Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

[lunavixen]

I don't think the average eight grader could survive a gunshot period. How does one shoot "just to bring them down"? I get that there are non-lethal places to shoot someone, but does that work for a child too?

you'd be surprised what people can survive, there was a story a few years ago, i was in high school at the time of a kid about the same age, who was shot in the head with a colt 45, took about a third of his head off, and he's still alive, and like Dastardly said (quoted below)

People very much don't seem to understand how police training works, or how guns function. There is no such thing as "fire one just to bring him down." Except in movies and TV, that is.

1. Any bullet can be fatal, so there are no "wounding shots."
2. Every bullet goes somewhere, so there are no "warning shots."
3. Ricochets are dangerous and unpredictable, so even "shoot at the ground" isn't an option. Better to choose the target than to let it be chosen by Chance.
4. Firing a "wound" or "warning" shot without stopping the subject could result in them firing in a panic -- far more collateral damage that way.
5. Police are trained -- meaning drilled until it's reflex -- to aim for center mass every time. It's not because it's "lethal." It's because that's the biggest, surest target, reducing the chances of missing (and hitting someone else).
6. They are also trained to fire at least twice every time, to ensure the subject is down.
7. There were multiple officers, so we can't be sure one officer shot three times.

The one thing that could have helped this situation is if the police had access to non-lethal projecticles. In this case, a taser would have been the best. Pepper spray, again, can result in panic fire (and that's if it hits). Other non-lethals require the officer to get too close. Rubber bullets are far more dangerous than tasers, especially at close range (like in a hallway).

Exactly this, police training and self preservation senses come into effect as well. though one thing you didn't mention Dastardly was that 'wounding' shots could also result in lawsuits and that the wounded person could bleed to death anyway

 

[jdun]

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.

Don't confuse reality with fantasy.

You do not sneak up on an arm opponent from the back. That's only happen in movies and TV shows.

Cops do not have to yell "FREEZE!" or "DROP GUN!" before shooting. That only happen in movies and TV shows.

When a gun is pointing at you. What does that tell you? You're behind the reaction curve. By yelling FREEZE or DROP GUN you're putting yourself even more behind. In most cases the cop will pull out his gun and start shooting.

 

[senordesol]

This is why it was a good idea to introduce this legislation for the UK:

"Unrealistic imitation firearms (IF's) must be more than 50% transparent, bright red, bright orange, bright yellow, bright blue, bright green, bright pink or bright purple or have dimensions of no more than a height of 38 millimetres and a length of 70 millimetres (as defined in the Home Office regulations for the VCRA)"

If the weapon is a close enough imitation of the real thing then I'm pretty sure the law stipulates that it's going to be treated as such.

A law defeated with but a can of spray paint. Given the kid knowingly removed what imitation identifiers did exist, I don't think that law will really do anything other than give him another rule to break.

 

[jdun]

Why didn't they shoot out his legs instead and pile on him when he's down? Justified shooting my ass.

Read some of the rest of the posts. You're using movie logic, in real life shooting someones legs out is very difficult (you should always aim for the centre of mass), dangerous (a richochet could kill someone) and they are still very capable of shooting you and any innocents around when they are on the ground. They did the only responsible thing that minimised risk to bystanders.

Besides, it was a HANDGUN, he couldn't murder half a classroom with it, let alone a school, you think the other kids his age would let that fly?

Allowing him a chance to kill even a single innocent would have been wrong.

It amaze me that so many people in our modern society can't tell the difference between what on TV/Games and real life. Their head are so mix up that they think everything on the tube is a reflection of real life.

 

[Doc Theta Sigma]

To be fair, he was given warnings and didn't heed them. His own fault. You don't brandish what looks like a gun at a police officer, especially in the US. Christ I'd have to be downright insane to do it at an armed police officer here in the UK and they look uncomfortable to even be holding firearms.

 

[DoctorSun]

I'm going to have to say that the child was putting himself in a position where he was considered dangerous enough to be shot. He pointed a "gun" at a cop, the cop shot him, it was justified.

 

[Fiad]

I see no problem with this. The kid had what by all accounts was a gun at school, even a pellet gun can kill someone. He was told to drop it, he didn't. The police were going on the information they had. They made the right choice.

 

[jdun]

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.

You do not used non-lethal force against lethal force. Tasers are define as non-lethal weapons. Yes on rare occasions they can cause death.

There are people that are highly resistant to tasers. Heavy clothing nullified the effect of tasers. My friend's taser went of inside his winter coat and all he felt was a warm sensation.

He is a video testing the effect of arm students.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxCyAWmF2uI

 

[Hugga_Bear]

Seriously cut the "He was just a kid!" crap. 15 is not a child, not really, a 15 year old is capable of seriously harming or killing any other individual, throw a firearm in the mix and you can go a lot younger.

I'm not going to rant about how shitty guns are, it's not due here but well...would be better without 'em...

Anyway, police seem to be justified, it's hard to tell sometimes, it really is. I did my officer training and honestly at a distance, under pressure it's damned near impossible to tell the difference between plastic toy and actual firearm, mostly go off how it's being held, if they're holding it in a threatening way and are putting yourself or others at actual risk then the call is there to be made and it's hard to judge someone for making it the wrong way.

In a country where access to firearms is so easy I would not be willing to take the risk. As for 3 shots, well it could be if the kid simply didn't drop, a lot of people can take a bullet and still pull a trigger, you should double tap for a kill and if they don't go down you fire a third round.

eta: The more I read the more it sounds like suicide by cop and/or pure insanity, I can't see how the police weren't justified here. He had multiple choices and actively threatened to murder people and was in a position to do so, then he raised his pistol...

