Texas Police Shoot 8th Grader Holding Pellet Gun

[McLaren]

I don't want to sound racist, but the boy's last name is Gonzalez, which suggests he is of some Spanish heritage right? Maybe he brought the "gun" to school because he was tired of being picked on by the other kids, which would also explain why he randomly punched another kid, thats the only logical explanation I can think of really.. Again I don't want to come across as racist, but unfortunately as much as we try to hide and ignore it, it still exists within our society today. As for the officers, should they have shot him? Some would say yes, the kid had a "gun" and was a threat, but at the same time, no shots were fired by the kid... I'm going with that they shouldn't have shot him, but to late now.

Let me tell you as a Texas resident, that you more than likely have gone in the opposite direction of what was really going on.

8th graders aren't normally picking on races either; it's not a subject they typically follow.

 

[CSLACR]

I don't want to sound racist, but the boy's last name is Gonzalez, which suggests he is of some Spanish heritage right? Maybe he brought the "gun" to school because he was tired of being picked on by the other kids, which would also explain why he randomly punched another kid, thats the only logical explanation I can think of really.. Again I don't want to come across as racist, but unfortunately as much as we try to hide and ignore it, it still exists within our society today. As for the officers, should they have shot him? Some would say yes, the kid had a "gun" and was a threat, but at the same time, no shots were fired by the kid... I'm going with that they shouldn't have shot him, but to late now.

Except that's not logic. Logic is deductive reasoning, you're using inductive reasoning. Each have their use, but just because you can't think of something that "makes more sense" with very limited information, well that means squat to be perfectly honest.

So you'd rather the police wait until the kid shoots your son before shooting a perp? I wouldn't.
We all like to call 15 a "kid", and it is a very young-and-dumb age, but a 15 year old knows damn well not to be pointing guns at people, especially people with guns,(police) damn well old enough to know better then this.
It's a shame, but let's try not to act like this is a 7 year old that can't grasp the consequences of life and death, and didn't know the meaning of what he was doing.

This is really a lose/lose situation for a cop. He shoots and kills a kid, he becomes the bad guy. If he allows hior anyone else to get shot by the guy with the gun (under the assumption it was real), he becomes a bad cop for not protecting others. Honestly, I think whoever shot him made the right decision. I can't stand how anyone judges another person from their action with out knowing the situation. Some people were mad the kid was shot in the head. Its not like a cop actually aimed for the head, because that is just stupid. What if the kid was falling and he shot? And the three bullets too. What if they were fired almost simultaneously? It definitely could not have been a "Robocop Scene" where someone has already been killed and the shooter just keeps shooting. I stand by the cops on this one. Its not an easy job, you know.

Exactly. It's easy to make judgement knowing it was a pellet gun, but they didn't know that.
So we have to look at it this way - The kid was holding a loaded pistol, capable of killing anyone he shot with it, do police have the "right" to shoot him dead? Why yes, yes they do.

 

[Famine]

lbsf1... There are several rules about guns, but there's two big ones. Kind of the Two Commandments. These are:

• The gun IS loaded.
• The gun is pointing at something you are happy to destroy

This applies to the guy wielding it as well as everyone else - it's for your safety and everyone else's. You don't pick up a gun and look down the barrel - it IS loaded and you're happy to destroy your head. You don't pick up a gun and point it at people "for a laugh" - it IS loaded and you're happy to destroy your friends. You don't make a fake gun look real and point it at the cops with guns after they've told you to put it down - it IS loaded and you're happy to destroy the cops, and they know it's loaded and you're happy to destroy them.

 

[Nicksfix]

Good job by police. I would've clapped.
This kid would've gone on to spread bad genes later in life.

