Police shoot an "armed" middle school student

[Vangaurd227]

I kinda feel bad for the poor kid....I know what he did was incredibly stupid but I just wish there was a way to stop people like that without killing them =/

 

[Sovvolf]

I kinda feel bad for the poor kid....I know what he did was incredibly stupid but I just wish there was a way to stop people like that without killing them =/

There is, a good psychologist, months if not years of counseling. However these aren't immediate solutions and needed to be done before this happened. I lay a slight amount of blame on the parents for not noticing the signs, I feel that if they'd have been able to spot the signs of depression which turned the kid to violence and to suicide by cops, this incident would never had occurred. A good parent should be able to tell when there is something wrong with their child.

Though, when he held up the school, that was kind of a point of no return. If he'd had dropped the gun, maybe they could have done something for him but he refused to put the gun down and he readied the weapon for firing. At that point the police had little options other than to open fire.

Its sad and its tough, I wish they'd have been another way, however upon reading all the posts, I don't see one outside of being telepathic. If I was in that situation, I'd have put the teen down. I wouldn't have felt good about it, I wouldn't be happy about it, however there were other lives potentially at stake, its either one 15 year old or a class full plus two police officers.

 

[xdiesp]

Far West style gun control and police brutality in one, I can't remember if they rank 5th and 6th on the list of freedoms.

 

[Makon]

Far West style gun control and police brutality in one, I can't remember if they rank 5th and 6th on the list of freedoms.

Yeah, because it's police brutality to eliminate the threat posed by what is perceived as an armed suspect who is aiming what appeared as a live weapon at police officers who refuses to drop it.

 

[jp201]

Edit 2: Comment removed because apparently "stop quoting me now" is difficult for some people to comprehend, and the knowledge that ten other people have already told me the exact same thing seems to be no deterrent.

I don't care much in this case because the kid obviously wanted to commit suicide. I just find it disturbing that everyone is so comfortable that a kid was shot to death, even if he was believed to be armed. What happened to tasers? and restraint?

No. Don't. You won't change my mind.

Once he raised the gun, lethal force was needed in this situation. Tasers have to be used from a certain distance which likely the kid did not give the police the opportunity and even then does not guarantee anything as it is still possible for him to unload a few bullets in the gun (yes i know it was a pellet gun but you must treat it as a real gun for the time).

The police must make sure as soon as he pointed the gun at them that he never get a shot off. The only absolute way to make sure of that is lethal force. A shot in the leg can still kill him after a while and he will still have the ability to use his weapon. It is not like the movies where there are certain shots that are non lethal, whenever a gun is fired, it is for lethal purposes.

There are no winners here, it is a horrible situation that no cop would ever want to be in.

I believe lethal force should be a last option but in this situation he gave the police no other option.

I don't think many people are comfortable with what happened but it had to be done. The alternative would be that he fired a round off and perhaps takes the life of someone else.

 

[rayen020]

i have been told since forever don't point anything at a cop, ever. they gave multiple warnings, he pointed a weapon at them, they reacted. it doesn't matter what the weapon was, once the cops have their guns drawn games are over. they were too far away to tase him. from what i've read they were justified in their reation. as to the three shots the way i read it is there was more than one cop on the scene and three fired.

 

[Hennofletch]

*Rolls up sleeves and wades in*

Okay just to stop the America hate from some people on this board, I'm from the UK. There I said it, they say that's the first step to recovery.

In the UK we have armed police officers but they are in the minority. As guns are not as common here, the bulk of our police have the luxury of being unarmed.

BUT in this circumstance armed officers would have responded and would have almost certainly shot this kid. If Unarmed cops showed up and this guy had a real gun they would be dead. End of.

In the US where guns are much more common, it is imperative that cops are armed. Going unarmed against a gunman is suicide.

Guns are a fact of life. To try and wish them away are naive to say the least.

I'm not a gun nut, I'm from the UK and in this instance I'd have shot the kid. Then I'd have booked some counselling to deal with the nightmares.

*Retreats to a position of cover*

I think i have found a sane Englishman! KILL HIM NOW, BEFORE THE DISEASE SPREADS!

