Officers under fire after 8th grade student is shot

[gabosaurus]

In Brownsville, Texas yesterday, police officers went to a middle school and were confronted by a student that pointed an object at them. They told the student several times to drop the weapon. When he pointed at them again, he was shot several times and killed.
Upon further investigation, the "weapon" was found to be a pellet gun. Officers at the scene said they thought it was a Glock. Police are now faced with increasingly angry people who wonder why police would shoot an "unarmed" kid.
If you are confronted by someone with what appears to be a weapon, and have only a few seconds to decide, what choice would you make? I am in the police corner here.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/

Which is the pellet gun and which is the Glock?

http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/07/47/70/1998370/5/centerpiecewide.jpg

[ConHog]

I'm totally against the cops here. What the fuck, your cheap ass department can't afford non lethal weapons? Taze the little bastard and be done with it.

[jimnyc]

Police acted over a direct threat. THEIR lives are on the line too, and they have split seconds to make decisions. It's bad enough that the kid had any type of gun with him to begin with, but pointing ANY weapon at police can be a big mistake, which he has learned the hard way.

[jimnyc]

I'm totally against the cops here. What the fuck, your cheap ass department can't afford non lethal weapons? Taze the little bastard and be done with it.

If I was the officers, and someone is trying to, or succeeding in, pointing a GUN at me, I'm moving for my pistol and not taking a chance with a taser.

[ConHog]

Police acted over a direct threat. THEIR lives are on the line too, and they have split seconds to make decisions. It's bad enough that the kid had any type of gun with him to begin with, but pointing ANY weapon at police can be a big mistake, which he has learned the hard way.

This was a standoff Jim, not a split second thing. The police could have and should have backed off once they had him to where he wasn't a danger to anyone else and came up with a plan to take him alive.


And of course he dead so he didn't learn any lesson.

[Nukeman]

In Brownsville, Texas yesterday, police officers went to a middle school and were confronted by a student that pointed an object at them. They told the student several times to drop the weapon. When he pointed at them again, he was shot several times and killed.
Upon further investigation, the "weapon" was found to be a pellet gun. Officers at the scene said they thought it was a Glock. Police are now faced with increasingly angry people who wonder why police would shoot an "unarmed" kid.
If you are confronted by someone with what appears to be a weapon, and have only a few seconds to decide, what choice would you make? I am in the police corner here.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/

Which is the pellet gun and which is the Glock?

http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/07/47/70/1998370/5/centerpiecewide.jpg

Once upon a time the police would TALK someone down instead of YELLING orders. That being said I don't know what I would have done in th esituation but from the 1st call going out to the shooting death of a 15 year old boy was 20 min. NOT a lot of time in my opinion..

I find it ironic that our soldiers have to be fired upon PRIOR to firing thier own weapons yet our police do not have the same reservation.. This is a tragedy through and through, it really should not have come to the police shooting a teenager who had not fired a single shot...... IMHO

[ConHog]

If I was the officers, and someone is trying to, or succeeding in, pointing a GUN at me, I'm moving for my pistol and not taking a chance with a taser.

Sorry, but that's not good enough when you're a cop and you have people's lives in your hand. Their FIRST priority is innocents. their second priority is teh suspect, then their third priority is their team mates.

[jimnyc]

Sorry, but that's not good enough when you're a cop and you have people's lives in your hand. Their FIRST priority is innocents. their second priority is teh suspect, then their third priority is their team mates.

Cops are taught to shoot at someone pointing a lethal weapon at them, and shoot for the midsection. That's of course protecting THEIR lives, and also protecting the lives of innocents that may be in the surrounding area. Did I just read Nuke right, 20 mins from the call to the shooting? I'd hardly call that much of a "standoff", and certainly not enough time to ascertain that the weapon was a pellet gun.

[ConHog]

Cops are taught to shoot at someone pointing a lethal weapon at them, and shoot for the midsection. That's of course protecting THEIR lives, and also protecting the lives of innocents that may be in the surrounding area. Did I just read Nuke right, 20 mins from the call to the shooting? I'd hardly call that much of a "standoff", and certainly not enough time to ascertain that the weapon was a pellet gun.

you're right, it shouldn't have happened that fast. From what I'm reading they had the kid isolated from other kids. At THAT point training says you back off and try to talk the kid into surrendering, instead this entire situation took only 20 min.

The FIRST thing they teach law enforcement in a situation like this is that time is on their side.

The ONLY excuse for just shooting the kid is if he had started taking shots. They thought it was a Glock? Does sort of look like a Glock in 9MM . Hardly a weapon that the police were so fearful of that they had to kill this kid.

[Nukeman]

Cops are taught to shoot at someone pointing a lethal weapon at them, and shoot for the midsection. That's of course protecting THEIR lives, and also protecting the lives of innocents that may be in the surrounding area. Did I just read Nuke right, 20 mins from the call to the shooting? I'd hardly call that much of a "standoff", and certainly not enough time to ascertain that the weapon was a pellet gun.yup 20 min from initial call to shooting. I do believe that a number of police are NOT in law enforcement to help but to be a "bad ass" so many have gone to the MMA and other types of aggressive activities. Some are just looking for a power trip and want to "take someone down". The whole law enforcement community needs to step back take a big breath and look at how they are handling these types of situations.

