Police kill middle school student

Remove all ads!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/police-kill-armed-8thgrad_n_1183517.html?ncid=webmail1

Apparently he was wielding a pellet gun and refused to drop it. They fired three shots. You would think they could have had used taser guns to incapacitate him, or at the very least targeted a non-lethal area of the body. Killing an 8th grader just seems way out of line.

 

Anybody who shoots knows that you aim for the center mass. Shooting to injure is not what people are taught. Shooting to disarm is just Hollywood storytelling.

From the article it seems like the police had no reason to believe he didn't have a real gun and unfortunatly probably had no choice.

I feel bad for everyone involved as I'm sure the officers will have a really tough time dealing with this.

 

Snook is bang on with this, a miliisecond in a firearms situation could result in disaster, security forces (police etc) are trained to take decisive action, not to hesitate, when training to use a handgun you are trained to aim for the largest target - the torso, until that target is disabled many lives including your own, are at risk, depending on the situation you then decide to go for an aimed lethal shot. If you miss and that kid has a real gun its your arse. Back when I was training for security with the forces, we were trained to fire three shots to the chest, when the target was on the floor we were to empty all remaing rounds into the head.

 

Woah, the second part was a bit unexpected - your protocol called for confirmed killing of an incapacitated/downed threat? Just so we are clear, were you training for military security, or regular police?

I'm on the fence with this issue. Now, when someone brandishes what looks like a gun and doesn't listen to police command to put it down (especially if it's repeated), they do have the right to open fire. On the other hand, I expect that policemen would, as a matter of course, move in to arrest someone whom they shot, especially if a kid or senior. Finishing them off (in case they were playing dead) may be justified in acting against very dangerous and trained people - i.e. members of an organized crime group or at least a drug gang - but this is probably SWAT territory. "Special weapons and tactics" means they are armed, and act, differently than your neighborhood cop - and implies said neighborhood cop shouldn't act like them.

Overall, I don't think the cops were at fault, and it's tragic that it came to that, but I think their protocols might need some minor looking into. Two things strike me as peculiar, though. First, why wouldn't the police disclose what he said before being shot? If it's standard psychotic BS, no harm on them. It makes it seem like he was going to tell them "It's a toy" or some similar line that would make it a giant "oops" moment. Second, what happened to the concept of "warning shot," anyway? I thought this was standard procedure before the police open fire - at least unless first fired upon, but that wasn't the case here.

 

I'm with Shaman on this one - what the heck were you training for? I find it hard to believe that once the person is down the standard operating procedure is to fire three shots to the head - just in case he's faking it. Sounds like a scene from "Army of Darkness" - except in this case it's a gun, not an axe.

I know a lot of people in the army and police forces, and there is no such thing as a warning shot. You don't fire a warning shot because it's not like the bullet stops as soon as it goes past the person you're warning. It can ricochet, or go through a wall (or both) and hit an innocent person. The concept of a warning shot is as Hollywood as the town sheriff shooting a gun out of a bank robber's hand in a wild west action flick.

I also agree that all training in use of firearms is taught to fire at the center of mass - usually the torso. In addition to everything else that has been said, it should also be pointed out that the torso is the largest target you can hit on someone. It's a lot easier to hit the torso than the leg - or the hand if you're into Hollywood films.

And what else are the police supposed to do? If it was an accurate replica, there wouldn't be any way to tell from a distance that it wasn't a real gun. In such a situation, you have to be working with the assumption that if it looks like a real gun, that's it's a real freakin' gun. If you got a kid waving around what appears to be a real gun, then everyone at that school is at risk. The kid would be alive today if he had listened to police officers, thrown down the fake gun and cooperated. He would still be in a whole heap of trouble, but he'd be alive.

 

And this is why there are laws against fake guns, toy guns and the like. What they can look like and why they have to have those silly little colourful plugs.

As for training when I was in the army doing the guard training we were taught to fire a warning shot up in the air if the person approaching didn't comply with instructions.