Clapped ?
If I were the police in this situation, I would have found reason to cuff and stuff you. This is a non applauding, non laughing situation. This was serious business going down. There is no reason to applaud the death of a 15 year old kid, regardless of the fact that he failed to step down / dis-arm when instructed to do so by the police.

lbsf1... There are several rules about guns, but there's two big ones. Kind of the Two Commandments. These are:

• The gun IS loaded.
• The gun is pointing at something you are happy to destroy

This applies to the guy wielding it as well as everyone else - it's for your safety and everyone else's. You don't pick up a gun and look down the barrel - it IS loaded and you're happy to destroy your head. You don't pick up a gun and point it at people "for a laugh" - it IS loaded and you're happy to destroy your friends. You don't make a fake gun look real and point it at the cops with guns after they've told you to put it down - it IS loaded and you're happy to destroy the cops, and they know it's loaded and you're happy to destroy them.

This is something that you can applaud *golfclap*

Just a thought. Right now, there is probably some hot shot attorney writing up documents to be filed against the police because they somehow acted out of order. The police failed to do this ..... The police failed to do that ..... They should have done this ..... They should have done that ..... Why wasn't this done ..... Why wasn't that done ...... Sad,very sad, the police do their job accordingly and will probably end up getting scrutinized over it in the long run.

Lawsuits ...... the American way (or so it seems anymore). It will be interesting to see what becomes of this story.

 

[Blitz24]

Clapped ?
If I were the police in this situation, I would have found reason to cuff and stuff you. This is a non applauding, non laughing situation. This was serious business going down. There is no reason to applaud the death of a 15 year old kid, regardless of the fact that he failed to step down / dis-arm when instructed to do so by the police.



This is something that you can applaud *golfclap*

Just a thought. Right now, there is probably some hot shot attorney writing up documents to be filed against the police because they somehow acted out of order. The police failed to do this ..... The police failed to do that ..... They should have done this ..... They should have done that ..... Why wasn't this done ..... Why wasn't that done ...... Sad,very sad, the police do their job accordingly and will probably end up getting scrutinized over it in the long run.

Lawsuits ...... the American way (or so it seems anymore). It will be interesting to see what becomes of this story.

Lawsuits in some instances have no warrant and have no use. Many of the lawsuits in this day and age are completely frivolous lawsuits (such as burning oneself with hot coffee due to brain fade or putting a car on cruise control and going to sleep only to find out that the car won't brake for traffic and you crash). Granted, these instances are due to complete and utter lack of thinking and the gun issue is a serious issue.

Still, what could possibly come from the lawsuit? Unless there were tests that the child was suffering from mental issues (which then would deem the parents at fault for not being more cautious with their own child) that were done and everyone BUT the police knew about it then MAYBE I could view the police at fault. Did anybody know if the gun was fake? Did any of the kid's friends (or any of his classmates) know that the gun was fake? Was their a prior instance in which he brought in a fake weapon? The only information known is that the kid randomly started attacking another child and then decided to brandish a fake gun and after refusing to lay down the weapon (and stop pointing it at police, both of which were guidelines that the police followed) he was shot. The police followed the rules they were instructed to follow in a very unfortunate situation. The lawsuit may only reveal what rules everyone else didn't follow in the tragic situation.

 

[David]

Just a thought. Right now, there is probably some hot shot attorney writing up documents to be filed against the police because they somehow acted out of order. The police failed to do this ..... The police failed to do that ..... They should have done this ..... They should have done that ..... Why wasn't this done ..... Why wasn't that done ...... Sad,very sad, the police do their job accordingly and will probably end up getting scrutinized over it in the long run.

Lawsuits ...... the American way (or so it seems anymore). It will be interesting to see what becomes of this story.

And if they hadn't killed him, but shot him in the knee or arm instead they'd be trying to sue the police for that as well I'm sure (Why did you act differently than you were trained to? You've maimed my client!!).

Anyway... don't point guns at police officers and expect to have a chat. This isn't a movie.

 

[Nessy]

I think they should have shot him in the knee or arm instead... i'm not saying in this instance that the police over-reacted, but they have been known to over-react in the past...

(please check link)

http://revolutionaryfrontlines.wordpress.com/tag/victim-shot-100-times/

 

[Northstar]

I think they should have shot him in the knee or arm instead...

