8th Grader shot by Police in Texas

[GuitarDaddy]

Exactly.

This wasn't an adult, this wasn't at a bank but at a middle school, there were no hostages, no shots fired and the school was locked down. There didn't seem to be good situational awareness. Better cops have been able to talk down more dangerous people on worse situations before. Instead they killed an 8th grade band dork with a BB gun in front of his classmates.

Being a child, the cop has a duty to protect the kid from himself as well as everyone else. Kids are fk'ing retarded, barely formed human beings who are prone to doing crazy and illogical things for often no or poorly formed reasons. I am saying this as a parent and former teenager.

There has to be a pretty high bar to justifying shooting a child in a school. This was not a drunk in a bar.

Freaking out and assuming every stupid kid is the next Columbine is ridiculous. People need to stop being so afraid and relearn some sense.

No idea why this kid was acting like this, but you can bet its one of the std teen angst/tantrum reasons, anger over a girl, anger over a friend, depressed bc everyone has an iphone but him, anger bc he didn't make the football team, or got made fun of by some other idiot kid in school, or some other irrational reason brought on by a surge in hormones.
You can't put bullets in the head of a kid who's acting like a dumbass and isn't listening right away.

:thumbsup:
The cops actions although borderline justifiable, where way over the top and showed a lack of judgement and training IMHO. Yes the cops were in a "potentially" deadly situation, and were justified in their actions that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, or the best course of action.
Hell here in Texas if someone walks onto your property and waves a stick at you and makes some threats you can likely kill them and not get prosecuted, but does that make it right or appropriate? No
If there had been a single (non head shot) taken by the cops to neutralize the threat my tune would be totally different. But three deadly accurate shots by multiple officers was totally uncalled for.

And the argument that in the heat of the situation they can't aim to wound is total bullshit. The had no problem putting two in the center of his chest and one in the back of his head, which tells me that they could have hit him anywhere they wanted.

 

[woolfe9999]

:thumbsup:
The cops actions although borderline justifiable, where way over the top and showed a lack of judgement and training IMHO. Yes the cops were in a "potentially" deadly situation, and were justified in their actions that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, or the best course of action.
Hell here in Texas if someone walks onto your property and waves a stick at you and makes some threats you can likely kill them and not get prosecuted, but does that make it right or appropriate? No
If there had been a single (non head shot) taken by the cops to neutralize the threat my tune would be totally different. But three deadly accurate shots by multiple officers was totally uncalled for.

And the argument that in the heat of the situation they can't aim to wound is total bullshit. The had no problem putting two in the center of his chest and one in the back of his head, which tells me that they could have hit him anywhere they wanted.

I don't doubt that they may have been able to shoot him in the leg, but aiming for the leg is non-optimal when the assailant has a gun because it doesn't prevent him from firing back. Works well if he has a knife because it eliminates the mobility required to use the knife, but not so much for a gun.

 

[Zargon]

Police Tase adults but shoot kids, brilliant.

Only in America

for the billionth time here, not all police carry tazers.

 

[irishScott]

:thumbsup:
The cops actions although borderline justifiable, where way over the top and showed a lack of judgement and training IMHO. Yes the cops were in a "potentially" deadly situation, and were justified in their actions that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, or the best course of action.
Hell here in Texas if someone walks onto your property and waves a stick at you and makes some threats you can likely kill them and not get prosecuted, but does that make it right or appropriate? No
If there had been a single (non head shot) taken by the cops to neutralize the threat my tune would be totally different. But three deadly accurate shots by multiple officers was totally uncalled for.

And the argument that in the heat of the situation they can't aim to wound is total bullshit. The had no problem putting two in the center of his chest and one in the back of his head, which tells me that they could have hit him anywhere they wanted.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Wow. You have obviously never fired a handgun in your life and/or have zero knowledge of human anatomy.

"Shooting to wound." is a hollywood myth unless done at point blank range. Maybe by the elite special forces in isolated incidents, but they train to infinity to be able to do so. Tell me, which of these major arteries would you shoot "to wound?" Hint: If you hit the big one in the leg you're dead in 3 minutes.

