Texas Police Shoot 8th Grader Holding Pellet Gun

Crispy · Jan 5, 2012

Police shot and killed an eighth-grader in the hallway of his middle school Wednesday after the boy brandished what looked like a handgun and pointed it at officers. It turned out to be a pellet gun that closely resembled the real thing.

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.

Shortly before the confrontation, the boy had walked into a classroom and punched a random boy in the nose for no apparent reason, police said. Investigators did not know why he pulled out the weapon.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-student-killed-officers-pellet-gun-15292130#.TwWjmpggKQI

The boy was only 15, but when you look at the details, they had every reason to shoot the kid. You may want to think that there must have been another way, but when the pellet gun (Picture was shown on the local news this morning) looked like a real gun, without an orange tip, they had no real choice. They told him to drop the weapon, they told him multiple times. Then he pointed it at the officers, so they had to make the decision.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think that they should've waited, or do you think they did what they had to do?

ilikewaffles11 · Jan 5, 2012

To me it seems the officers did the right thing. If the kid took off the orange tip then how should they know it's not a real gun? Seems kind of the kids wrong doing more so than the cops.

Borna12345 · Jan 5, 2012

The kid seems like an asshole anyway. DO IT!
On a more serious matter, it could have been a matter of life and death for the officers involved (if the gun was real) and they had every right to do it.

Bigbazz · Jan 5, 2012

It isn't justified because they could have just disabled him, instead they shot him 3 times dead. If it was in the UK, even if it was deemed justified the officer(s) would most likely lose his job, if not then pending a long investigation where he would be suspended.

It might have been life or death, true. But there are ways to take someone out without having to kill them, and in this case it turned out not to be life or death, unless you were the kid.

wfooshee · Jan 5, 2012

You don't shoot to disable. You shoot to kill. Disabled but armed criminals can still shoot back.

If they'd had non-lethal ammo that might have been an option, but you don't use non-lethal on armed aggressors.

And officers here are routinely suspended, or at least restricted to desk duty, while shootings are investigated.

Dennisch · Jan 5, 2012

Suicide by cop. Justified.

Bigbazz · Jan 5, 2012

wfooshee
You don't shoot to disable. You shoot to kill. Disabled but armed criminals can still shoot back.

If they'd had non-lethal ammo that might have been an option, but you don't use non-lethal on armed aggressors.

And officers here are routinely suspended, or at least restricted to desk duty, while shootings are investigated.

I disagree with that, he's a 15 year old kid not a trained soldier, you shoot him in the arm/shoulder and hes gonna drop, along with dropping that gun. They also didn't need to shoot him 3 times.

Dennisch · Jan 5, 2012

Bigbazz
I disagree with that, he's a 15 year old kid not a trained soldier, you shoot him in the arm/shoulder and hes gonna drop, along with dropping that gun. They also didn't need to shoot him 3 times.

When someone points a gun at you, you don't want to give him a chance to fire. You shoot to disable, and usually taking someone out with a gun ends up with death. He was 15 years old, and he probably knew the risks of pointing a gun at the Fuzz.

Again, suicide by cop.

Tornado · Jan 5, 2012

Bigbazz
I disagree with that, he's a 15 year old kid not a trained soldier, you shoot him in the arm/shoulder and hes gonna drop, along with dropping that gun. They also didn't need to shoot him 3 times.

What he was makes no difference. When police are being threatened with a gun, you shoot at center mass, and you shoot to kill. Period.

Doing anything else can get innocent people or police officers killed.

BobK · Jan 5, 2012

At first I'd say the cops were completely correct in their actions here. But it turns out that one of the shots was supposedly in the back of the kid's head. I'd like to see an explanation for how that happened.

In any case, I don't see how people can expect the cops to have behaved any differently than they did. You have somebody brandishing what certainly appears to be a lethal weapon at them, ignoring orders to drop it or put it away. And this "shooting to disable" is utter hogwash. Perhaps on a target range where you have all the time in the world to carefully aim, this could work. But in this case time is of the essence; in the time a cop is carefully drawing a bead on the shoulder, an armed assailant could easily get off a not-so-precisely aimed shot at the cop's center of mass (ie, heart/chest area).

Green · Jan 5, 2012

I find it amazing the differences in the way thing are dealt with in different countries, I'm not saying anyway is better than others it's just interesting thats all. Not sure how that would have played out in the uk as police officers don't carry guns. I'm sure the police would have just took cover and called in the armed police, then spent two days negotiating with the kid. But I don't think you can blame the police in USA as guns are alot more common and there was high risk it could of been a real gun.