And what if one bullet missed and hit another student?

I'm also well aware that there have been cops that have abused their power, just as I'm aware anybody in an authority position has abused their powers over time. This however, is not one of those instances.

 

[niky]

I was a Japanese ESL(English as a Second Language) student, in the United States. Did I get picked on because of my race, or my nationality? Sure. It wasn't bad, but it was 1987. '87 wasn't 1950's, but it wasn't exactly 2012 either.

Be very glad it wasn't the Fifties... my mother was only half-Japanese, but very obviously so, and even her nearly fully Caucasian siblings had it bad in those days.

Funny thing, they weren't being picked on because their father was half-German...

-

Having experienced racism, discrimination and bullying myself, I've never found myself carrying a gun to school, either. I can't claim that I was the worst off, but I've seen my fair share of knives, guns, lead pipes and tear gas.

I think they should have shot him in the knee or arm instead... i'm not saying in this instance that the police over-reacted, but they have been known to over-react in the past...

Again, only someone who's had no gun training* would ever say this. You can't aim for an arm or a leg, not in a combat situation, and not safely. Shooting guns out of assailant's hands happens all the time in Hollywood, but almost never in real life.

I'm from a gun restricted society, but in my line of work, I have to learn how to shoot (I'm a good shot, but a slow draw).

S.O.P., as Famine puts it, is that the gun is ALWAYS loaded, even when it's not, and when you're pointing it at someone, you only point it at someone you are willing to shoot.

And when someone is pointing a gun at you in a combat situation, you shoot quickly, center mass, and you always fire at least two shots at your target. More if you have the time. Because a merely wounded target can fire back. A dead one won't.

 

[a6m5]

I think they should have shot him in the knee or arm instead... i'm not saying in this instance that the police over-reacted, but they have been known to over-react in the past...

(please check link)

http://revolutionaryfrontlines.wordpress.com/tag/victim-shot-100-times/

*REpeat of what niky said, but I'm too lazy to change it.
No offense, but this is exactly something someone ignorant(or maybe overconfident) about firearms would say. These cops are not practicing at some shooting range, and even then, they might still miss. I think TVs & movies give people the wrong impression about the level of accuracy we can expect from firearms, or the shooters. Even if you hit the arm or the leg, that doesn't automatically disable the perpetrator either. He will be in pain, but he could still shoot. Maybe right back at the cop who just shot him in his arm or leg.

If we required American police officers to shoot only in the arms or legs, more police & innocent people will die unnecessarily. Guaranteed. And don't forget: You WILL live, if you just drop the darn(G-Rated for general audience) pistol. Are we really asking so much of the gunman, or are the law so unreasonable that some of you want to put this on the cop?

The thing here is, who's life do you value more? The gunman threatening the lives of others, or the lives of innocent people & the police?

Be very glad it wasn't the Fifties... my mother was only half-Japanese, but very obviously so, and even her nearly fully Caucasian siblings had it bad in those days.

Funny thing, they weren't being picked on because their father was half-German...

Yeah, I can only imagine how bad the minorities had it during the 50's. 1987 was much, much closer to today than to the 50's. That's fo sho.

Having experienced racism, discrimination and bullying myself, I've never found myself carrying a gun to school, either. I can't claim that I was the worst off, but I've seen my fair share of knives, guns, lead pipes and tear gas.

Did you grow up in Brooklyn? j/k

 

[niky]

I think TVs & movies give people the wrong impression about the level of accuracy we can expect from firearms, or the shooters.

I think it goes both ways... there are those which show people deliberately "winging" assailants to bring them in alive (incredibly difficult, considering what a small target an arm is when it's up and holding a gun pointed at you), and those that show millions of bullets being fired without anyone being hit.

But given the doctrine of "suppressing fire" and the fact that fully automatic gunfire is notoriously erratic and inaccurate, A-Team shooting is actually a lot closer to the truth than people think... except that once in a while, people actually get hit.

