Texas Police Shoot 8th Grader Holding Pellet Gun

[nitrorocks]

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.

I agree. The kid didn't listen, he payed for it.

 

[lbsf1]

Eh?

From watching road wars (tv show that follows UK police)in the uk there would have been alot more negotiation before the shooting happened. I'm guess that they didn't try for particlulary long because from the news pages I have read on this say about a mum to came straight to the school and then had to wait an hour to pick her child up. Considering they wouldn't have been let out the moment he was shot then that doesn't give them that long to have been speaking to him. In the UK they probably would have been negotiating for much longer than that.

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.

From the picture of the size of the pistol I'm pretty sure that there would be ways to protect yourself from that. Surely they would have had axcess to thick bullet proof perspex, there is no chance that a small round could get through that.


And this is probably another difference between UK and America is that in Britian we don't have the death penalty, guns are illegal and it is very rare for police to shoot. Where as it is still shocking to those in America, it is probably not as unexpected due to the often close proximity to firearms.

Also that fact that he was pointing this gun in a school shows that he would have needed counselling, and probably mental issues (depression??) that could have been cured, so his age must be taken into acount because their other option is to end his life.


Anyway this is all IMO.

 

[Tornado]

From the picture of the size of the pistol I'm pretty sure that there would be ways to protect yourself from that. Surely they would have had axcess to thick bullet proof perspex, there is no chance that a small round could get through that.

Why should they take that risk?

Also that fact that he was pointing this gun in a school shows that he would have needed counselling, and probably mental issues (depression??) that could have been cured, so his age must be taken into acount because their other option is to end his life.

Why is the life of the criminal, regardless of his age or mental stability, more important than the lives of the police officers or the lives of the other people on the scene?

 

[wfooshee]

The bolded part is where I disagree with There are those who have insane weaponry skills to do it a little bit different:

A person raising a gun to fire or merely to threaten is not sitting quite as still as the guy in the chair. I don't have insane weapons skills but that's a shot I would have had no problem with. Stationary target, known range, very stable firing position. Not quite the same thing as the school situation.

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

Again, what's your point? Has your brother punched other kids at random, brandished a gun, and pointed it police after being told repeatedly to drop it?

 

[lbsf1]

Why should they take that risk?

I feel that they must have been ways to deal with it differently that didn't vastly increase the risk to officers.

Why is the life of the criminal more important than the life of the police officers or the lives of the other people on the scene?

Because as the police in England are constantly telling teenagers is that they are here to help (with drug, mental problems, ect) and not just act on the law. It shows the police in a slightly heartless light that they just shoot to kill, when mixed messages are sent to teenagers on other issues.By your theory it would be ok to machine gun a group of rioters (like those in london in the summer) because they put others in danger.

IMHO the situation could have been dealt with differently. In no way am I saying what he did was OK however I don't think it justified him being shot dead on the spot (also strangely in the back of the head.)

 

[Tornado]

I feel that they must have been ways to deal with it differently that didn't vastly increase the risk to officers.

Police are on the scene. Police repeatedly warn kid to drop his weapon. Kid begins pointing said gun at the police officers. They are trained (as all people with firearms training are) to view guns as real and loaded and respond accordingly.

Without having any of these things that you feel they should have used instead (and, once again, your idea that they should willingly allow themselves to be shot at so long as they put themselves behind protection is absurd), what exactly are they supposed to do differently when they are already there and the person they are dealing with is making a direct threat towards violence against them?

Because as the police in England are constantly telling teenagers is that they are here to help (with drug, mental problems, ect) and not just act on the law

Are police in England constantly having guns pointed at them in public places with innocents nearby while they are apparently giving this on-the-spot counseling?

It shows the police in a slightly heartless light that they just shoot to kill, when mixed messages are sent to teenagers on other issues.

I honestly can't say that I care if police are viewed as "heartless" when they are defending themselves from being shot at.

By your theory it would be ok to machine gun a group of rioters (like those in london in the summer) because they put others in danger.