How many needless deaths have we seen in the last few years of someone who "appeared" to have a weapon only to be shown they did not. Why do the police get a pass on what they "believed" was something when it wasn't. If you are going to take a life you better be damn sure it is for a valid reason and not because "I thought it was a weapon". It better BE a weapon

[Missileman]

I'm totally against the cops here. What the fuck, your cheap ass department can't afford non lethal weapons? Taze the little bastard and be done with it.


You don't taze someone who's armed with a pistol.

[ConHog]

yup 20 min from initial call to shooting. I do believe that a number of police are NOT in law enforcement to help but to be a "bad ass" so many have gone to the MMA and other types of aggressive activities. Some are just looking for a power trip and want to "take someone down". The whole law enforcement community needs to step back take a big breath and look at how they are handling these types of situations.

How many needless deaths have we seen in the last few years of someone who "appeared" to have a weapon only to be shown they did not. Why do the police get a pass on what they "believed" was something when it wasn't. If you are going to take a life you better be damn sure it is for a valid reason and not because "I thought it was a weapon". It better BE a weapon

Now there ARE two different scenarios here.

In a stand off type situation you are right.

However, in a situation where things are fluid and confused then it's easy to see how mistakes could happen. Example. Bank robbery, multiple subjects some of whom are firing at police, another subject suddenly appears to be pointing a weapon at police and is subsequently shot, but has no weapon. Shit like that happens, and there is a fine line, and yes police are supposed to be able to walk that fine line.

[ConHog]

You don't taze someone who's armed with a pistol.

Yes you do, depending on the situation. Tazers immediately shut down the central nervous system. There is no ability to shoot.

[Missileman]

Sorry, but that's not good enough when you're a cop and you have people's lives in your hand. Their FIRST priority is innocents. their second priority is teh suspect, then their third priority is their team mates.


You have 2 and 3 backwards...cops' lives over scumbags every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[Missileman]

Yes you do, depending on the situation. Tazers immediately shut down the central nervous system. There is no ability to shoot.

Electricity causes muscle contraction...finger on trigger equals gun goes off. But if tazing is the proper tactic to disarm a suspect armed with a gun, then I guess that means you want to take all cops' guns away and just give them tasers...should be all they need, right?

[ConHog]

You have 2 and 3 backwards...cops' lives over scumbags every day of the week and twice on Sundays.


Yes cops lives are more important than scumbags. BUT cops don't just deal with scumbags, AND when they are trained they are trained protect innocents, then suspects, THEN yourselves.

[jimnyc]

Yes cops lives are more important than scumbags. BUT cops don't just deal with scumbags, AND when they are trained they are trained protect innocents, then suspects, THEN yourselves.

They are trained to protect suspects, even if armed, before protecting themselves? That's rather curious and I find a little difficult to believe.

[ConHog]

They are trained to protect suspects, even if armed, before protecting themselves? That's rather curious and I find a little difficult to believe.

You find it curious that the police should be trained to keep a 15 y/o boy they believe might have a gun from harm either by his hand or the hand of others, including themselves?

I'm not saying they gotta stand there and let the kid take pot shots at them until he gets bored or runs out of ammo. But the training does include , or rather SHOULD include, subduing a suspect with as little harm to everyone, including the suspect, as possible.

Shooting this kid wasn't necessary.

[Missileman]

They are trained to protect suspects, even if armed, before protecting themselves? That's rather curious and I find a little difficult to believe.


That would be because it's not true.

[jimnyc]

You find it curious that the police should be trained to keep a 15 y/o boy they believe might have a gun from harm either by his hand or the hand of others, including themselves?

I'm not saying they gotta stand there and let the kid take pot shots at them until he gets bored or runs out of ammo. But the training does include , or rather SHOULD include, subduing a suspect with as little harm to everyone, including the suspect, as possible.

Shooting this kid wasn't necessary.

I'm saying your comment about the police training is curious, and hard to believe. I'm confident that they are first taught to protect themselves above all else.

[ConHog]

I'm saying your comment about the police training is curious, and hard to believe. I'm confident that they are first taught to protect themselves above all else.

You're wrong. Serve and protect. You can't protect ANYONE if your first priority is making sure you never put yourself in danger.

[jimnyc]

You're wrong. Serve and protect. You can't protect ANYONE if your first priority is making sure you never put yourself in danger.

You sure can't protect anyone or serve anyone when you're dead.

Regardless, do you have anything to backup this police training, a manual you can link to or something?

[jimnyc]

You're wrong. Serve and protect. You can't protect ANYONE if your first priority is making sure you never put yourself in danger.

And I never said they couldn't place themselves in danger, only that their own protection comes first. Hell, they're in danger the minute they proceed to ANY call, but they should protect themselves first at all times.

[ConHog]

You sure can't protect anyone or serve anyone when you're dead.