Don't worry, apparently sanity isn't contagious.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

1. Kid was stupid that he brought it to school.

2. Kid was REALLY stupid he pointed it as police officers

3. Officers SHOULD have asked him to drop the weapon first.

I think the only action that needs to be taken now is stress that too the police force, but that's it.

*Rolls up sleeves and wades in*

Okay just to stop the America hate from some people on this board, I'm from the UK. There I said it, they say that's the first step to recovery.

In the UK we have armed police officers but they are in the minority. As guns are not as common here, the bulk of our police have the luxury of being unarmed.

BUT in this circumstance armed officers would have responded and would have almost certainly shot this kid. If Unarmed cops showed up and this guy had a real gun they would be dead. End of.

In the US where guns are much more common, it is imperative that cops are armed. Going unarmed against a gunman is suicide.

Guns are a fact of life. To try and wish them away are naive to say the least.

I'm not a gun nut, I'm from the UK and in this instance I'd have shot the kid. Then I'd have booked some counselling to deal with the nightmares.

*Retreats to a position of cover*

I think i have found a sane Englishman! KILL HIM NOW, BEFORE THE DISEASE SPREADS!

Don't worry, apparently sanity isn't contagious.

I wish it were...

Though, I feel that making rubber/plastic ammunation more used in both police and for consumers would help a lot.

They are incapacitating, but normally less lethal. There are exceptions, of course, but so is there with normal ammunation.

 

[VincentR]

I realize this thread is probably just rehash after rehash of opinions at this point, but I might as well throw out my (no-doubt unoriginal) opinion on the matter.

It's a tragedy, pure and simple. Without any idea on what the kid was thinking, I can't even say he was in the wrong; something happened that caused him to act completely different from what essentially everybody else said he was usually like. I mean, there's parents just backing up their kids, but even class-mates and the school superintendent said the boy was usually a good kid - into music and helping out other people whenever he could.

As for the cops' actions - they were completely in the right. It's tragic that they didn't have access to bean-bag guns or something right at the moment the kid started raising the fake gun, but as far as I can tell - and I assume for my own sanity - they had no idea it was a fake gun. There is no such action as shooting someone in the arm or leg or something to try and non-lethally take them down. 1) It's fairly difficult to hit a small target like that, 2) it won't reliably bring down a dangerous target before they - presumably - have a chance to retaliate, and 3) it's gotta be a natural instinct to aim for center mass for these guys, and it's not hard to fire off 3 shots incredibly quickly.

The cops will likely live in regret and sorrow for the rest of their lives, which is already a greater punishment than they could possibly deserve for doing what they felt was necessary to protect themselves and the people around them.

I think that's about it.

 

[Something Amyss]

3. Officers SHOULD have asked him to drop the weapon first.

They did.

Multiple times.

Even the article from the beginning of the thread mentions it, though it does gloss over the "multiple times" portion.

 

[Reiterpallasch]

1. Kid was stupid that he brought it to school.

2. Kid was REALLY stupid he pointed it as police officers

3. Officers SHOULD have asked him to drop the weapon first.

I think the only action that needs to be taken now is stress that too the police force, but that's it.

*facepalm*

'Fifteen-year-old Jaime Gonzalez "had plenty of opportunities to lower the gun and listen to the officers' orders, and he didn't want to," Interim Police Chief Orlando Rodriguez said.'
....
'They could hear police charge down the hallway and shout for Gonzalez to drop the weapon, followed by several shots.'

Did you even read the article before commenting?

EDIT: ninja'd D;

 

[Reiterpallasch]

I'm sure the Huffington Post wasn't the only publication that spun the story that way either. :|

It's sad that running with a viable question is now considered "spin."

Sadder still that picking up an issue from the local press somehow constitutes both "spin" and somehow it being the Huffington Post's doing.

My mistake on the Huffington Post attribution. It seems as if the article was written by Associated Press journalists and just hosted on the Huffington Post.

And the "spin" that I was referring to is how the article portrays the police as the villains here. Now how is villainizing police officers who did EXACTLY what they should have done considered a "viable question"?