That's not even remotely the same situation.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Again, what's your point? Has your brother punched other kids at random, brandished a gun, and pointed it police after being told repeatedly to drop it?

I think he was just pointing out that the age of the boy in the OP was listed as 15, which is probably incorrect. Don't believe his age was mentioned in the original article, so not sure where it came from.

 

[lbsf1]

Police are on the scene. Police repeatedly warn kid to drop his weapon. Kid begins pointing said gun at the police officers. They are trained to view guns as real and loaded and respond accordingly.

Without having any of these things that you feel they should have used instead (and, once again, your idea that they should willingly allow themselves to be shot at so long as they put themselves behind protection is absurd), what exactly are they supposed to do differently when they are already there and the person they are dealing with is making a direct threat towards violence against them?

Yes I do suggest that they allow themselves to be shot at through protection, because they would be at no risk if they used proper bullet proof materials. But once again we are forgetting that they never would have been in any danger because the weapon wasn't real. I can't come up with a full protocol on how the situation could be dealt with better, however I'm pretty sure that experts could find something. Standing behind something like this http://forensics4fiction.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/bullet-proof-glass-demonstration/ I think that they would be perfectly safe and no one would be killed.

Are police in England constantly having guns pointed at them in public places with innocents nearby while they are apparently giving this on-the-spot counseling?

No they arn't, however when they do it does seem to be handled slightly differently. Yes police do occasionally shoot and kill someone however that is massive national news.

No, I'm not suggesting on the spot counselling but counselling after being arrested (not shot), for the obvious problems that that person had.

I honestly can't say that I care if police are viewed as "heartless" when they are defending themselves from being shot at.

As said earlier I feel that they may have been a bit to eager to shoot, and the fact that they won't disclose the actual events makes me think even more that they want to hide something.

That's not even remotely the same situation.

People threatening police with weapons, innocent bystanders at danger, the basics seem pretty similar.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Are police in England constantly having guns pointed at them in public places with innocents nearby while they are apparently giving this on-the-spot counseling?

They are not, it does happen, but it's not routine. Americans made a rod for their own back with this whole 'Right to bare arms' thing.

For the record I would support our police being better armed in most situations. People, especially the 'youth of today' have cottoned on to the fact that there really is no serious penalty for dis-respecting the law, that needs to change...

 

[TB]

in the uk there would have been alot more negotiation before the shooting happened. I'm guess that they didn't try for particlulary long *snip*

The officers didn't say "We'll give this kid 5 minutes to drop the gun or we drop him." They tried negotiating and that ended when the kid raised the gun. If he wouldn't have done that, they would have keep talking.

 

[Tornado]

Yes I do suggest that they allow themselves to be shot at through protection, because they would be at no risk if they used proper bullet proof materials.

This isn't true.

You would also need to justify to those police officers why they should willingly let a suspect shoot at them; because it isn't your life that you are putting in danger when you tell them they should do that.

Standing behind something like this http://forensics4fiction.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/bullet-proof-glass-demonstration/ I think that they would be perfectly safe and no one would be killed.

Did they have that there? Was that all set up and in place for the officers when the kid pointed his gun at them?

But once again we are forgetting that they never would have been in any danger because the weapon wasn't real.

No one is forgetting it. It simply holds no relevance whatsoever to this discussion.

No, I'm not suggesting on the spot counselling but counselling after being arrested (not shot), for the obvious problems that that person had.

Someone who is willing to do such a blatant suicide by cop generally isn't willing to get arrested.

As said earlier I feel that they may have been a bit to eager to shoot, and the fact that they won't disclose the actual events makes me think even more that they want to hide something.

Information about ongoing investigations (generally) cannot be revealed to the press. This is going to be an ongoing investigation for quite some time.

People threatening police with weapons, innocent bystanders at danger, the basics seem pretty similar.

People threatening police with guns is a hell of a lot different than people threatening police with "weapons." Both for the police and for the bystanders.