Regardless, do you have anything to backup this police training, a manual you can link to or something?

I only have my own experiences, nothing online.

But I concede that a dead man isn't likely to protect anyone.

[Gaffer]

The police officers job is to protect the public and then himself. The perp gets no such protection until he's in custody. This sounds like a case of over enthusiasm or just plain cowardice. Not enough information to make a judgment. There were three shots. which is the standard firing practice. Two to the body one to the head. Sounds like the officers were well trained in technique but not in restraint and negotiation.

[darin]

As far as i can read, the cops did what they felt they had to do in the situation. Worst part of this from my perspective is teh parents likelihood of trying to turn this into a winning lottery ticket.

[Gunny]

In Brownsville, Texas yesterday, police officers went to a middle school and were confronted by a student that pointed an object at them. They told the student several times to drop the weapon. When he pointed at them again, he was shot several times and killed.
Upon further investigation, the "weapon" was found to be a pellet gun. Officers at the scene said they thought it was a Glock. Police are now faced with increasingly angry people who wonder why police would shoot an "unarmed" kid.
If you are confronted by someone with what appears to be a weapon, and have only a few seconds to decide, what choice would you make? I am in the police corner here.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/

Which is the pellet gun and which is the Glock?

http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/07/47/70/1998370/5/centerpiecewide.jpg

This is stupid. He pointed a handgun at police officers. Ask Jess how often I defend THEM. You point a handgun at a cop, you deserve to get shot.

How about someone go after these companies that make these "authentic" styled weapons that look s real as it gets instead of the man in the field who has to make a judgment call that COULD cost him his life. What if it WAS a Glock instead of a pellet gun and the cops didn't shoot? Dead cop.

[darin]

...how about nobody go after anybody? Kid made the choice. Parents have a part in this. Cops dealt with it as they could. Sad, but understandable outcome.

[Gunny]

...how about nobody go after anybody? Kid made the choice. Parents have a part in this. Cops dealt with it as they could. Sad, but understandable outcome.

That's my point. This kid brought a predictable outcome on himself. The Monday morning QB-ing is just BS as far as I'm concerned.

[ConHog]

That's my point. This kid brought a predictable outcome on himself. The Monday morning QB-ing is just BS as far as I'm concerned.

First , I disagree. This is after all a message board we monday morning QB EVERYTHING. :laugh2:

Second, I disagree, because as a matter of course when someone gets shot by the police serious questions need to be asked, especially when that person is killed, ESPECIALLY when that someone is a child. Was this a serious situation is beyond question. But EVERY department now has access to non lethal weapons and should be training in their use. Someone earlier objected to a tazer saying the body could spasm firing rounds (impossible since the tazer actually completely shuts down the nervous system immediately ) but then how about rubber bullets? How about tear gas? How about just barricading and trying to talk to kid into surrendering.

[gabosaurus]

...how about nobody go after anybody? Kid made the choice. Parents have a part in this. Cops dealt with it as they could. Sad, but understandable outcome.

Exactly! Another example of lack of personal responsibility.
The parents are screaming for answers about why their kid was shot. But offer none about why he took a weapon to school.
If you listen to the 9-11 tape, you hear several different police officers tell the kid to drop the weapon at least 10 times. They fire when the kid takes off running, which makes him a danger to others in the school.
I love how you liberals are soft on crime. :cool:

[ConHog]

Exactly! Another example of lack of personal responsibility.
The parents are screaming for answers about why their kid was shot. But offer none about why he took a weapon to school.
If you listen to the 9-11 tape, you hear several different police officers tell the kid to drop the weapon at least 10 times. They fire when the kid takes off running, which makes him a danger to others in the school.
I love how you liberals are soft on crime. :cool:

This could have been resolved without killing the kid. PERIOD.

[SassyLady]

This could have been resolved without killing the kid. PERIOD.

Perhaps, but it wasn't. A lot of things factor into this situation ending up the way it did. What was the kid thinking .... that it was a prank? Maybe he played too many video games where the player holding the gun gets "killed" repeatedly and gets up and starts over.

I personally think some kids' brains get rewired by playing too many video games. Some cannot separate reality from fiction.

[darin]

This could have been resolved without killing the kid. PERIOD.


Speculation. At some point we pay people to 'make the call'. "after the fact" assumptions/guesses don't help anyone.

[jimnyc]

This could have been resolved without killing the kid. PERIOD.

And suppose it wasn't a pellet gun, should the police have taken fire on them in the best interest of the perp shooting at them? You did say earlier that the protection of the perp comes before the protection of the officers. Maybe a head shot to one of the officers would have been enough for them to take action?

Sorry, you lift a gun to trained police, you're going to get shot, and probably die.

[gabosaurus]

I don't think the officers had any choice. Once the kids refused repeated requests to drop the weapons and began to run down the hall, he became a danger to others.
The central point is this: This kid was old enough to realize that if you point any weapon at police officers, you are likely going to get shot.
If a kid of any age breaks into your home and points a weapon at you, I doubt you are going to waste time trying to reason with him.