I wasn't referring to the guy who started this thread, I was referring to the original article. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

3. Officers SHOULD have asked him to drop the weapon first.

They did.

Multiple times.

Even the article from the beginning of the thread mentions it, though it does gloss over the "multiple times" portion.

1. Kid was stupid that he brought it to school.

2. Kid was REALLY stupid he pointed it as police officers

3. Officers SHOULD have asked him to drop the weapon first.

I think the only action that needs to be taken now is stress that too the police force, but that's it.

*facepalm*

'Fifteen-year-old Jaime Gonzalez "had plenty of opportunities to lower the gun and listen to the officers' orders, and he didn't want to," Interim Police Chief Orlando Rodriguez said.'
....
'They could hear police charge down the hallway and shout for Gonzalez to drop the weapon, followed by several shots.'

Did you even read the article before commenting?

EDIT: ninja'd D;

I must have missed that >.>

I rephrase my statement: The kid was a IDOT.

 

[Reiterpallasch]

3. Officers SHOULD have asked him to drop the weapon first.

They did.

Multiple times.

Even the article from the beginning of the thread mentions it, though it does gloss over the "multiple times" portion.

1. Kid was stupid that he brought it to school.

2. Kid was REALLY stupid he pointed it as police officers

3. Officers SHOULD have asked him to drop the weapon first.

I think the only action that needs to be taken now is stress that too the police force, but that's it.

*facepalm*

'Fifteen-year-old Jaime Gonzalez "had plenty of opportunities to lower the gun and listen to the officers' orders, and he didn't want to," Interim Police Chief Orlando Rodriguez said.'
....
'They could hear police charge down the hallway and shout for Gonzalez to drop the weapon, followed by several shots.'

Did you even read the article before commenting?

EDIT: ninja'd D;

I must have missed that >.>

I rephrase my statement: The kid was a IDOT.

I call this one a suicide-by-cop rather than an act of idiocy

 

[Something Amyss]

My mistake on the Huffington Post attribution. It seems as if the article was written by Associated Press journalists and just hosted on the Huffington Post.

And the "spin" that I was referring to is how the article portrays the police as the villains here. Now how is villainizing police officers who did EXACTLY what they should have done considered a "viable question"?

I wasn't referring to the guy who started this thread, I was referring to the original article. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

Yes, how dare that article cover the angle that the police might have been a problem?

They also cover the bit about him being warned, about the incident happening outside Taser range, but RAWR spin!

It almost looks like they addressed claims from both sides of the issue regarding a breaking news story that lacked clear answers (Remember, the initial reports indicated he was shot in the back of the head, especially suspicious were it to be true) and didn't really draw a conclusion of guilt.

But no, it did not say what I wanted it to say, so it's spin.

 

[Something Amyss]

I must have missed that >.>

I rephrase my statement: The kid was a IDOT.

I largely agree with "suicide by cop," given he likely knew the outcome of such an altercation. Of course, it's all speculation. He seemed to be a good kid, and what exactly caused him to flip is still a mystery.

still, he would have been the only one to know the gun wasn't real, presumably, so....

 

[Donttazemehbro]

My brother in law is a police officer. Officers are taught that if presented with a dangerous situation and anyone pointing a dangerous weapon at them, they are trained to use deadly force. I dont think that what they did was justified, as 3 shots is too much to bring down an 8th grader. Personally if i was the police officer, i would have shot a knee cap or foot. That would drop most people rather than a kill shot. The important thing to remember is that this kid is around what, 13-14. I find that his actions were out of immaturity and not a quest for violence. Some kids are pushed over the edge sometimes, i can understand what that means (i would never threaten someone as sever as he did but still). When someone is hurt, they are driven to do things that they would not normally do. So my position is that they did their duty to protect the other students and themselves. However, i think they went too far in their handling of the situation. Instead of 3 shots to the chest, i think blowing out a kneecap or something would have been more acceptable then taking the life of a middle school student.

 

[Reiterpallasch]

My mistake on the Huffington Post attribution. It seems as if the article was written by Associated Press journalists and just hosted on the Huffington Post.