Also, most police departments use Jacketed Hollowpoint rounds. These things spread out on impact and tear to inflict maximum damage. They don't make a neat little hole. Plus, under stress it would be near impossible, even for a trained police officer (who usually don't train as often as they should, I shoot 3-4 times a month and I've outshot cops), to place a shot such that there would be a guarantee of not hitting anything vital. You'd basically have to hit a hand or foot for that, and those areas are usually small and mobile.

And as wolf pointed out, in the case of an armed gunman, "neutralizing the threat" means preventing the gun from firing. That means either taking the gun away or taking away the gunman's ability to shoot it. The latter means killing him, plain and simple.

Bottom line, the kid wanted suicide by cop and tragically got his wish. I held a knife to my own throat in 8th grade, so I can relate, and I feel more sorry for the cops who will have the psychological burden of shooting a kid than I do for the suicidal 8th grader.

 

[coloumb]

Couldn't the police carry a gun that fires a high speed tranq dart which can knock out an elephant within a few seconds instead?

 

[werepossum]

:thumbsup:
The cops actions although borderline justifiable, where way over the top and showed a lack of judgement and training IMHO. Yes the cops were in a "potentially" deadly situation, and were justified in their actions that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, or the best course of action.
Hell here in Texas if someone walks onto your property and waves a stick at you and makes some threats you can likely kill them and not get prosecuted, but does that make it right or appropriate? No
If there had been a single (non head shot) taken by the cops to neutralize the threat my tune would be totally different. But three deadly accurate shots by multiple officers was totally uncalled for.

And the argument that in the heat of the situation they can't aim to wound is total bullshit. The had no problem putting two in the center of his chest and one in the back of his head, which tells me that they could have hit him anywhere they wanted.

You have a point there. There really needs to be some protocol among cops that decides which cop shoots if there is more than one there, rather than everyone firing. We had an incident in Chattanooga a few years back where a disturbed man was on his porch with a shotgun. He refused to drop it and surrender, and at one point he raised the shotgun or perhaps made a sudden motion with it. Sixty-odd shots were fired, of which forty something hit him. Shots also struck his house, of course, but also two other houses. At some point the police are more dangerous to the community than is the threat, and there should be some sort of protocol here whereby all but one or two officers are not immediately ready to fire.

That said, I can't fault these officers too much, as I don't think I would be so collected as to fire only one or two shots were I facing a weapon that could kill me, even if it was a kid. Maybe especially if it was a kid. As Bitek says, kids are fk'ing retarded, barely formed human beings who are prone to doing crazy and illogical things for often no or poorly formed reasons. Shooting a cop is a crazy and illogical thing, no?

One good thing might be to arm all cops with a flash-bang grenade and/or a stinger, with proper training of course. They can be thrown a fair distance and might well disarm most such perpetrators, and would add little to the cop's load. (As opposed to the beanbag which requires carrying a shotgun.) As for Tasers, I can't see asking cops to approach a gun-wielder to Taser range; that's for drunks and other unruly but unarmed sorts.

 

[irishScott]

Couldn't the police carry a gun that fires a high speed tranq dart which can knock out an elephant within a few seconds instead?

Assuming I'm already aimed at you, I guarantee I can get off a least one shot, probably more, before any tranq takes effect. Blood only flows so fast.

 

[bfdd]

I don't think the kid deserved to die because he did something stupid. The police shooting him was probably valid under the circumstances, but that is not the same as saying he "deserved" to die. Saying he deserved it (in your OP) is saying that his death was a desired outcome. It was only a desired outcome, perhaps, if he was destined to be a career criminal who would never contribute anything non-negative to the world. That certainly cannot be determined because he did something stupid at age 15.

This was a sad situation where the police unfortunately did what they had to do.

in this situation, this kid deserved to die. do you agree or disagree? that doesn't mean it's the desired outcome. i'm pretty sure we can all agree the desired outcome is for scenarios like this not to occur.