Did you grow up in Brooklyn? j/k

Queens, baby. But I didn't get beat up (or discriminated against) till I got here.

 

[Nessy]

@niky & a6m5.

You're both right, iv'e never had gun training (thankfully will never need to).. and yes i guess i'm being rather naive... i just feel it's a shame that someone had to lose their life.

In this instance the Police probably did the right thing... but the link that i posted (which neither of you have commented on it seems), i tend to think the police over-reacted.... what are your thoughts?

 

[a6m5]

I think it goes both ways... there are those which show people deliberately "winging" assailants to bring them in alive (incredibly difficult, considering what a small target an arm is when it's up and holding a gun pointed at you), and those that show millions of bullets being fired without anyone being hit.

But given the doctrine of "suppressing fire" and the fact that fully automatic gunfire is notoriously erratic and inaccurate, A-Team shooting is actually a lot closer to the truth than people think... except that once in a while, people actually get hit.



Queens, baby. But I didn't get beat up (or discriminated against) till I got here.

Brooklyn.... Queens..... Same difference, niky. Same difference.

And I think we all saw A-Team name coming up as soon as you mentioned the million missed bullets.

@niky & a6m5.

You're both right, iv'e never had gun training (thankfully will never need to).. and yes i guess i'm being rather naive... i just feel it's a shame that someone had to lose their life.

In this instance the Police probably did the right thing... but the link that i posted (which neither of you have commented on it seems), i tend to think the police over-reacted.... what are your thoughts?

I don't think you would dispute that the story from the link is biased against the Miami Beach Police Department. I wasn't familiar with the incident, so I did do a quick google search on this.

First of all, this is a cluster. With the police saying one thing, and writer from your story calling police liars. Without being there, or seeing all the evidence, I can't say for sure if the police overreacted.

There seems to be two facts:

1) He ran from the police in his car.
2) He crashed into Police car/barricade.

And Miami Beach Police is claiming:

1) He was armed.
2) He was trying to run over police officers.

Based on those two facts + what the police are saying, I would have to say that the driver asked for it. If I was driving away from the police, then risking the lives of others by driving them over with my car, I personally would understand that police might shoot at me.

As for the 11 officers firing over 100 rounds, that does sound excessive, but again, I'm not sure what they were trying to do. How many of those were warning shots, or shot in attempt to stop the car?(tires, engine, etc.).

In conclusion, while it's entirely possible that cops just decided to go John Wayne(maybe more like medieval on his....) on the driver, but when the said driver tried to crash through a police roadblock, common sense says that the driver was not very smart to understand the risks involved.

Edit: Sorry, I just saw the video on the link. Going solely by the video, I still can't say for sure. If the driver actually was armed, and if he looked like he was going to use it, then I would say the police probably did the right thing. I can't defend the police for sure though, because again, the video does not clearly show the driver.

Edit2: If the story linked was pro-driver, this is pro-police:

BOYNTON BEACH — A 22-year-old man who was shot to death Monday by police in Miami Beach has been identified as the gunman in a shooting at a Boynton Beach BP gas station last November, according to Boynton Beach police.

Raymond Herisse of Boynton Beach was shot and killed by Miami Beach and Hialeah officers after a chase that started just before 4 a.m. on Memorial Day. Authorities in Miami Beach said Herisse fled in his car after Hialeah officers attempted a traffic stop.

According to police, Herisse struck one of the officers and nearly hit others as he fled. Miami Beach Police Chief Carlos Noriega told The Miami Herald that Herisse sped off and officers on bicycles had to jump out of the way as Herisse ran over the bicycles, drove on the sidewalk and struck countless vehicles for about three blocks on Collins Avenue.......

.........Palm Beach County jail records show Herisse has been arrested 13 times since 2007.

According to the jail records, Herisse was last booked into the county jail in February 2010 on drug possession charges. He was released the next month

link

 

[Nessy]

Thanks for posting that link a6m5, it's always good to get different perspectives to a story..

The thing is... there actually seems to be 4 facts.