Your example was also such a dramatic hyperbole (Machine gunning a crowd? Seriously?) that it basically makes the comparison moot regardless.

 

[CMvan46]

Lbsf1 are you kidding me? Think before you post.

In what place do you live in where a machine gunner shooting rioters is the same as police shooting a kid pointing a gun at them?

Sure they have bullet proof materials but there is no waiting 100% guarantee them. Why? Oh well they are a one time use thing. Just because the first 100 bullet proof walls worked doesn't mean the 101st will. It's an unnecessary risk and unreasonable to ask police officers to put themselves at that risk, they have families too.

Do you also expect them to sit there for an hour, with the gun raised facing them, and talk the kid down? There are likely hundreds of people in harms way at that point and if they felt any inkling that he was going to take a shot they aren't taking that risk. It's not like the police sit at around the corner at one end of the hall hiding around a corner waiting for all their bullet proof materials to arrive, that's not practical.

You point a gun at police and put innocent lives in danger and the consequence is a shot at center mass. It's the way it is almost anywhere on the globe and I'm about 99% positive this would have been handled in exactly the same way in the UK, Canada or the USA.


Oh and in the UK they wouldn't disclose what happened yet either. Your a few months away from that, that's proper police procedure actually.

 

[mattythedog]

I highly doubt this would have been dealt the same way in the UK. Remember Roal Moat? The guy who went on a rampage up north a couple of years ago, killing 20 odd people. Even when the police had him cornered on a river bank, they still didn't shoot him. He was waving all sorts of guns around, and yet in the end he died because he shot himself.

 

[McLaren]

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.

Doesn't matter. At 15 years old/8th Grade, the kid should know full well better than to bring the "gun" into the school in the first place.

The parents can question the officers all they want, but 2 shots to kill the kid is the unfortunate result because his actions.

 

[Pupik]

Suicide by cop. Justified.

As long as you're asking for the death someone doing their job, I can confidentially tell you to shut up.

You're forbidden from bringing anything that even looks like a gun to school, so brandishing it inside a school is just a dumb-ass move.

This is why you don't troll, kids.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Yes I do suggest that they allow themselves to be shot at through protection, because they would be at no risk if they used proper bullet proof materials. But once again we are forgetting that they never would have been in any danger because the weapon wasn't real. I can't come up with a full protocol on how the situation could be dealt with better, however I'm pretty sure that experts could find something. Standing behind something like this http://forensics4fiction.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/bullet-proof-glass-demonstration/ I think that they would be perfectly safe and no one would be killed.

That's a massive leap of faith to put yourself in a dynamic situation and trust that something works properly.

For example, say I told you the new Volvo V99 was safe in a 70mph impact, and proved it by crashing it into a deformable object at 70mph. Convinced?

Now I tell you to sit in it, with no extra protection while I crash it on a public motorway, at 70mph, multi-car pile up and a HGV involved? Still feel safe?

 

[wfooshee]

I think he was just pointing out that the age of the boy in the OP was listed as 15, which is probably incorrect. Don't believe his age was mentioned in the original article, so not sure where it came from.

I didn't see that at all, apologies. I read it as "My brother is in the same kind of school, therefore he's now in danger," and wondered what possible connection there could be. The age correction didn't even occur to me.

 

[cullenand]

I'm not usually one to stand up for the police because I really don't like some of them. I've seen too many abuse their power. But it seems like they did the right thing in this situation. Since the kid pointed the gun at them they had every right to protect themselves.

 

[lbsf1]

That's a massive leap of faith to put yourself in a dynamic situation and trust that something works properly.

For example, say I told you the new Volvo V99 was safe in a 70mph impact, and proved it by crashing it into a deformable object at 70mph. Convinced?

Now I tell you to sit in it, with no extra protection while I crash it on a public motorway, at 70mph, multi-car pile up and a HGV involved? Still feel safe?

No I wouldn't because it is being tested against something that is completely different to what its use would be. However if that glass withstands 3 shots of a machine gun It would definately stand up to a pistol shot. Thats like comparing the 70mph crash and then asking me if I felt comfortable crashing at 40mph into a deformable object.