[ConHog]

Perhaps, but it wasn't. A lot of things factor into this situation ending up the way it did. What was the kid thinking .... that it was a prank? Maybe he played too many video games where the player holding the gun gets "killed" repeatedly and gets up and starts over.

I personally think some kids' brains get rewired by playing too many video games. Some cannot separate reality from fiction.

I absolutely agree with you both about video games and about the kid putting himself in the situation to begin with.

And I'm not advocating criminal charges against these cops nor do I think the parent's should be rewarded in a civil suit. I am merely saying that this could have and should have been handled better. No one needed to die

[ConHog]

I don't think the officers had any choice. Once the kids refused repeated requests to drop the weapons and began to run down the hall, he became a danger to others.
The central point is this: This kid was old enough to realize that if you point any weapon at police officers, you are likely going to get shot.
If a kid of any age breaks into your home and points a weapon at you, I doubt you are going to waste time trying to reason with him.

I doubt you would either. That's the difference between a civilian and a. Trained LEO

[Abbey Marie]

I absolutely agree with you both about video games and about the kid putting himself in the situation to begin with.

And I'm not advocating criminal charges against these cops nor do I think the parent's should be rewarded in a civil suit. I am merely saying that this could have and should have been handled better. No one needed to die

The latter two sentences are essentially the justification of the DA/and the families instigating the first two.

[Gunny]

First , I disagree. This is after all a message board we monday morning QB EVERYTHING. :laugh2:

Second, I disagree, because as a matter of course when someone gets shot by the police serious questions need to be asked, especially when that person is killed, ESPECIALLY when that someone is a child. Was this a serious situation is beyond question. But EVERY department now has access to non lethal weapons and should be training in their use. Someone earlier objected to a tazer saying the body could spasm firing rounds (impossible since the tazer actually completely shuts down the nervous system immediately ) but then how about rubber bullets? How about tear gas? How about just barricading and trying to talk to kid into surrendering.

Not all departments have access to non-lethal weapons. I'm against using non-lethal weapons to combat lethal weapons anyway. That's expecting too much.

A tazer doesn't necessarily do a thing. People take tazer hits and keep on going all the time. As an eklectrician, I've been hit more than once. I doubt a tazer would have the same affect on me it does a lot of people. Druggies and drunks are most especially not affected by tazers.

The fact is, this kid brandished a real looking gun and he got killed. It's on him.

[ConHog]

Not all departments have access to non-lethal weapons. I'm against using non-lethal weapons to combat lethal weapons anyway. That's expecting too much.

A tazer doesn't necessarily do a thing. People take tazer hits and keep on going all the time. As an eklectrician, I've been hit more than once. I doubt a tazer would have the same affect on me it does a lot of people. Druggies and drunks are most especially not affected by tazers.

The fact is, this kid brandished a real looking gun and he got killed. It's on him.


A tazer used correctly shuts EVERYONE down. These movies where guys get zapped with 50K volts and just act like nothing happened. Bullshit.

And I doubt there is ANY department in America that doesn't have tazers.

This situation was handled wrong . PERIOD. Now wrong doesn't mean criminally, but it is still wrong.

The whole thing lasted 20 minutes. Are you telling me this kid was such a threat to society that they had to take him out so quickly? It was ONE kid. They easily could have contained him where he wasn't a threat to other students and then attempted to disarm him before shooting him.

Just as Sassy was saying too many kids think video games are real , it is also true that too many cops watch movies and episodes of COPS and think of themselves as Dirty Harry. Out to take out the scum.

I've been there Gunny, more than once. I know EXACTLY how the situation could have and should have been handled. Killing the kid should have been the last resort, not what happened 20 minutes after the 911 call.

[jimnyc]

The whole thing lasted 20 minutes. Are you telling me this kid was such a threat to society that they had to take him out so quickly?

It would have been even quicker had he lifted a gun to them earlier. You can't blame time as a factor. They shoot when the gun was aimed at them. If this happened within seconds of them getting on scene, they would have acted the same. Someone raises a potentially lethal weapon at you, you shoot them, PERIOD.

[ConHog]

It would have been even quicker had he lifted a gun to them earlier. You can't blame time as a factor. They shoot when the gun was aimed at them. If this happened within seconds of them getting on scene, they would have acted the same. Someone raises a potentially lethal weapon at you, you shoot them, PERIOD.

They thought it was a 9MM Glock Jimmy, not an M60.

Correct procedure . Cordon the kid off, keep something solid between yourself and the suspect, attempt to talk the kid into surrendering.

How hard is that? And I don't want to hear that not all local departments have equipment. Bull. Every department has bullet proof vests and other safety equipment.

This department just went Rambo. There is no other explanation.

[jimnyc]

They thought it was a 9MM Glock Jimmy, not an M60.

Correct procedure . Cordon the kid off, keep something solid between yourself and the suspect, attempt to talk the kid into surrendering.

How hard is that? And I don't want to hear that not all local departments have equipment. Bull. Every department has bullet proof vests and other safety equipment.

This department just went Rambo. There is no other explanation.