 

[irishScott]

You have a point there. There really needs to be some protocol among cops that decides which cop shoots if there is more than one there, rather than everyone firing. We had an incident in Chattanooga a few years back where a disturbed man was on his porch with a shotgun. He refused to drop it and surrender, and at one point he raised the shotgun or perhaps made a sudden motion with it. Sixty-odd shots were fired, of which forty something hit him. Shots also struck his house, of course, but also two other houses. At some point the police are more dangerous to the community than is the threat, and there should be some sort of protocol here whereby all but one or two officers are not immediately ready to fire.

That said, I can't fault these officers too much, as I don't think I would be so collected as to fire only one or two shots were I facing a weapon that could kill me, even if it was a kid. Maybe especially if it was a kid. As Bitek says, kids are fk'ing retarded, barely formed human beings who are prone to doing crazy and illogical things for often no or poorly formed reasons. Shooting a cop is a crazy and illogical thing, no?

One good thing might be to arm all cops with a flash-bang grenade and/or a stinger, with proper training of course. They can be thrown a fair distance and might well disarm most such perpetrators, and would add little to the cop's load. (As opposed to the beanbag which requires carrying a shotgun.) As for Tasers, I can't see asking cops to approach a gun-wielder to Taser range; that's for drunks and other unruly but unarmed sorts.

The issue with flashbangs is that they still wouldn't disarm the gunman. Sure they'd throw his head for a whirl, but he'd still be holding the gun and still able to fire. Unfortunately, there usually is only one solution to an armed gunman unless he runs out of ammo or you get within arms length.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Couldn't the police carry a gun that fires a high speed tranq dart which can knock out an elephant within a few seconds instead?

A tranquilizing dart that's strong enough to take down an elephant in seconds would kill a human.

The student should have put his weapon down when commanded to do so and he wouldn't have been in a position to be shot.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Police Tase adults but shoot kids, brilliant.

Only in America

I seriously doubt the police would tazer anyone with a weapon as the shock could cause muscle contractions that result in the weapon being discharged.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

You have a point there. There really needs to be some protocol among cops that decides which cop shoots if there is more than one there, rather than everyone firing. We had an incident in Chattanooga a few years back where a disturbed man was on his porch with a shotgun. He refused to drop it and surrender, and at one point he raised the shotgun or perhaps made a sudden motion with it. Sixty-odd shots were fired, of which forty something hit him. Shots also struck his house, of course, but also two other houses. At some point the police are more dangerous to the community than is the threat, and there should be some sort of protocol here whereby all but one or two officers are not immediately ready to fire.

That said, I can't fault these officers too much, as I don't think I would be so collected as to fire only one or two shots were I facing a weapon that could kill me, even if it was a kid. Maybe especially if it was a kid. As Bitek says, kids are fk'ing retarded, barely formed human beings who are prone to doing crazy and illogical things for often no or poorly formed reasons. Shooting a cop is a crazy and illogical thing, no?

One good thing might be to arm all cops with a flash-bang grenade and/or a stinger, with proper training of course. They can be thrown a fair distance and might well disarm most such perpetrators, and would add little to the cop's load. (As opposed to the beanbag which requires carrying a shotgun.) As for Tasers, I can't see asking cops to approach a gun-wielder to Taser range; that's for drunks and other unruly but unarmed sorts.

When you're in a threat situation you, and your partners, have different perspectives. Your decide which cop shoots first in advance method would be a horrible idea, not to mention impossible to coordinate in the real world. You don't know where the threat is going to emerge, who observes the threat first and who will be in the best position to respond to that threat. We are talking split second life and death decisions here. It's why we train ad nauseam to respond swiftly.

Threat neutralization is primary. Center mass. I never had to make that decision in my nine years thankfully but guarantee my thoughts would not be "Maybe if I shoot this guy in the arm or leg he will just give up." I'd have done what I was trained to do.

Non lethal means can be effective in many situations, they aren't always effective. I've personally watched as people shrug of a taser and keep on going.