 

In the US, the first warning shot is aimed for center of mass. US military is basically trained to engage until there is no threat. The number of rounds is not specified in any written instructions but I could see some lower level leaders training "double-tap" or an execution style engagement (double-tap to the chest and one in the head) -- such instruction is in general illegal.

Police are also instructed to engage until there is no threat. Some use double-tap as a practice. If you have two officers with weapons drawn in response to a threat, three rounds will easily go off once an engagement has started. That there were only three rounds does indicate restraint when faced with an armed threat.

And no one should be kidding themselves with the line that 'it was just a 15 year old kid.' Young teens are armed and killing -- especially in high drug influence towns like Brownsville (and Chicago ... and New York ... and LA ...).

 

Since the boy was holding a pellet gun, I'm assuming he was suicidal or that he was simply trying to play a prank on everyone. If it was the latter then he was probably panicking and disoriented, which was why he wouldn't drop the gun. While the police may be trained to use deadly force when necessary, civilians aren't exactly trained to drop a toy gun should they ever find themselves in facing armed officers. That's all common sense/experience, which in a panicking 15-year old one might find lacking.

I'm pretty sure what the police did was justified, but that doesn't help change the outcome. It's sad that there was no one present who might've been able to talk some sense into him in time.

 

You could shoot your eye out.

 

Your example: in Sweden

This example: in Texas

Nuff said.

 

I was trained by the forces, but police units are also trained to do this is a target is still a possible threat (if he could still push a button on a detonator for example - I draw attention to the police 'trojan' units who shot and killed charles de menzez), as I said, it depends on the situation.

from what Ive read in the article, I cant see how anyone could question police actions in this:

"the boy brandished what looked like a handgun and pointed it at officers"

never point a gun at an officer.

"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,""

The scene is set right here, lets also bring attention to the boy is 15, there are plenty of 15 yearolds shooting people around the world, there is no reason to believe that this is not a real threat.

"Shortly before the confrontation, the boy had walked into a classroom and punched a random boy in the nose for no apparent reason,"

boy has already commited a violent act.

""Why was so much excess force used on a minor?" he asked. "Three shots. Why not one that would bring him down?""

love this crap, a clear understanding or marksmanship and ballistics from parents... who lets face it are always experts when it comes to this kind of thing. When I read the "three shots between 2 officers" I thought, "thats not an attempt to kill, thats an attempt to bring him down gently"

they tried.

havent heared of that, you shoot a warning shot, he shoots you in the head wouldnt really work too well - after all, he is pointing his weapon at the officers.

Good post T2

 

Excellent post T2 (the first one). I enjoyed the second also.

The officers' reaction was dictated to them by the reality of the moment. They were offerd no alternative. I would believe that they both wish that there was any other way to have quelled the threat.

 

And yet, I think that is exactly how snipers in special forces units are trained. Take Osama bin Laden as an example. (Note, I am in no way implying that this boy and OBL are in any way comparable, I'm using it strictly for an example.) The SEAL team that took him out used the double tap method. One to the chest, one to the head, fired about 1/4 of a second apart.

 

Snipers operate on different orders than normal combatants. Soldiers are authorized to use deadly force to complete their mission -- for a sniper, killing a valid target is the mission. I'm not saying the mission to get OBL was an execution, but SEALs are generally sent in to kill (they are considered the premier assassins of the world).

The Marines actually have special units assigned to amphib battle groups with extensive training in unusual situations (including training to capture a target). The SEAL team was chosen instead of the Marines -- IMO either we wanted OBL dead or a Marine team was not close enough to respond in time.

 

Oh, I don't think there was any realistic chance that they considered capturing OBL alive. It was a kill mission. Unless the SEALs got there and OBL came out and knelt on the ground with his hands on his head, he was dead. While it was listed as a kill or capture mission, it was a kill if you can, capture if you must mission.

 

by who?

 

Anyone Navy ... but it's also true. I would challenge anyone to find an organization more adept at assassination. All-around special forces ... SAS is usually considered the best (with the SEALs a close second).