When a suspect raises a gun to police, he/she will be shot. Argue all you like, I have no dog in the battle, but take a pellet gun yourself and go ANYWHERE in the US and aim it at the police and see what happens. I'm betting you get killed many, many times before you find an officer "kind" enough to take a chance and hope you don't shoot him, or one that'll try to potentially dodge bullets so he can taser you. Hell, I've seen MANY video of suspect with KNIVES, and make ONE STEP towards a bunch of officers and they are killed on the spot.

[jimnyc]

Correct procedure

Out of curiosity, and being serious, are you a former police officer? I only ask as you claim to know an awful lot about proper police procedure.

[ConHog]

When a suspect raises a gun to police, he/she will be shot. Argue all you like, I have no dog in the battle, but take a pellet gun yourself and go ANYWHERE in the US and aim it at the police and see what happens. I'm betting you get killed many, many times before you find an officer "kind" enough to take a chance and hope you don't shoot him, or one that'll try to potentially dodge bullets so he can taser you. Hell, I've seen MANY video of suspect with KNIVES, and make ONE STEP towards a bunch of officers and they are killed on the spot.

A) You're wrong about EVERY time, but that's not even the point.

I'm saying the correct procedure should have been to cordon the kid off and put him in a position where he COULDN'T point his weapon at police THEN attempt to get him to surrender. It's done EVERY day in departments around the world.

[jimnyc]

A) You're wrong about EVERY time, but that's not even the point.

I'm saying the correct procedure should have been to cordon the kid off and put him in a position where he COULDN'T point his weapon at police THEN attempt to get him to surrender. It's done EVERY day in departments around the world.

Is that why we hear so many stories about police killing people with guns/knives while attempting to fuck with the police?

[Gunny]

A tazer used correctly shuts EVERYONE down. These movies where guys get zapped with 50K volts and just act like nothing happened. Bullshit.

And I doubt there is ANY department in America that doesn't have tazers.

This situation was handled wrong . PERIOD. Now wrong doesn't mean criminally, but it is still wrong.

The whole thing lasted 20 minutes. Are you telling me this kid was such a threat to society that they had to take him out so quickly? It was ONE kid. They easily could have contained him where he wasn't a threat to other students and then attempted to disarm him before shooting him.

Just as Sassy was saying too many kids think video games are real , it is also true that too many cops watch movies and episodes of COPS and think of themselves as Dirty Harry. Out to take out the scum.

I've been there Gunny, more than once. I know EXACTLY how the situation could have and should have been handled. Killing the kid should have been the last resort, not what happened 20 minutes after the 911 call.

Wrong. You work with electricity enough and a tazer ain't shit. It's pure voltage. It's the amps that kill you. If you're used to getting hit, and prepared to take the hit, that tazer ain't going to do shit.

A 9mm Glock makes that kid a man in every sense of the word. That bullet ain't checking IDs for ages.

I'd have shot his ass if he so much as lifted his weapon in ANY menacing way.

[Gunny]

It would have been even quicker had he lifted a gun to them earlier. You can't blame time as a factor. They shoot when the gun was aimed at them. If this happened within seconds of them getting on scene, they would have acted the same. Someone raises a potentially lethal weapon at you, you shoot them, PERIOD.

Yep.

[ConHog]

Wrong. You work with electricity enough and a tazer ain't shit. It's pure voltage. It's the amps that kill you. If you're used to getting hit, and prepared to take the hit, that tazer ain't going to do shit.

A 9mm Glock makes that kid a man in every sense of the word. That bullet ain't checking IDs for ages.

I'd have shot his ass if he so much as lifted his weapon in ANY menacing way.

Even IF true, and it isn't. Do you think this kid had trained himself to withstand a tazer? LOL

[Gunny]

They thought it was a 9MM Glock Jimmy, not an M60.

Correct procedure . Cordon the kid off, keep something solid between yourself and the suspect, attempt to talk the kid into surrendering.

How hard is that? And I don't want to hear that not all local departments have equipment. Bull. Every department has bullet proof vests and other safety equipment.

This department just went Rambo. There is no other explanation.

NO, all local departments don't.

The officers neutralized a threat. Period. They didn't go "Rambo" anything. They took out a potentially lethal threat to others. End of story. He got exactly what he asked for.

[jimnyc]

Out of curiosity, and being serious, are you a former police officer? I only ask as you claim to know an awful lot about proper police procedure.

In case you missed this, Con...

[ConHog]

In case you missed this, Con...

I missed this, sorry Jimmy thought you knew the answer and didn't see you ask.

In either case.

No, not a police officer. Full time national guard - meaning it was a 40 hour job for me just the same as any job, in 2004 I was TAD to a drug task force. Simply put we served no know warrants. We worked in conjunction the DEA,ATF,State Police,local police, and even had a few FBI agents scattered throughout the unit.

Primarily my team's job was serving no knock warrants, and by my team I don't mean I was the team leader or anything the Guard actually weren't in command of anything but ourselves. We pretty much just did what we were told. Just added muscle.