And the "spin" that I was referring to is how the article portrays the police as the villains here. Now how is villainizing police officers who did EXACTLY what they should have done considered a "viable question"?

I wasn't referring to the guy who started this thread, I was referring to the original article. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

Yes, how dare that article cover the angle that the police might have been a problem?

They also cover the bit about him being warned, about the incident happening outside Taser range, but RAWR spin!

It almost looks like they addressed claims from both sides of the issue regarding a breaking news story that lacked clear answers (Remember, the initial reports indicated he was shot in the back of the head, especially suspicious were it to be true) and didn't really draw a conclusion of guilt.

But no, it did not say what I wanted it to say, so it's spin.

But they didn't present it as such. Half the article was them pulling quotes from parents and friends about how great a kid he was and how he was like everyone's best friend.
It's a deliberate use of pathos to encourage the reader to agree with the parent's perception of the whole thing, that the officers were trigger-happy and excessive.
Yes they cover some of the other variables at work, but spin isn't an all or nothing thing like you make it out to be.
The comments by the police chief were almost brushed off by the tone of the article.
I'm all for addressing both sides of the argument, even in this situation, but they only glossed over the policeman's perspective.

A bit of a hypocrite aren't you? Instead of addressing my comments on the article's spin in a mature manner(which is perfectly acceptable), you're whitewashing everything that I say as "It didn't say what I wanted to! SPINNNNN!"

Ironic.

 

[Nielas]

My brother in law is a police officer. Officers are taught that if presented with a dangerous situation and anyone pointing a dangerous weapon at them, they are trained to use deadly force. I dont think that what they did was justified, as 3 shots is too much to bring down an 8th grader. Personally if i was the police officer, i would have shot a knee cap or foot. That would drop most people rather than a kill shot. The important thing to remember is that this kid is around what, 13-14. I find that his actions were out of immaturity and not a quest for violence. Some kids are pushed over the edge sometimes, i can understand what that means (i would never threaten someone as sever as he did but still). When someone is hurt, they are driven to do things that they would not normally do. So my position is that they did their duty to protect the other students and themselves. However, i think they went too far in their handling of the situation. Instead of 3 shots to the chest, i think blowing out a kneecap or something would have been more acceptable then taking the life of a middle school student.

You might want to have your brother-in-law explain the mechanics of this situation to you.

The two police officers fired 3 shots TOTAL. This means one fired once and the other twice. That is as minimal number of shots as you get get in this situation.

A bullet wound to the leg can be quite fatal and also less likely to stop someone from firing a gun that is already pointed at the officers.

 

[jdun]

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.

In order to understand why the cops don't used rubber bullets you need to know what a lethal weapon is. A lethal weapon is any items that is able to cause death. A gun cause death.

In order to survive a gun fight you need to used lethal force namely a firearm. Pretend you're a criminal with a firearm and the cop shoot you with rubber bullet. What do you do? You laugh and kill them. That's real life.

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.

You are mixing fantasy with reality.

Fantasy: You get killed you respawn.
Reality: You get killed you stay dead.

Fantasy: You get shot the bullet bounce off or do 10 point of damage.
Reality: You get shot, you're either dead, injured, or cripple for life.

If you believe non-lethal arms will be able to incapacitate a person that prose a lethal threat than I have to break it to you, you're dead wrong. People don't give up because they are hit. They give up when they are dead in a fight.

Did these non-lethal weapons incapacitate the criminal? Pretend these crazies had a gun. What happen if you used non-lethal weapons on them? Nothing and you'll will be dead in less then one second.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0tRU21oyM0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PptWBUo7sOY

The first rule of a gun fight is to have a gun.
The first rule against a lethal armed opponent is to have a gun.
That's reality.

The Miami Shootout is reality not fantasy. It cost the lives of two FBI agents fighting two harden criminals to the death in a 5 minute gun fight. That's reality.
https://www.google.com/search?q=miami+shootout&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

The Peter Soulis incident where Officer Soulis fight against a murder to the death. Both men refused to die. At the end of the gun fight the criminal was hit 22 times, 17 of which was in the center of mass.
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/training/officer-down-peter-soulis-inci