 

[marincounty]

Sad for the kid and his family, and for the officers that have to live with this.
Moral of the story: Don't bring a pellet gun to a gun fight.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Just to add its quite funny to see people in this thread criticizing the police for not shooting to wound, then to cruise through the other threads about homeowners shooting intruders and seeing the very same people showering praise for those killings. Notice not one mention of "why didn't they just shoot to wound" in those though.

 

[irishScott]

Just to add its quite funny to see people in this thread criticizing the police for not shooting to wound, then to cruise through the other threads about homeowners shooting intruders and seeing the very same people showering praise for those killings. Notice not one mention of "why didn't they just shoot to wound" in those though.

Oh come on, everyone knows that police officers required to qualify twice a year are trained to the level of Navy SEALs. Normal humans don't have any of this magic "training" so they can just shoot wherever they like.

Seriously, whenever I get into a debate with a non-shooter, I can make the exact same points with the exact same language, but if I mention that I "train" for competitions beforehand; they shut up a lot quicker.

 

[cwjerome]

Kid practically wrote his own death warrant. Sucks for him, his parents, and the cops.

I can wistfully dream that the cops could have somehow disarmed/disabled the kid without shooting bullets into him, it's a good thing to desire... but I don't blame the cops one tiny bit for what happened.

 

[werepossum]

The issue with flashbangs is that they still wouldn't disarm the gunman. Sure they'd throw his head for a whirl, but he'd still be holding the gun and still able to fire. Unfortunately, there usually is only one solution to an armed gunman unless he runs out of ammo or you get within arms length.

That's probably true in most cases, but I'm speaking specifically of cases like this, where the perp is a kid and hasn't yet hurt anyone. I'm trying to strike a balance between shooting someone the cops most definitely didn't want to shoot and endangering the cops, which something very short range like a Taser would definitely do. It's certainly possible that this kid wouldn't have dropped his weapon; it's also possible that he would have shot the cop throwing the flashbang (assuming the gun had been real) or fired through a wall and shot a child. But when the perp is a child, there ought to be something practical short of shooting him as soon as he refuses to drop his weapon, something that can be done at minimal risk to the cops and the bystanders.

When you're in a threat situation you, and your partners, have different perspectives. Your decide which cop shoots first in advance method would be a horrible idea, not to mention impossible to coordinate in the real world. You don't know where the threat is going to emerge, who observes the threat first and who will be in the best position to respond to that threat. We are talking split second life and death decisions here. It's why we train ad nauseam to respond swiftly.

Threat neutralization is primary. Center mass. I never had to make that decision in my nine years thankfully but guarantee my thoughts would not be "Maybe if I shoot this guy in the arm or leg he will just give up." I'd have done what I was trained to do.

Non lethal means can be effective in many situations, they aren't always effective. I've personally watched as people shrug of a taser and keep on going.

It shouldn't be that difficult. If there is one perp with one gun in plain sight, have two or three cops cover him and the rest stand down behind cover, watching possible exits. The more guns ready, the more chance that someone will make a bad decision, and typically once that first round fires, everyone fires. I don't fault these cops, but there is absolutely no justification for a dozen people shooting one old man sitting on his own porch forty-odd times for making a sudden movement with a shotgun. Chances are had one sergeant said "I've got this, you guys stand down" that man would be alive today.

I agree that non-lethals often don't work and I would never advocate that cops must always try them first, even with kids; I'm just saying that it would be nice to give cops the same non-lethal option that a SWAT team enjoys on a planned invasion, to the degree that can be practical.

And even lethals don't always work. In my home town I know a guy who took five .38 slugs in the chest (including at least one through a lung) at point blank range and then beat the living daylights out of the guy who shot him, although obviously that's not the rule. And he wasn't high or drunk, just very big, very tough, and very angry. (I also know a guy who took a single .45 slug through the calf and didn't stand up again for six weeks; gunshot wounds are highly variable.)

 

[werepossum]

Just to add its quite funny to see people in this thread criticizing the police for not shooting to wound, then to cruise through the other threads about homeowners shooting intruders and seeing the very same people showering praise for those killings. Notice not one mention of "why didn't they just shoot to wound" in those though.