I did go through DEA training in Glynnco Georgia and I did have arresting authority,but I wasn't a cop per se.

That is what I did for a living up until my retirement. Mostly it was boring, but there were a few moments and the training was very beneficial.

[ConHog]

NO, all local departments don't.

The officers neutralized a threat. Period. They didn't go "Rambo" anything. They took out a potentially lethal threat to others. End of story. He got exactly what he asked for.

I'm just going to agree that you have the right to be wrong and get out of this thread. We're obvioulsy not going to change each others minds.

[Gunny]

Even IF true, and it isn't. Do you think this kid had trained himself to withstand a tazer? LOL

You don't know that he did or didn't. And don't tell me what I know to be a fact isn't true. I've been a commercial electrician for 11 years. You think I just might know what the f-k I'm talking about where electricity is concerned? If you got hit with 50K volts of dirty electricity it would kill you dead. Period. A tazer is pure voltage and some people it just doesn't affect, whether you like it or not.

Then we can move on to the fact that you have to be within about 10 ft of someone to taze them. I can shoot you dead at 50 YARDS with my Browning. No one in their right mind is going to take that chance.

[jimnyc]

I missed this, sorry Jimmy thought you knew the answer and didn't see you ask.

In either case.

No, not a police officer. Full time national guard - meaning it was a 40 hour job for me just the same as any job, in 2004 I was TAD to a drug task force. Simply put we served no know warrants. We worked in conjunction the DEA,ATF,State Police,local police, and even had a few FBI agents scattered throughout the unit.

Primarily my team's job was serving no knock warrants, and by my team I don't mean I was the team leader or anything the Guard actually weren't in command of anything but ourselves. We pretty much just did what we were told. Just added muscle.

I did go through DEA training in Glynnco Georgia and I did have arresting authority,but I wasn't a cop per se.

That is what I did for a living up until my retirement. Mostly it was boring, but there were a few moments and the training was very beneficial.

Well, I'd like to see something in writing detailing what specifically the "police procedure" is when you have a suspect raise a gun to you. My belief is that they work with someone who has a weapon and try to get them to give up, or drop the weapon. I'm also of the belief that they are trained to shoot once the weapon is raised at them. I'm more than happy to admit I'm wrong if someone could post to some sort of police manual. This is similar to many who ask "why don't they shoot in the leg or arm to incapacitate them instead of killing them?". I'm also of the belief that they are trained to shoot for the largest mass section on a suspect.

[jimnyc]

You don't know that he did or didn't. And don't tell me what I know to be a fact isn't true. I've been a commercial electrician for 11 years. You think I just might know what the f-k I'm talking about where electricity is concerned? If you got hit with 50K volts of dirty electricity it would kill you dead. Period. A tazer is pure voltage and some people it just doesn't affect, whether you like it or not.

Then we can move on to the fact that you have to be within about 10 ft of someone to taze them. I can shoot you dead at 50 YARDS with my Browning. No one in their right mind is going to take that chance.

I've also seen MANY times where an officer deploys the taser and it misses, or only makes a partial entry and does nothing, or gets stuck in a jacket, or pants... Not things an officer should be chancing when facing a suspect with a gun.

[ConHog]

You don't know that he did or didn't. And don't tell me what I know to be a fact isn't true. I've been a commercial electrician for 11 years. You think I just might know what the f-k I'm talking about where electricity is concerned? If you got hit with 50K volts of dirty electricity it would kill you dead. Period. A tazer is pure voltage and some people it just doesn't affect, whether you like it or not.

Then we can move on to the fact that you have to be within about 10 ft of someone to taze them. I can shoot you dead at 50 YARDS with my Browning. No one in their right mind is going to take that chance.

Oh, I see, you don't want me telling you about what you did for a living, but you seem to be okay with telling me about what I did for a living , I see.

Oh, and you're a fucking marine, I don't think anyone thinks that this kid was a good of a shot as a Marine.

[ConHog]

Well, I'd like to see something in writing detailing what specifically the "police procedure" is when you have a suspect raise a gun to you. My belief is that they work with someone who has a weapon and try to get them to give up, or drop the weapon. I'm also of the belief that they are trained to shoot once the weapon is raised at them. I'm more than happy to admit I'm wrong if someone could post to some sort of police manual. This is similar to many who ask "why don't they shoot in the leg or arm to incapacitate them instead of killing them?". I'm also of the belief that they are trained to shoot for the largest mass section on a suspect.

No one is arguing that the shooting wasn't well done. Sounds like two the chest, one to the head, and that's exactly how they teach it.

[Gunny]

I've also seen MANY times where an officer deploys the taser and it misses, or only makes a partial entry and does nothing, or gets stuck in a jacket, or pants... Not things an officer should be chancing when facing a suspect with a gun.

The hot and the ground leads both have to connect. A thick jacket will stop it.

[pegwinn]

If a kid of any age breaks into your home and points a weapon at you, I doubt you are going to waste time trying to reason with him.