1) He ran from the police in his car
2) He crashed into the police barricade
3) The 12 police officers discharged 100 rounds into the car
4) The police held a gun to someone who had caught it on his cellphone (footage can be seen)

I'm not disputing that the police perceived him to be a threat.. i'm just questioning did they over-react?

One thing is for sure, is that there will always be 2 differing view-points over what actually went down.. just like you correctly stated>.. pro-driver or pro-police.

In this particular instance, i would have to say i lean more towards the pro-driver story... yes it is hard to truly know what is happening (footage is low quality), but certain questions have to be raised... why did an armed police officer hold a gun to the witness filming it on his phone?, did the police themselves think that they handled the situation well? and if so why try to destroy the evidence?

In the link that you provided, there was no mention of what actually happened.. just information of the victims previous criminal record.
Another strange fact that had emerged, was the police announced they had actually found a fire-arm in the car (on the floorboard behind the drivers seat).... it took them 2 days to announce this?!?!... why would it take so long for the police to announce this?

(link): http://www.beachedmiami.com/2011/06/05/parsing-memorial-day-shooting-south-beach/

I think ultimately it's a tough 1 to call, but imo, i still think the police over-reacted going from what iv'e read... having said that, i think it's a shame there seems to be no unbiased report of the situation (that i can find anyway).. i did stumble across this interesting blog someone had written though... and i think it makes some important points.

it may appear to be biased but please take the time to read it:
http://www.thepomoblog.com/index.php/category/journalism/page/2/

 

[a6m5]

Thanks for posting that link a6m5, it's always good to get different perspectives to a story..

The thing is... there actually seems to be 4 facts.

1) He ran from the police in his car
2) He crashed into the police barricade
3) The 12 police officers discharged 100 rounds into the car
4) The police held a gun to someone who had caught it on his cellphone (footage can be seen)

I'm not disputing that the police perceived him to be a threat.. i'm just questioning did they over-react?

One thing is for sure, is that there will always be 2 differing view-points over what actually went down.. just like you correctly stated>.. pro-driver or pro-police.

In this particular instance, i would have to say i lean more towards the pro-driver story... yes it is hard to truly know what is happening (footage is low quality), but certain questions have to be raised... why did an armed police officer hold a gun to the witness filming it on his phone?, did the police themselves think that they handled the situation well? and if so why try to destroy the evidence?

In the link that you provided, there was no mention of what actually happened.. just information of the victims previous criminal record.
Another strange fact that had emerged, was the police announced they had actually found a fire-arm in the car (on the floorboard behind the drivers seat).... it took them 2 days to announce this?!?!... why would it take so long for the police to announce this?

(link): http://www.beachedmiami.com/2011/06/05/parsing-memorial-day-shooting-south-beach/

I think ultimately it's a tough 1 to call, but imo, i still think the police over-reacted going from what iv'e read... having said that, i think it's a shame there seems to be no unbiased report of the situation (that i can find anyway).. i did stumble across this interesting blog someone had written though... and i think it makes some important points.

it may appear to be biased but please take the time to read it:
http://www.thepomoblog.com/index.php/category/journalism/page/2/

I know that I've said I'm not sure, or I can't say for sure. At the same time, obviously, this could easily turnaround and reflect right back on the conduct of the officers as well.

If the driver actually did hit the officer, ran over or crashed into some police cars, bikes, etc., I don't know how anyone could dispute solely just the act of shooting.

Actual number of the shots fired, I feel is debatable. Over 100 is a lot, but between 11~12 officers, it's not like they reloaded and kept firing. Holding a gun to the person filming on cellphone, I don't know how that can be justified unless the person was ordered to drop down, or raise their hands and still disobeyed the police.

