Cop shoots at snake, kills boy, 5

[FoBoT]

maybe next time they'll leave the snake alone

that sucks

 

[crystal]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: TheUnk
So he was shooting upwards into a tree at a snake? I assume the bullet hit the kid due to a richochet?

I doubt it was richochet because the first shot landed near the kid and his grandfather. that would be some coincidence if 2 bullets richocheted (sp?) and hit that close to the same spot.

I too don't understand how he was firing into a tree (probably too high for a person to reach) and the bllet hit a kid fishing, which would imply he was probably at sea level.

They were in the water and the tree at the shoreline. Police officer stood on bank and shot down?

 

[imported_Imp]

Just read about this, and I'm somewhat shocked at the idiocy. Do they have 10 ft snakes down there or was the "officer" trying to nail something the size of an ant... Either way, if it's in a tree, why couldn't the owner leave it the hell alone. We got two retards in this story, the owner for suggesting the use of a gun and the cop for listening.

 

[ISAslot]

Attempted murder of a snake! :| While they're locking him up I hope they get that no good Tinkerbell too, that bitch attempted to kill Wendy and I still her flying around free like she's some innocent Disney character. :|

 

[jandrews]

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: jandrews
lmao charged with what? Maybe wreckless endangerment at most but certainly not manslaughter. This is just a ridiculous series of events that ended very badly.

If you're firing a weapon ANYWHERE, you check to see what's behind it. Even if it's an accident, there's still a five year-old boy who will never see his sixth.

I think manslaughter at the very least, possibly with a reckless endangerment charge for almost hitting the grandfather.

I imagine it was shaded brush behind the trees in a wooded area. He was negligent that is the limit of it. Also typically cops that are negligent in the line of duty are very rarely charged but he may be facing termination.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: jandrews

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: jandrews
lmao charged with what? Maybe wreckless endangerment at most but certainly not manslaughter. This is just a ridiculous series of events that ended very badly.

If you're firing a weapon ANYWHERE, you check to see what's behind it. Even if it's an accident, there's still a five year-old boy who will never see his sixth.

I think manslaughter at the very least, possibly with a reckless endangerment charge for almost hitting the grandfather.

I imagine it was shaded brush behind the trees in a wooded area. He was negligent that is the limit of it. Also typically cops that are negligent in the line of duty are very rarely charged but he may be facing termination.

unfortantly you are right. i doubt the idiot will be charged. Where if it was a civilian they would be charged.

who cares if it was a wooded area. fireing into a tree at a snake (wich is small) without knowing what is behind it is negligent. he should be charged. sad part is eh wont.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: jandrews

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: jandrews
lmao charged with what? Maybe wreckless endangerment at most but certainly not manslaughter. This is just a ridiculous series of events that ended very badly.

If you're firing a weapon ANYWHERE, you check to see what's behind it. Even if it's an accident, there's still a five year-old boy who will never see his sixth.

I think manslaughter at the very least, possibly with a reckless endangerment charge for almost hitting the grandfather.

I imagine it was shaded brush behind the trees in a wooded area. He was negligent that is the limit of it. Also typically cops that are negligent in the line of duty are very rarely charged but he may be facing termination.

We can imagine all we want. None of us were there so who knows what the situation was. I just know that your average schmuck would likely be facing involuntary manslaughter.

Cops get way too much immunity for their actions. If anything, because of their training they should be held to higher standards, not lower ones than civilians.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Phokus
What a dumbass... isn't it animal control's job to take the snake out of the tree anyway?

why take the snake out of the tree?

why kill the snake?


IF you want to kill it why not get a stick or something.

yeah...no information on why the snake needed to be killed, or dealt with in the first place...
was it even poisonous/threat to the locals? I can't help but doubt that it was...

 

[sygyzy]

"We're pretty sure circumstantially that it is the bullet from the police officer's gun, but it might be a bullet from someone else."

Before we all jump to conclusions, we have to keep this key point in mind. It might not have come from the officer's gun. Perhaps some migrating geese, a brown bear, or Dick Cheney may have fired the round at precisely the same time as the cop. Let's not pass early judgment.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: TheUnk
So he was shooting upwards into a tree at a snake? I assume the bullet hit the kid due to a richochet?