Exactly. Once you bring a weapon into the picture it's a whole 'nother ball game. Oh, and for home defense I personally prefer a shotgun. If you miss, under stress, and the stray round goes into another room.... bad juju, terrible karma, and upside down mojo. But you are right, there is no reasoning with a home intruder.


Even IF true, and it isn't. Do you think this kid had trained himself to withstand a tazer? LOL

Not relevant. The kid was a menace that needed to be put down.

The cop was in a no-win scenario. If he hesitated, he placed other kids and innocents in danger. If he shoots to wound and misses, then there is the danger of a stray round. If he kills the kid, he's done the right thing and will be excoriated and feel like shit pretty much forever.

[ConHog]

Exactly. Once you bring a weapon into the picture it's a whole 'nother ball game. Oh, and for home defense I personally prefer a shotgun. If you miss, under stress, and the stray round goes into another room.... bad juju, terrible karma, and upside down mojo. But you are right, there is no reasoning with a home intruder.



Not relevant. The kid was a menace that needed to be put down.

The cop was in a no-win scenario. If he hesitated, he placed other kids and innocents in danger. If he shoots to wound and misses, then there is the danger of a stray round. If he kills the kid, he's done the right thing and will be excoriated and feel like shit pretty much forever.

If you cordon the kid off correctly, he isn't a danger to anyone. And eventually will realize that and surrender.

This situation isn't even comparable to a home invader either.

[pegwinn]

If you cordon the kid off correctly, he isn't a danger to anyone. And eventually will realize that and surrender.

This situation isn't even comparable to a home invader either.

The home invasion comment was directed at another comment on the topic. But you knew that.

I don't believe your statement about cordoning the kid removing the danger or that he would eventually surrender. It's possible, but not plausible in my opinion.

The cop did the right thing based on what I have read on it.

[ConHog]

The home invasion comment was directed at another comment on the topic. But you knew that.

I don't believe your statement about cordoning the kid removing the danger or that he would eventually surrender. It's possible, but not plausible in my opinion.

The cop did the right thing based on what I have read on it.

I know it wasn't you that brought the home invasion into the conversation, I was just adding it into my post, rather than making a second post.

As for THIS situation, after rereading the thread I think some are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am NOT saying that once the kid started running from cops and pointed a weapon at them that shooting him wasn't an option.

What I AM saying is that the cops SHOULD have arrived on the scene and attempted to set up a perimeter , get civilians out of the picture and THEN deal with the kid. Instead they immediately confronted the kid and set up a situation where he ended up getting shot. And in 20 minutes total time, there is NO WAY they attempted to do so. I've seen similar situations go on for HOURS before the suspect was even approached, and hours more before the situation was resolved.

[pegwinn]

I know it wasn't you that brought the home invasion into the conversation, I was just adding it into my post, rather than making a second post.

As for THIS situation, after rereading the thread I think some are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am NOT saying that once the kid started running from cops and pointed a weapon at them that shooting him wasn't an option.

What I AM saying is that the cops SHOULD have arrived on the scene and attempted to set up a perimeter , get civilians out of the picture and THEN deal with the kid. Instead they immediately confronted the kid and set up a situation where he ended up getting shot. And in 20 minutes total time, there is NO WAY they attempted to do so. I've seen similar situations go on for HOURS before the suspect was even approached, and hours more before the situation was resolved.

Fair enough.

[SassyLady]

Why would anyone continue to hold onto a toy gun when police are pointing real guns at them unless they wanted to do the suicide by cop thing?

[ConHog]

Why would anyone continue to hold onto a toy gun when police are pointing real guns at them unless they wanted to do the suicide by cop thing?

That's a very good question. Mentally ill would SEEM to be the only logical explanation.

[pegwinn]

That's a very good question. Mentally ill would SEEM to be the only logical explanation.

Stupid is a logical explanation as well.

Kid thought that his kid status was magical protection or something.

[SassyLady]

sane or mentally ill, you point a weapon at me or mine, you are not my first priority.

[ConHog]

sane or mentally ill, you point a weapon at me or mine, you are not my first priority.

Again, that is why you're not a cop. Well, one reason anyway.

[SassyLady]

Again, that is why you're not a cop. Well, one reason anyway.

Also why I would never be a good defense attorney.

[ConHog]

Also why I would never be a good defense attorney.

Definitely one reason my wife sits on the other side of the aisle even though the money is better on the other side.

[Gunny]

I'm just going to agree that you have the right to be wrong and get out of this thread. We're obvioulsy not going to change each others minds.

I'm not wrong. I'm going home to momma. And no fucking punk with a pistol that thinks it makes him a man is going to keep me from it.

Now, as I suggested, why don't you ask Jess what I think of cops? Might quell your attempt at presuming what I think. I'm not on their side 90% of the time. This time it's a no-brainer. The idiot kid brought about his own destruction. Period. Simple. All your second-guessing doesn't change shit. He had what everyone thought was a lethal weapon and lethal force was used. Too f-ing bad.

[jimnyc]

sane or mentally ill, you point a weapon at me or mine, you are not my first priority.


Again, that is why you're not a cop. Well, one reason anyway.