 

[Tsaba]

Do stupid things win stupid prizes.

You... you earned this sir, I could not stop laughing at how right you are.

Why didn't they shoot out his legs instead and pile on him when he's down? Justified shooting my ass.

Besides, it was a HANDGUN, he couldn't murder half a classroom with it, let alone a school, you think the other kids his age would let that fly?

You sir, are a moron and it shows how little you know. Read up on history and come back when you learn something.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Middle_School_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Middle_School_shooting

every single one you would like to know about right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting

EDIT: At the end of the day it may have been a pellet gun, but, he carried a perceived firearm into a highly populated area and was treated with extreme prejudice.

 

[marioandsonic]

Honestly, I think this was a "suicide by cop" situation.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

-snip-

These things always make me sigh since here, cops dont carry guns on their person and its illegal to carry guns in public of any kind. On top of that most military grade weapons and even pistols are very hard to get hold of, let alone get a liscense for.

Oh and airguns/pell guns are R18. So basically situations like the above NEVER happen here. And anytime a gun related crime happens its basically national newws. Yes...national news...and its basically never more than once a year.

And despite the fact that people cant shoot buglars and cops cant shoot in self defence, its very very rare for a case where they would of actually needed to.

 

[Skandis]

ITT: Knowledgeable intellectuals versus counter-strike people

In real life you don't "go down" unless the gun either packs serious stopping power or you get hit somewhere incredibly vital (head etc). Hell, it's even a problem that people expect this when getting shot. Instead they hang around for another minute or two then bleed out.

If someone points a gun at you, you shoot to kill, period.

 

[jirenicus]

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.

Am I failing to detect sarcasm here? Or do you really think that it's her "fault"?

I wouldn't want to live in a world where girls have to start a relationship with anybody who shows interest, just in case they do something as stupid as this when rejected.

If you are being sarcastic, then that's okay.

Proof of Poe's Law [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law], if ever I saw one.

Totally

 

[Azure-Supernova]

A law defeated with but a can of spray paint. Given the kid knowingly removed what imitation identifiers did exist, I don't think that law will really do anything other than give him another rule to break.

Yeah but at least then it's all on the kid.

 

[Smeggs]

I could have sworn cops were trained to aim for the arms or legs over the torso/head unless the threat was totally evident, such as they were being fired upon already or there was a hostage situation. Guess not.

Yeah, excessive force, but then again the kid was given multiple oppurtunities, felt like being an idiot and got confrontational with the guys with real guns, and he paid for it in the largest way possible.

How did I know it'd be in Texas?

 

[The Towel Boy]

They said the kid was a good child, but what drove the impulse for him to do that, I think the cops made a right choice, if you had a gun and someone who might know how to use a gun pointed it at you... what would you do?

 

[senordesol]

Can I just get like an auto reply button or something Escapist? Because I'm beginning to feel like a broken record.

Listen, Mr condescension. I know what lethal force is, I also know how little force is required to render the average human... non-threatening. You do not need to match lethal force with lethal force. Especially when we're talking about an isolated scale. I'm not suggesting you replace live ammo for the military with non-lethal alternatives.

But for criminals, your average joe without a kevlar vest. A nice oldschool rubber round (not the newer watered down riot control plastics.) is going to drop them just as fast as a real one. With the added bonus of perhaps not killing them. Although that isn't exactly ruled out. What with broken ribs, punctured lungs, concussions, internal hemorrhaging.

Yea, they're not pleasant. It isn't like going paintballing.

The whole matching lethal force with lethal force is what's wrong with current policing. It creates an eye for an eye culture. And the criminal vs law enforcement struggle becomes an arms race. With people getting bigger and bigger guns to preemptively get one over on the other side.

The truth is there are plenty of non-lethal ways for the police to safely (for themselves) neutralise threats carrying small arms. But, because there are so many people like you who feel... inadequate when they don't have a verified widowmaker in their hands. That isn't going to happen.

And just for the record, I don't blame the police as I've said before. They acted exactly how they've been trained to. But if they'd have been trained to drop the kid without killing him. With an arsenal of effective nonlethal means. Well he and many others wouldn't be needlessly dead.

I'm not going to call you wrong, but some examples of police taking out a lethally armed suspect with plastic bullets effectively (especially in a shootout situation) would be helpful.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'eye for an eye', all I really understand your scenario to mean is that the only one with the power to take a life in the crisis scenario will be the criminal (or criminals, as the case may be). So I guess the 'arms race' would be over: the bad guys win.

Furthermore, there's a certain psychology associated with non-lethal weapons (particularly when under imminent threat): they tend to be over-used. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1996/04/08/NEWS7595.dtl) Knowing that my gun is loaded with plastic bullets, I'd be far more likely to pull the trigger more times than strictly 'necessary' when confronted with a lethal opponent. You wanna talk about 'overkill'. Also, there would certainly be a psychological difference for the suspects as well. Most civilians are not particularly 'educated' on the nuances on how pepper spray, tazers, or plastic bullets will affect you. But everyone understands 'gaping hole in my chest'. Knowing that a dozen officers can take your life at any given moment can give one good...perspective on the wisdom of their current pursuit.

And, I'm sorry, if I'm going to put my fellow man in a position where someone might be out to KILL him; I want to make sure he can respond in kind.