Finally, on the second link you've provided, I'm not sure if those bills are so out of line. It's not that I have faith in all the cops out there, but in tight situations, I honestly don't want police distracted by people filming while they take care of critical work. That's my personal take anyway, and as I suggested in these two particular cases: Both could easily been avoided if they just obeyed what the police were telling them. Driver should just pull over when the police tell them to. Gunman(or kid) should just put down the gun when the police shows up. Job of the police is not about the perpetrator's safety, it's about the safety of others. If I put myself in the position for the police to pull a gun on me, even if it was by an error, overreaction, etc. on the police officer's part, if I was shot, I would be the first one to admit that I brought that down on myself.

I know that you don't necessary agree with this, but that is my thought process on this subject.

In this country, you can always fight your fight in the courtroom, not on the streets. Especially against armed police!

 

[Nessy]

Indeed.. i don't think anybody would disagree that both situations could have been easily avoided, and i can understand that you may find it difficult to make a call with regards to the car shooting, and if the guy did do all those things... again, i don't think that anyone would solely dispute the act of shooting and although i think we disagree, i can still respect (and do) your viewpoint of the situation, but i'm still of the personal opinion (with regards to car shooting), that in that instance, to me, it looks like the Police acted with a knee-jerk reaction... 1 bullet fired sets off a whole flurry and regardless of there being 11-12 officers firing upon the car and driver... i still think 100 rounds is highly excessive and quite trigger happy.. especially when you consider (i imagine) these officers are probably fairly trained in controlled gunfire, and were possibly aiming for the core of the subject, i wonder.. does it take each individual officer roughly 8-10 shots to confidently think to themselves, "yeah!... this guy is stopped".

As for the 2nd link i posted, on the whole i think the police do a good job... but i do think at times the police need to be policed, i can think of many occasions, that if it wasn't for the general public filming certain examples of police misconduct, these actions would go unpunished.. as for distraction, i find it hard to be believe this would affect an officers role unless the person who was filming was in direct line of fire (or in close proximity) between that of the officer and intended target.. if the police are doing something wrong i expect them to be held culpable for their actions and if filming them in action is a way of doing this... then personally, i'm all for it.

Lastly, i do agree.. going up against armed officers and not complying... there really can only be 1 outcome.

 

[BobK]

So we're talking about something other than the 15-year-old 8th grader now? I think there was a subject change here that slid right past me somehow.

 

[a6m5]

So we're talking about something other than the 15-year-old 8th grader now? I think there was a subject change here that slid right past me somehow.

Yeah, sorry about that. Vote was pretty much unanimous on that one anyway. Am I right?

does it take each individual officer roughly 8-10 shots to confidently think to themselves, "yeah!... this guy is stopped".

Let us focus on this from the first part of your post, because I think we already have a pretty good understanding on our respective positions.

Let's say that I had my 9mm Glock out, and that I was trying to kill an armed driver inside a car. If I was good 20 feet or so away from the car, unless I confirm a head shot, I would probably take minimum of 4~5 shots in a controlled environment(like practicing, or staged). If I was freaking out, or excited like these guys were, I might come close to damn near emptying the clip(17 rounds). If I had larger caliber gun(.40~.45), little less, but not by that much. As noted in earlier posts, for one, a gunman can still fire his firearm, even after being shot. Secondly, with the man being inside the car, shooters will have very difficult time(perhaps impossible) how many of the bullets fired actually penetrated, or even hit the driver. On this, I am no expert, but it is my understanding that bullets, depending on the caliber, angle, distance, it might penetrate with ease, or it might stop even before hitting the driver. It sounds like an urban myth, but there is a story about 9mm bouncing off front windshield of a car. Considering the caliber & durability of modern windshield, I say it is entirely possible from a angle & a distance.

Regardless, 100+ rounds is a lot. But if I wanted to make sure I stopped the driver, if I was at the scene, I would not have stopped at 2, 3 shots, maybe not even with a larger caliber handgun.

As for the 2nd link i posted, on the whole i think the police do a good job... but i do think at times the police need to be policed, i can think of many occasions, that if it wasn't for the general public filming certain examples of police misconduct, these actions would go unpunished.. as for distraction, i find it hard to be believe this would affect an officers role unless the person who was filming was in direct line of fire (or in close proximity) between that of the officer and intended target.. if the police are doing something wrong i expect them to be held culpable for their actions and if filming them in action is a way of doing this... then personally, i'm all for it.