Nor is any cop on the planet going to make a suspect pointing a gun at them ANY type of priority, other than top priority on the shoot list.

[Abbey Marie]

I thought this was apropos to this thread. Just copied this from FB, so I don't have a source to cite, but here it is:


In the first 8 days of this new year, 25 Officers been shot at. 19 Officers have been hit by gunfire. Out of those 19, 4 are now deceased and 3 remain critical. Another lost today. The criminals who are citizens of this country, YOUR country, are slaughtering our police force. It's time to wake up and realize if they will gun down an officer with no thought, what does that mean for your family? Our officers need support and respect.

[ConHog]

I thought this was apropos to this thread. Just copied this from FB, so I don't have a source to cite, but here it is:

I of course agree with this, and I have stated on this forum that when you attack the police you can't then whine when they react with force. BUT in this particular type situation I still maintain that the kid could have been quarantined where he wasn't an immediate danger to anyone and talked into giving up. Or at least an attempt could have been made to do so. No attempt was made given the time frame, that is my problem with this situation, not the police shooting after having a weapon pointed at them.



Here's an interesting question. Why are people mad about a TSA agent not knowing the difference between a money belt and a back brace, but don't think a police officer should know the difference between a toy gun and the real thing?

[pegwinn]

Here's an interesting question. Why are people mad about a TSA agent not knowing the difference between a money belt and a back brace, but don't think a police officer should know the difference between a toy gun and the real thing?

The TSA idiot in question is up close and personal. He either needs an infusion of intelligence or corrective lenses. He additionally had plenty of time to make the wrong call.

The cop...... none of the above.

[ConHog]

The TSA idiot in question is up close and personal. He either needs an infusion of intelligence or corrective lenses. He additionally had plenty of time to make the wrong call.

The cop...... none of the above.

Yes, I'm sure that old bitch patiently stood there with her shirt off while the TSA examined the article in question.

As for the toy gun in question. I'd be SHOCKED if it didn't have the orange cap on the barrel signifying it was a toy. I concede it is possible that the kid had removed it, but I don't see anywhere in the story where that is mentioned.

[pegwinn]

Yes, I'm sure that old bitch patiently stood there with her shirt off while the TSA examined the article in question.

As for the toy gun in question. I'd be SHOCKED if it didn't have the orange cap on the barrel signifying it was a toy. I concede it is possible that the kid had removed it, but I don't see anywhere in the story where that is mentioned.

The picture I saw of the kid and girl showed a weapon without the orange tip.

I don't know about the old bitch. I know that the TSA has all the time in the world to do as they please though.

[ConHog]

The picture I saw of the kid and girl showed a weapon without the orange tip.

I don't know about the old bitch. I know that the TSA has all the time in the world to do as they please though.

The police have all the time in the world as well, IF they cordon off the area and wait the kid out. they didn't even try to do so here.

And no the TSA doesn't have all the time in the world, they are supposed to try to make sure they provide safety at the same time as making sure they don't disrupt any more flight plans than necessary.

[pegwinn]

The police have all the time in the world as well, IF they cordon off the area and wait the kid out. they didn't even try to do so here.

And no the TSA doesn't have all the time in the world, they are supposed to try to make sure they provide safety at the same time as making sure they don't disrupt any more flight plans than necessary.

I don't think TSA takes scheduling into account at all. That may be the written rule, but I doubt they have any liability at all.

[ConHog]

I don't think TSA takes scheduling into account at all. That may be the written rule, but I doubt they have any liability at all.

Liability? Of course not, although I wouldn't be surprised to learn that people who have missed flights due to the TSA are suing...... It's in the nature of humans to do so.

But you act is if they are uncaring jerks. Of course they want to make sure as many people are getting on their flights uninterrupted as possible.

[pegwinn]

Liability? Of course not, although I wouldn't be surprised to learn that people who have missed flights due to the TSA are suing...... It's in the nature of humans to do so.

But you act is if they are uncaring jerks. Of course they want to make sure as many people are getting on their flights uninterrupted as possible.

I don't know for a fact that they are uncaring jerks. The media makes them sound like the second coming....

of the three stooges. :slap:

[ConHog]

I don't know for a fact that they are uncaring jerks. The media makes them sound like the second coming....

of the three stooges. :slap:

Well Lord knows we can trust the media. :rolleyes:

[Dilloduck]

Are you referring to the social or anti social media ?

[Missileman]

Oh, I see, you don't want me telling you about what you did for a living, but you seem to be okay with telling me about what I did for a living , I see.

Oh, and you're a fucking marine, I don't think anyone thinks that this kid was a good of a shot as a Marine.


You're making way too many assumptions with those cops' lives at risk.

[ConHog]

You're making way too many assumptions with those cops' lives at risk.

No, I'm not. SOP is to make sure all bystanders are safe, cordon off the suspect and give the negotiator a chance to get him to surrender, not to immediately confront him and cause a fight of flee response from him.

Failing that once the gun was pointed at the cops, I don't fault them for shooting, but they NEVER should have been in his line of sights to begin with.