw their weapons unless they're ready to use lethal force.

 

[9thRequiem]

The Police are there to protect and serve. That incurs risk and managing risk. The Police in the UK do not have firearms as a rule. This is not because criminals do not, some do. It is about managing risk all round. The Police have signed up to do a dangerous job, like those in the Fire Service or the Armed Forces. These jobs all involve managing risk versus benefits. My point is that the Police have to manage such situations better.

And when there's a subject with a gun, demonstrating via his behavior that he means harm to others, how do the UK cops handle it? We could benefit from a more specific example.

Actually, the reason UK police don't carry guns in general is because almost all criminals don't. Some do, yes, but when there is an armed threat, this is responded to by armed police; unarmed police trying to arrest an armed person is just needlessly putting their lives in danger.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

As tragic as this is, if he was carrying what looked like a real gun I don't know that I can really fault the officers for their actions.

I will echo Redlin's sentiments that police should have non-lethal options. I like to think our law enforcement can be a bit more nuanced than that in the Fallout games.

This. Especially since he was a 15 year old middle schooler. Having been bullied by eighth graders who were around that age when I was a 12 year old sixth grader, I can vouch that a lot of them are just biding their time until they turn 16 and can legally drop out, and even the ones that aren't are big enough to be a threat to an adult. Plus, not only did that thing look like a real gun, but a pellet gun, when aimed right, can kill. Even the cheap ones get a good four to six inches in a ballistics gel test, which is enough to be lethal if aimed right and loaded with the right kind of pellet. Some of the higher end models can drop a wild hog in one shot. It's a tragedy that this kid was shot, but flipping out about the times when police were justified in drawing their weapons cheapens the argument every time one of them pulls a gun when it /isn't/ justified.

 

[tmande2nd]

So why does this kid deserve any sympathy?

He pointed a WEAPON at a cop and did not put it down.
Sorry but that makes him a dumb ass not a victim.

 

[SIXVI06-M]

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.

@ the above.

The Police are there to protect and serve. That incurs risk and managing risk. The Police in the UK do not have firearms as a rule. This is not because criminals do not, some do. It is about managing risk all round. The Police have signed up to do a dangerous job, like those in the Fire Service or the Armed Forces. These jobs all involve managing risk versus benefits. My point is that the Police have to manage such situations better.

In this particular case the Police reaction seems to be that this was another potential shooting spree, so they needed to act swiftly. That's fine. But the fact that no one had been shot, there had been no shots or a spree, should've indicated the case is different.

Thats not comic book heroics, that's looking at the evidence and managing the risks. The Police failed in this situation.

Yes, this was another potential shooting spree- and they did act swiftly; that possibly being the most important aspect of their job.

But now, I want you to read your own comment very carefully, and THINK: "In this particular case the Police reaction seems to be that this was another potential shooting spree, so they needed to act swiftly. That's fine. But the fact that no one had been shot, there had been no shots or a spree, should've indicated the case is different."

So you are saying that the only time we should stop someone from going on a killing spree is by waiting until they have gone on a killing spree or have shot or killed someone first? are you serious?

Managing risk yes- but you talk about managing risk as if you were going to sit down and discuss it with the criminals over a cup of tea or something. I'm going to present you with some facts based on the article; and I'm going to present risk to you in a different light:

1. Police were summoned to a school because of a potential risk of a shooting. High risk situation already.
2. The kid presented a weapon to which he could have used on ANYONE within the weapon's presumed range. Scope of the risk is gauged- risk of a deadly weapon killing someone is still high.
3. The police are the closest targets at the point - they are already at highest risk. An immediate risk of death is also acknowledged.
4. There are other people at the scene, the school is in lockdown, some of the kids are stuck in their classrooms- who knows how close to the kid with the gun. A possible known variable - in protecting innocents - measures must be taken to minimise the high risk of death to them.
5. The kid is seemingly in an aggravated state- was asked to drop the weapon multiple times, the kid starts waving the gun around instead. Risk of death heightens substantially.
6. Should the kid fire at any point in time now- someone will potentially die. Point of no return; kill or be killed.

As far as the article was concerned; the police was called to the scene in an emergency response, there was no stand off or hold-out to appraise the situation, no time to sit there poring over the building plans and interviewing all the kids friends to find out where the kid might get a gun and why this kid is acting like he is. The police was on the scene, with an immediate threat to everyone, other kids possibly still locked in their classrooms, etc. This kid also looked like he was liable to pull the trigger at any moment.

At this moment, if you were in one of those policemen's shoes- what are you going to do? wait till the kid has possibly discharged his firearm at someone first? hope that the kid never fires his weapon even though he's waving it around - with people's fate spinning like a russian roulette everytime the barrel of the kid's gun passes them? Make a decision.

 

[Dastardly]

Actually, the reason UK police don't carry guns in general is because almost all criminals don't. Some do, yes, but when there is an armed threat, this is responded to by armed police; unarmed police trying to arrest an armed person is just needlessly putting their lives in danger.

And I can understand that in the UK. The person to whom I was originally responding seemed to be indicating that the UK police had some specific way of dealing with armed subjects without the use of weapons.

What you're saying confirms my suspicions -- when someone has a gun, the police also respond with weapons. Meet force with like force, minimize the possibility of the subject gaining or maintaining control of the situation.

It just happens that, due to our history and geography as a nation, firearms are more common and public disarmament is far more impractical than it is in a place like the UK. (Not saying this is you, but the general insinuation is that this is some kind of "failing" on the part of our nation, with which I have to disagree.)