Silent7Sniper7 · Jan 5, 2012

The officers had every right to to kill him. 15 or not, the gun looked real. If it was real I could of been the officers dead, also to even have a pellet gun and aim it at officers is a crime. For all we know the kid might have done it because he wanted suicide by police. Also the shooting him 3 times is what they're taught.

EDIT: also I bet all of you saying they should have shot him in the arm wouldn't do it if they were in the cops position.

CodeRedR51 · Jan 5, 2012

Dennisch
Suicide by cop. Justified.

Pretty much what I was thinking.

Blitz24 · Jan 5, 2012

Absolutely no issue with what was done. The kid was told (and instructed) to drop the weapon and he chose not to. While I feel bad for the family of the child for their loss the kid had basically walked into his own death by aiming a weapon at a police officer.

m8h3r · Jan 5, 2012

Correct decision by the police. You can't say shoot in the arm to disable him, what if the police miss his arm and he shoots back?

T-Squared · Jan 5, 2012

Police shot and killed an eighth-grader in the hallway of his middle school Wednesday after the boy brandished what looked like a handgun and pointed it at officers. It turned out to be a pellet gun that closely resembled the real thing.

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.

Shortly before the confrontation, the boy had walked into a classroom and punched a random boy in the nose for no apparent reason, police said. Investigators did not know why he pulled out the weapon.

.

Mr. S · Jan 5, 2012

Well...might sound harsh but not like he haven't had the chance to get out of it.

Dennisch · Jan 5, 2012

T-Squared
.

And what is your . exactly?

TB · Jan 5, 2012

Bigbazz
I disagree with that, he's a 15 year old kid not a trained soldier, you shoot him in the arm/shoulder and hes gonna drop, along with dropping that gun. They also didn't need to shoot him 3 times.

My wife was an Emergency Room nurse for over 15 years and has had discussion with officers about disabling vs. shoot to kill. The last thing an officer wants to have to do is use his sidearm. They will give the person every opportunity to comply and even if they don't, there's a reason they also have, among other things, stun guns. If, however, the person is wielding a firearm, doubly so for one made to look real, the officers here are trained for one thing - if you're going to shoot, shoot to kill. The officers have family and want to go home to them just as much as anyone else.

CMvan46 · Jan 5, 2012

I agree with suicide by police officer.
The boy's age makes no difference, if you point a lethal weapon (which they thought it was) then of course they will shoot to kill. When you guys are suggesting to shoot to disabled I think your forgetting that these aren't SEAL snipers we are talking about. These are regular police officers with handguns in a school and if they miss then one of them is getting shot. You can't ask them to do that.

Bram Turismo · Jan 5, 2012

Silent7Sniper7
The officers had every right to to kill him. 15 or not, the gun looked real. If it was real I could of been the officers dead, also to even have a pellet gun and aim it at officers is a crime. For all we know the kid might have done it because he wanted suicide by police. Also the shooting him 3 times is what they're taught.

The bolded part is where I disagree with you. The officers didn't bring down the kid because he was holding a gun, but because he was pointing it at someone which could mean a potential death for someone.

m8h3r
Correct decision by the police. You can't say shoot in the arm to disable him, what if the police miss his arm and he shoots back?

There are those who have insane weaponry skills to do it a little bit different:

Joel · Jan 5, 2012

Dennisch
And what is your . exactly?

My brother is in 8th grade right now, and he's 13 years old.

ExigeEvan · Jan 5, 2012

Bigbazz
It isn't justified because they could have just disabled him, instead they shot him 3 times dead. If it was in the UK, even if it was deemed justified the officer(s) would most likely lose his job, if not then pending a long investigation where he would be suspended.

Which is ridiculous. The fact that some of our best marksman and women are quite literally only allowed to make one shot in their career is absurd.

How would you feel if your Dr was only allowed to have one person die in his care (and not even his fault)? Would you feel that was a huge waste of a highly skilled and intelligent person?

CodeRedR51 · Jan 5, 2012

Noob616
My brother is in 8th grade right now, and he's 13 years old.

I think in the article somewhere it mentions that he was 12.

Edit: Correction, it mentions a 13 year old girl. So I assume he was around her age.

m8h3r · Jan 5, 2012

Bram Turismo
There are those who have insane weaponry skills to do it a little bit different:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff4XuPtAOUk">YouTube Link</a>

what are the chances that one of these insanely skilled people is there?

lbsf1 · Jan 5, 2012

To be honest to me it does seem like they were overly happy to fire. Yes it was justifiable by law, however from what I have seen of the story so far it seems like they shot at the first opportunity they could, (warn him for a bit, then shoot to kill.)