Like you, even though we are not exactly eye-to-eye on this, I can certainly respect & understand where you are coming from. I was pulled over by a local police officer one time in the past. I considered this stop 100% harassment. I drove a lowered Honda Accord(just 1.5 inches) at the time, and he started tailing me. I didn't get a ticket(not that he could have), but he was interrupted by a call on the radio(a real one ), so he had to take off before we got too far. And for probably few other reasons, I do somewhat resent the police. But in my life, not that everyone has similar experiences as me, I get annoyed by the jobs of everyday professionals fairly routinely. But face-to-face, with the police, it was just that one time. While I have no doubt that police screw up here & there, when you consider how much work they do everyday from disturbances to traffic stops to violent crimes, I think they are held up to way higher standards than most professionals already. Just for that alone, I'd rather not have people filming, or looking over the shoulders of the police while they are trying to work. Especially when you consider that there are so many video cameras on the streets these days. You can expect camera rolling at every police scene if it becomes accepted that it is OK to start filming where police is working.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I find it disturbing how our country proclaims itself as the best nation in the world, but yet we have children carrying guns or have intent to threaten another with a weapon.

Don't get me wrong, I love the stars and stripes, but those colors need to get washed. It looks tattered.

 

[niky]

I think in the case of a hundred bullets, excessive force could be argued, but it really depends on the situation.

It's true that cars and bullets are a funny mix... and yes, the angle of the windshield may actually bounce bullets... (for similar bullet-deflecting fun, see here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1btKoF_HZk
(Yes, it's real, yes, Mythbusters tested it... shoot a bullet at ice at a shallow enough angle and it'll simply bounce off it without deforming at all... and still maintain its spin)

On the other hand... you can actually shoot through the doors of a car and have most of your bullets go through. Understandably, this is a chance thing... there's a side impact protection beam that will deflect bullets, but those metal doors offer about as much protection otherwise as a screen door.

Very disappointing, though, that police officers undertook to destroy evidence. Yes, confiscate videos as evidence, justifiable. But destroying evidence, absolutely not.

 

[Azuremen]

Just for that alone, I'd rather not have people filming, or looking over the shoulders of the police while they are trying to work. Especially when you consider that there are so many video cameras on the streets these days. You can expect camera rolling at every police scene if it becomes accepted that it is OK to start filming where police is working.

As a photographer that always has his camera, I believe it is completely fine for me to document the police at work, provided it is a public space. Recording audio is a different matter, but if there is not expectation to privacy (sidewalk, bus, etc) then they have no legal precedent to tell me to stop. And if they attempt to take the camera from me or view the photos on it, its an illegal search unless they have a warrant.

While the police deal with a lot of crap, and are held to a high standard, they sign up knowing what to expect. And as public servants meant to uphold the peace, they should be held to a higher standard I feel. Often, they do a fine job with it, but I have dealt with my share of cops that just want to flex their authority - exactly why I think they should be documented, to keep them honest.

On the bullet angles, it is common knowledge bullets will ricochet off water at shallow angles, and most anything else. As a kid, a lot of time was spent going over where it was appropriate to shoot and what to keep in mind when setting up targets.

I find it disturbing how our country proclaims itself as the best nation in the world, but yet we have children carrying guns or have intent to threaten another with a weapon.

Don't get me wrong, I love the stars and stripes, but those colors need to get washed. It looks tattered.

Cause it is the guns that kill people, not the people holding them

I started shooting guns when I was 5. And honestly, I have a far better understand and respect for them than most people who have no experience with the things.

And as for intent to hurt people, I believe violence exists all around the world, though more often in the form of knife crime (I think the UK has a small market for stab proof school uniforms?) due to the lower count of guns in those nations. Not really an option for the US at this point.