In hind sight the whole bullet proof glass idea may not be a viable solution. However I still think that there must be other options available not just shooting to kill. The bullet proof glass was just the first thing that came into my mind. These are just idea's, what about remote control vehicles with sedative guns mounted on? , once again just an idea.

I feel however that today the death was avoidable if the police looked out of the box at other ways to deal with armed suspects without killing them and keeping the police safe and didn't just keep to standard protocol that hasn't changed much as technology has allowed for other options.

I don't blame the officers. They are doing what they have been told to do.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

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.

The kid was shot in a hallway. When they got reports that a kid has brought a gun to school, the police probably deployed at opposite ends of the corridor to stop the kid from running off and potentially harming someone else. When he pointed the toy gun at police, they opened fire. They'd be unlikely to shoot one another since they would have brought riot shields - a school hallway is very open and exposed. They could not confront the kid without some kind of cover in case the gun was real and he started shooting.

 

[McLaren]

You keep bringing up bullet proof glass, full body armor & what not. Do you forget that the typical police response does not carry these sort of items beyond a bullet proof vest?

To have one of these items become present, the police would have had to wait for them to show up. In that time, they would have to keep negotiating with the kid (which is what they were doing by telling him to drop it repeatedly). But what happens when the kid decides to raise the weapon & those items aren't available, such as was the case? You sure as hell don't let him pop off the first shot just because you're waiting on body armor & bullet proof glass.

You shoot to kill, end of story.

 

[bergauk]

You keep bringing up bullet proof glass, full body armor & what not. Do you forget that the typical police response does not carry these sort of items beyond a bullet proof vest?

To have one of these items become present, the police would have had to wait for them to show up. In that time, they would have to keep negotiating with the kid (which is what they were doing by telling him to drop it repeatedly). But what happens when the kid decides to raise the weapon & those items aren't available, such as was the case? You sure as hell don't let him pop off the first shot just because you're waiting on body armor & bullet proof glass.

You shoot to kill, end of story.

This. While it sucks that the poor kid had to die. The police handled it the right way. I would've done the same thing in their position. Talk the kid down, and if that failed to work and a threat of violence was presented towards myself and colleagues, I'd make sure that threat lasted as short as possible.

Waiting for bullet proof materials to arrive on scene would have taken too long. Even if they had let the kid sit there and point the gun at them, the possibility of it actually being fired and hitting one of the officers and wounding him is still there. Pellet guns aren't to be messed around with as they can actually break through skin if powerful enough.

 

[ExigeEvan]

No I wouldn't because it is being tested against something that is completely different to what its use would be. However if that glass withstands 3 shots of a machine gun It would definately stand up to a pistol shot. Thats like comparing the 70mph crash and then asking me if I felt comfortable crashing at 40mph into a deformable object.

How so? The video clearly shows 3 spaced shots and warns that the glass is only "resistant" not "proof". What happens when he chooses to fire the rest of his clip? On the same spot as the others?

But if you've already accepted that it's not the greatest idea I'll stop there.

 

[Joel]

Again, what's your point? Has your brother punched other kids at random, brandished a gun, and pointed it police after being told repeatedly to drop it?

Oh I'm fully supporting the police on this one, the kid pointed what was assumed to be a weapon at the police, and the only course of action was bullets to centre mass.

The other guy had bolded that the kid was 15 years old and in grade 8, bringing to light that he probably wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and likely failed a grade or two, because my 13 year old brother is also in 8th grade.

 

[terminator363]

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).

After reading a few chapters of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six the characters talk about pulling the trigger after one has deceased. According to the book muscles could spasm after being shot (meaning a person could pull the trigger as they go down). Shooting into the head of the target leaves less of a chance for that to happen, as the brain is the control center for the body's functions. I don't know if there is any truth to it but it sounds somewhat legitimate.