This once again is the problem I see with regulation and procedure. If they used their ingenuity then they probably could have found a way to arrest him without even shooting. Since it was only a pistol then bullet proof shields and full body armor would have allowed them to either get very close and arrest him. Or then hit him with sedatives or something similar. However procedure is shoot too kill so that is what they did. Where as that is suitable in some situations, here I don't think it was. His age has to be taken into account since he would be tried as a juvenile then surely the situation should have also been considered carefully before shooting.

However I'm from the UK that is very anti guns so my view is probably bias. But in all I feel that a young (possibly slightly troubled) man died when other options were maybe available rather than shooting 3 times aiming to kill, also someone mentioned hitting him in the back of the head which from tv programmes I have seen isn't where they are taught to shoot, usually they just shoot at the centre of mass.

Joel · Jan 5, 2012

lbsf1
To be honest to me it does seem like they were overly happy to fire. Yes it was justifiable by law, however from what I have seen of the story so far it seems like they shot at the first opportunity they could, (warn him for a bit, then shoot to kill.)

This once again is the problem I see with regulation and procedure. If they used their ingenuity then they probably could have found a way to arrest him without even shooting. Since it was only a pistol then bullet proof shields and full body armor would have allowed them to either get very close and arrest him. Or then hit him with sedatives or something similar. However procedure is shoot too kill so that is what they did. Where as that is suitable in some situations, here I don't think it was. His age has to be taken into account since he would be tried as a juvenile then surely the situation should have also been considered carefully before shooting.

However I'm from the UK that is very anti guns so my view is probably bias. But in all I feel that a young (possibly slightly troubled) man died when other options were maybe available rather than shooting 3 times aiming to kill, also someone mentioned hitting him in the back of the head which from tv programmes I have seen isn't where they are taught to shoot, usually they just shoot at the centre of mass.

They did everything they could have. When someone points what looks like a gun, and could very well be one at a police officer or innocent person, you shoot to kill, end of discussion. What happens if he has armour piercing rounds? When someone points what looks like a gun at the police, they're done :censored:ing around with non-lethal weapons.

MatskiMonk · Jan 5, 2012

If an armed police officer points a gun at you and tells you to do something, the LEAST you do is EXACTLY what they say.. pointing an immitation weapon back at them is the LAST thing you do... because then it IS the last thing you will EVER do.

I'm sorry for the kids family and there is no question it's tragic, but I have no issues with the officers actions given the situation.

ExigeEvan · Jan 5, 2012

lbsf1
To be honest to me it does seem like they were overly happy to fire. Yes it was justifiable by law, however from what I have seen of the story so far it seems like they shot at the first opportunity they could, (warn him for a bit, then shoot to kill.)

Eh?

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.

This once again is the problem I see with regulation and procedure. If they used their ingenuity then they probably could have found a way to arrest him without even shooting. Since it was only a pistol then bullet proof shields and full body armor would have allowed them to either get very close and arrest him. Or then hit him with sedatives or something similar. However procedure is shoot too kill so that is what they did. Where as that is suitable in some situations, here I don't think it was. His age has to be taken into account since he would be tried as a juvenile then surely the situation should have also been considered carefully before shooting.

Only a pistol which if authentic would still have been capable of killing anyone of those officers or others in the school.

There is no full proof way to protect against gunshots except not be in the way of the bullet. Even if you protect yourself from lethal, you can still be injured enough to require help to leave the scene, putting others at risk.

And while you may believe his age should be taken into account, the over whelming matter is that he was in a school where there were far more lives at risk.

Tornado · Jan 5, 2012

lbsf1
If they used their ingenuity then they probably could have found a way to arrest him without even shooting.

Any ethical necessity of them to think outside the box (greatly increasing the danger towards everyone involved) ended when the kid modified a pellet gun to look like a real one, took it into a school and pointed it at police officers.

lbsf1
Since it was only a pistol then bullet proof shields and full body armor would have allowed them to either get very close and arrest him. Or then hit him with sedatives or something similar.

You don't intentionally use yourself as a meat shield to try to take down a suspect nonviolently, and you don't use nonlethal weaponry on someone waving a gun around in a school.

The former is just dumb, and the latter doesn't guarantee that someone won't get killed.

Texas Police Shoot 8th Grader Holding Pellet Gun

Rather ride my FJR

Humongous member

Humongous member

Chromalusion Member

Nikon Fanboy

Humongous member

Space Lord

Go Flying Lizards!

Similar threads