I doubt it was richochet because the first shot landed near the kid and his grandfather. that would be some coincidence if 2 bullets richocheted (sp?) and hit that close to the same spot.

I too don't understand how he was firing into a tree (probably too high for a person to reach) and the bllet hit a kid fishing, which would imply he was probably at sea level.

the way I understand it, is that the grandfather and boy were on other/opposite ends of the lake than was the cop. The snake in question was in a tree somewhere between the 2 parties, likely within sight/closer to the cop. The cop missed the snake, the bullet continued on it's path, unfortunately terminating at the kid's head. I'm guessing cop and kid were at separate elevations, and the snake was at a midpoint b/w the two.

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: sygyzy

"We're pretty sure circumstantially that it is the bullet from the police officer's gun, but it might be a bullet from someone else."

Before we all jump to conclusions, we have to keep this key point in mind. It might not have come from the officer's gun. Perhaps some migrating geese, a brown bear, or Dick Cheney may have fired the round at precisely the same time as the cop. Let's not pass early judgment.

:laugh: Cheney does it again!

 

[jandrews]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: jandrews

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: jandrews
lmao charged with what? Maybe wreckless endangerment at most but certainly not manslaughter. This is just a ridiculous series of events that ended very badly.

If you're firing a weapon ANYWHERE, you check to see what's behind it. Even if it's an accident, there's still a five year-old boy who will never see his sixth.

I think manslaughter at the very least, possibly with a reckless endangerment charge for almost hitting the grandfather.

I imagine it was shaded brush behind the trees in a wooded area. He was negligent that is the limit of it. Also typically cops that are negligent in the line of duty are very rarely charged but he may be facing termination.

We can imagine all we want. None of us were there so who knows what the situation was. I just know that your average schmuck would likely be facing involuntary manslaughter.

Cops get way too much immunity for their actions. If anything, because of their training they should be held to higher standards, not lower ones than civilians.

I disagree, from a morale action standpoint I would agree but police are put in thousands of dangerous situations that could potentially end badly. I think the odds of a cop making a mistake is much higher than the common man and they should get some preferential treatment for 'crimes' that happen during duty. That is crimes that are not of an ethical type (stealing, drugs etc) that truly were accidents.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: TehMac
I'd suggest firing, and paying up, but I'd also suggest firing lessons. Seriously, what kind of stupid sh!t is that, that a guy misses TWICE. This sorta thing makes me wanna puke.

Huh....I had a little double-take on that statement. For a second there I thought you were joking that were you more disgusted that the cop missed two shots than anything else. Wording just hit me strange.

Tragic story. I honestly feel bad for the cop (and horrible for boy's family, of course). I can't imagine what he would be going through. Even so, he does deserve a criminal charge...probably one pleaded out to a minimum penalty.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: jandrews

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: jandrews

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: jandrews
lmao charged with what? Maybe wreckless endangerment at most but certainly not manslaughter. This is just a ridiculous series of events that ended very badly.

If you're firing a weapon ANYWHERE, you check to see what's behind it. Even if it's an accident, there's still a five year-old boy who will never see his sixth.

I think manslaughter at the very least, possibly with a reckless endangerment charge for almost hitting the grandfather.

I imagine it was shaded brush behind the trees in a wooded area. He was negligent that is the limit of it. Also typically cops that are negligent in the line of duty are very rarely charged but he may be facing termination.

We can imagine all we want. None of us were there so who knows what the situation was. I just know that your average schmuck would likely be facing involuntary manslaughter.

Cops get way too much immunity for their actions. If anything, because of their training they should be held to higher standards, not lower ones than civilians.

I disagree, from a morale action standpoint I would agree but police are put in thousands of dangerous situations that could potentially end badly. I think the odds of a cop making a mistake is much higher than the common man and they should get some preferential treatment for 'crimes' that happen during duty. That is crimes that are not of an ethical type (stealing, drugs etc) that truly were accidents.

if this was a firefight i can kinda understand. BUT the cop was in NO danger. This was a case of a officer doing something stupid and negligent.

anyone with common sense should know not to fire a gun up at an animal in a tree without knowing what is behind it.