Oh, lets not forget that if you really want to kill people, you just have to drive a car (with a bomb or not) into a public building. And most people have access to a car.

 

[a6m5]

As a photographer that always has his camera, I believe it is completely fine for me to document the police at work, provided it is a public space. Recording audio is a different matter, but if there is not expectation to privacy (sidewalk, bus, etc) then they have no legal precedent to tell me to stop. And if they attempt to take the camera from me or view the photos on it, its an illegal search unless they have a warrant.

While the police deal with a lot of crap, and are held to a high standard, they sign up knowing what to expect. And as public servants meant to uphold the peace, they should be held to a higher standard I feel. Often, they do a fine job with it, but I have dealt with my share of cops that just want to flex their authority - exactly why I think they should be documented, to keep them honest.

I think I'm more concerned with the interruption more than the filming itself? Sure, the police should tell people to give them space. Will they? Probably not.

If the space for the officers to work is respected, I do concede that I don't see much problem with people filming from distance, not that they could effectively restrict something like that anyway.

Interesting point on audio.

 

[Azuremen]

I think I'm more concerned with the interruption more than the filming itself? Sure, the police should tell people to give them space. Will they? Probably not.

If the space for the officers to work is respected, I do concede that I don't see much problem with people filming from distance, not that they could effectively restrict something like that anyway.

Interesting point on audio.

Respecting space and working distance is reasonable. It kind of dumbfounds me how people react to a police scene, which is to crowd around and more or less get in the way. Or in the case of traffic, slow excessively and stare, almost causing another scene themselves. What I am talking about is standing back with a camera and just documenting things without interfering. Hell, the last thing I want is to be arrested on the grounds of disrupting the police.

The legal precedent on audio originates, I think partially, from concerns of recording phone conversations with out permission. But the legal details around it are a bit fuzzy, just due to the complexities of when a conversation is considered private and not, which tends to differ from what can be seen in a public space. Likely from how normal conversation voices are not audible from much of a distance.

 

[sumbrownkid]

As a photographer that always has his camera, I believe it is completely fine for me to document the police at work, provided it is a public space. Recording audio is a different matter, but if there is not expectation to privacy (sidewalk, bus, etc) then they have no legal precedent to tell me to stop. And if they attempt to take the camera from me or view the photos on it, its an illegal search unless they have a warrant.

While the police deal with a lot of crap, and are held to a high standard, they sign up knowing what to expect. And as public servants meant to uphold the peace, they should be held to a higher standard I feel. Often, they do a fine job with it, but I have dealt with my share of cops that just want to flex their authority - exactly why I think they should be documented, to keep them honest.

On the bullet angles, it is common knowledge bullets will ricochet off water at shallow angles, and most anything else. As a kid, a lot of time was spent going over where it was appropriate to shoot and what to keep in mind when setting up targets.



Cause it is the guns that kill people, not the people holding them

I started shooting guns when I was 5. And honestly, I have a far better understand and respect for them than most people who have no experience with the things.

And as for intent to hurt people, I believe violence exists all around the world, though more often in the form of knife crime (I think the UK has a small market for stab proof school uniforms?) due to the lower count of guns in those nations. Not really an option for the US at this point.

Oh, lets not forget that if you really want to kill people, you just have to drive a car (with a bomb or not) into a public building. And most people have access to a car.

I don't have an issue with gun ownership, what I take as disturbing is that a child is willing to use a weapon on another in school. This goes beyond the gun ownership to a much larger societal issue.

 

[Azuremen]

I don't have an issue with gun ownership, what I take as disturbing is that a child is willing to use a weapon on another in school. This goes beyond the gun ownership to a much larger societal issue.

Violence is hardly a new issue in society though, even at young ages. It is just reported on quite a bit more because the media has found it gets attention.

 

[Keef]

News in general travels fast these days. It didn't used to. When my parents were my age, they weren't bombarded nonstop with all the bad things in the world like we are today. It makes our situation sound worse than it is - like Azuremen said, this is nothing new. We just didn't hear about it back in the day.