I would never advocate that cops shoot to wound, although I know many that shoot far better than do I. Shooting for an extremity is a good way to miss, inviting return fire and increasing the likelihood of the cop striking a bystander. If you HAVE to shoot, center of mass is the only way.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Hmmm? Texas. Kid dead with a shot in the back of his head, the thin blue line telling the world "he refused to drop the weapon." Or is it the big blue lie that we just hear?

 

[spidey07]

I would never advocate that cops shoot to wound, although I know many that shoot far better than do I. Shooting for an extremity is a good way to miss, inviting return fire and increasing the likelihood of the cop striking a bystander. If you HAVE to shoot, center of mass is the only way.

I train for the upper triangle. I want total CNS destruction.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

seriously:

These are the most ignorant poorly paid under-funded cops in the entirety of the US.

This is a fact based on demographic data; and most likely the cause of the outcome of this interaction and the cause of this interaction in the first place.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Wow. You have obviously never fired a handgun in your life and/or have zero knowledge of human anatomy.

"Shooting to wound." is a hollywood myth unless done at point blank range. Maybe by the elite special forces in isolated incidents, but they train to infinity to be able to do so. Tell me, which of these major arteries would you shoot "to wound?" Hint: If you hit the big one in the leg you're dead in 3 minutes.

Also, most police departments use Jacketed Hollowpoint rounds. These things spread out on impact and tear to inflict maximum damage. They don't make a neat little hole. Plus, under stress it would be near impossible, even for a trained police officer (who usually don't train as often as they should, I shoot 3-4 times a month and I've outshot cops), to place a shot such that there would be a guarantee of not hitting anything vital. You'd basically have to hit a hand or foot for that, and those areas are usually small and mobile.

And as wolf pointed out, in the case of an armed gunman, "neutralizing the threat" means preventing the gun from firing. That means either taking the gun away or taking away the gunman's ability to shoot it. The latter means killing him, plain and simple.

Bottom line, the kid wanted suicide by cop and tragically got his wish. I held a knife to my own throat in 8th grade, so I can relate, and I feel more sorry for the cops who will have the psychological burden of shooting a kid than I do for the suicidal 8th grader.

Who said anything about shoot to wound? I didn't and wouldn't. All I said is that a single (non head shot) should have been enough to nuetralize the threat. Two in the chest and one in the back of the head was to ensure death, nothing more. A single shot may well have killed the kid, but the one in the back of the head was certainly not warranted

 

[TheVrolok]

Who said anything about shoot to wound? I didn't and wouldn't. All I said is that a single (non head shot) should have been enough to nuetralize the threat. Two in the chest and one in the back of the head was to ensure death, nothing more. A single shot may well have killed the kid, but the one in the back of the head was certainly not warranted

How do you know 1 shot would have neutralized him? It could absolutely not. To be fair, the article simply says that mother has a picture of a bullet wound on the back of the kid's head .. not whether it's entrance or exit. Could be he took all 3 in the front, and this one happened to exit in his head. I don't think the officers shot him twice, then walked up to his downed body, and put 1 in his head.

 

[spidey07]

seriously:

These are the most ignorant poorly paid under-funded cops in the entirety of the US.

This is a fact based on demographic data; and most likely the cause of the outcome of this interaction and the cause of this interaction in the first place.

Bullshit. You point a weapon at a cop and you will get ventilated in every state there is.

 

[woolfe9999]

in this situation, this kid deserved to die. do you agree or disagree? that doesn't mean it's the desired outcome. i'm pretty sure we can all agree the desired outcome is for scenarios like this not to occur.

Not only is it unfortunate that the situation occurred. It's unfortunate that this outcome occurred as a result of this situation. The police may not be blameworthy here, but no, I don't think "deserve to die" makes sense for an 8th grader making this kind of mistake. It's easy to say that mistakes committed by others "deserve" the harshest possible outcomes, I suppose, but that doesn't make the outcomes truly deserved. Death is perhaps "deserved" by those who take lives. This kid brought a BB gun to school and didn't harm anyone with it. He was an idiot for not dropping it when the police told him to. The police had to shoot. A sad and tragic outcome. YMMV of course.