As for the situation I think the cops did the right thing. 👍

 

[dylansan]

No I wouldn't because it is being tested against something that is completely different to what its use would be. However if that glass withstands 3 shots of a machine gun It would definately stand up to a pistol shot. Thats like comparing the 70mph crash and then asking me if I felt comfortable crashing at 40mph into a deformable object.

In hind sight the whole bullet proof glass idea may not be a viable solution. However I still think that there must be other options available not just shooting to kill. The bullet proof glass was just the first thing that came into my mind. These are just idea's, what about remote control vehicles with sedative guns mounted on? , once again just an idea.

I feel however that today the death was avoidable if the police looked out of the box at other ways to deal with armed suspects without killing them and keeping the police safe and didn't just keep to standard protocol that hasn't changed much as technology has allowed for other options.

I don't blame the officers. They are doing what they have been told to do.

Any amount of time the officers took to set up some kind of alternate method or whatever you're suggesting would be time that the kid could have shot innocent people.

 

[niky]

Sad event, but the kid had it coming.

Perhaps it's hard to see from the perspective of a non-gun culture, but from an enforcement standpoint and a gun-safety standpoint, they did the correct thing.

No officer wants to shoot a kid. They have to be trained to shoot to kill. It has to be drilled into their heads, because if it isn't, they hesitate and lives (innocent and police alike) are lost. In the police and military, you are trained to shoot to kill. Not shoot to disable.

There's quite a difference between a police marksman with a scoped rifle lying down behind a hedge dozens of meters away, who's had the time to set up and zero in on his target, who is isolated and alone (or with a single hostage), and a regular officer who's faced with a gun-wielding assailant in a crowded school.

In the former case, having a hostage or clearly attempting "suicide by cop" in an area which the police have secured opens the doors to negotiation and maybe fancy trick shots.

In the latter, the police have to take every measure possible to ensure that no innocent bystanders get killed. Even crack marksmen with pistols will shoot center mass, because the risks of missing when you're aiming at smaller targets like arms or weapons is too great. Shooting the head is optimal, but you go for the body if you're rushed.

This isn't Hollywood. This is real life. No magic life-saving bulletproof equipment (actually... for portable equipment, bulletproof is a misnomer... vests and shields are merely bullet resistant). No A-Team shooting. No funny tricks like blowing up a nearby fire extinguisher with a bullet (with steel cylinders, not even remotely possible), no charismatic angel-faced cops talking down suspects, no fancy improvised lasso work with a police cordon. Just regular schlubs trained to use weapons facing a potential killer.

If cops were better equipped, had tasers that could be fired around corners or taser shells... maybe... but tasers carry their risks. For one, they're not 100% effective. If the suspect is psychotic or hooked up on drugs, he may be able to shake off its effects... or, at the very least, get off a wild shot before going down. And there is still a chance of the suspect dying.

 

[terminator363]

If cops were better equipped, had tasers that could be fired around corners or taser shells... maybe... but tasers carry their risks. For one, they're not 100% effective. If the suspect is psychotic or hooked up on drugs, he may be able to shake off its effects... or, at the very least, get off a wild shot before going down. And there is still a chance of the suspect dying.

Look at my comment about muscle spasms. I'm pretty sure a taser is intended to cause muscle spasms (that's how it's meant to work, taking people down to the ground), in turn causing the assailant to fire rounds without intent.

 

[Slick Rick]

After reading the article I think the Officer's actions were perfectly reasonable.. A terrible decision for anyone to have to make but the correct one.

I feel sorry for the family and more so to the Police Officers who had to shoot..

The only alternative I can think of would be if there was more than one officer in the stand off then maybe one of them could have been armed with a taser to incapacitate the suspect as soon as they had the chance??

EDIT: Just read the last few posts, some good points....

 

[niky]

Look at my comment about muscle spasms. I'm pretty sure a taser is intended to cause muscle spasms (that's how it's meant to work, taking people down to the ground), in turn causing the assailant to fire rounds without intent.

Yup... there is that... which is why most cops will only taser an armed suspect before he draws the weapon.