 

[Linux23]

Most importantly, did they get the snake?

 

[LTC8K6]

The buckshot that cops use would probably have resulted in a similar incident.

They make shotshells for handguns for just this purpose.

Cops who have to deal with snakes should keep a few shotshells for their handgun in the car.


http://home.att.net/~ltc8k6/Shotshl.jpg

 

[UNCjigga]

Originally posted by: Phokus
What a dumbass... isn't it animal control's job to take the snake out of the tree anyway?

Small towns might not have the resources for a separate animal control unit with the proper equipment. At least, that's my presumption from the fact they have a 'city manager' and not a 'mayor'.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: jandrews

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: jandrews
lmao charged with what? Maybe wreckless endangerment at most but certainly not manslaughter. This is just a ridiculous series of events that ended very badly.

If you're firing a weapon ANYWHERE, you check to see what's behind it. Even if it's an accident, there's still a five year-old boy who will never see his sixth.

I think manslaughter at the very least, possibly with a reckless endangerment charge for almost hitting the grandfather.

I imagine it was shaded brush behind the trees in a wooded area. He was negligent that is the limit of it. Also typically cops that are negligent in the line of duty are very rarely charged but he may be facing termination.

That's why it's called criminally negligent homicide. This was a very reckless action on the part of the cop, and he/she should be held accountable for it. Sure it's just an accident, but the cop in no way should have discharged the weapon without knowing where the bullet was going to stop.

I'm not saying the person should serve time, but the charges should be brought up so it's on record, and depending on the final determination of circumstances, perhaps get off on probation.

 

[PepePeru]

Originally posted by: Phokus
What a dumbass... isn't it animal control's job to take the snake out of the tree anyway?

the cops / sheriff are animal control in small towns & it will often involve the use of a firearm.

i am not making an excuse for the cop's behavior in anyway.

 

[OutHouse]

that stupid cop just made the family a lot of money. to bad a little boy had to die.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: G Wizard

Originally posted by: Phokus
What a dumbass... isn't it animal control's job to take the snake out of the tree anyway?

the cops / sheriff are animal control in small towns & it will often involve the use of a firearm.

i am not making an excuse for the cop's behavior in anyway.

yes, small towns like that do not have animal control. what is it with people assuming every town in the US has a animal control officers?

 

[UNCjigga]

Following up on the point I made earlier:

The Noble Police Department usually keeps a part-time animal control officer on staff, Daves said.

That position is vacant and the department was advertising for the job, he said.

When the department is ?in between? animal control officers like this, Daves said officers only respond to emergency animal calls.

But ?emergency? is open to interpretation, even in the case of snake calls.

?We had to go just to see what the situation was,? he said.

With the three officers involved in the shooting on leave, only seven officers are left to patrol the community, including the chief himself, Daves said.

There are two full-time officer positions vacant, in addition to the part-time animal control officer position, he said.

http://www.normantranscript.co...l_story_218133057.html
I predict a small crime spree in small-town Norman.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: UNCjigga
Following up on the point I made earlier:

The Noble Police Department usually keeps a part-time animal control officer on staff, Daves said.

That position is vacant and the department was advertising for the job, he said.

When the department is ?in between? animal control officers like this, Daves said officers only respond to emergency animal calls.

But ?emergency? is open to interpretation, even in the case of snake calls.

?We had to go just to see what the situation was,? he said.

With the three officers involved in the shooting on leave, only seven officers are left to patrol the community, including the chief himself, Daves said.

There are two full-time officer positions vacant, in addition to the part-time animal control officer position, he said.

http://www.normantranscript.co...l_story_218133057.html
I predict a small crime spree in small-town Norman.

from that article.

"
There are two full-time officer positions vacant, in addition to the part-time animal control officer position, he said"

sheesh. no wonder they are getting such ***** officers. they have to hire them. seems like they are having a hard time getting qualified people in.

 

[jpeyton]

Hope that fvcking cop gets manslaughter and a mandatory sentence in FPMITA prison.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Damn, that just too sad

If it were my grandson, I'm afraid that officer would be taking a very long leave of absence and I would be the one in prison.