8th Grader Shot by Police in Middle School.

[Baxter]

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/art...-shooting.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...ad-pellet-gun/

Pretty sad story for after the Christmas break. 15 year old gets a (pellet) gun for Christmas, brings it to school to show off to his friends, police arrive and when we wont lower it, he's shot and killed. The police, and the school have gotten some flak for it.

EDIT: A cop friend I was talking to about this, sent me this text about it today also:
"Everyone during my shoot/no shoot training ran it perfectly...until the little kid with a gun scenario. I choose to be shot and when asked why, I told them I'd rather take my chances with hoping my vest would absorb the shot, rather then shooting a little kid. I passed."

[Tyr.]

15 year old gets a (pellet) gun for Christmas, brings it to school to show off to his friends, police arrive and when we wont lower it, he's shot and killed.

Bullshit.

What's your agenda here? What makes you think this kid got this as a toy for Christmas, and then wanted to "show it off" to his buddies?

Neither article mentions any of that. They do, however, point out that this 15yo came into school, assaulted another student, brandished the weapon, then refused to lower it when confronted by armed law enforcement officers. That's not an accidental shooting. We call that "suicide by cop".

Furthermore, I hope your cop buddy is just feeding you some liberal crap to keep you happy. If your friend seriously believes he would rather be killed than have to shoot an armed kid, then he is failing is his job. If a child shows hostile intent (Ie, refuses to lower the weapon) with a firearm, he needs to be dropped. I hope you understand that. If your buddy allows himself to be shot, then your buddy is responsible for failing to prevent whatever happens next. If that happens to be the massacre of a bunch of schoolkids, then that goes on your buddy's head. Taking an armed offender out of the fight is the FIRST priority - it does not matter what their age, religion, appearance or gender is.

Secondly, "hoping my vest would absorb the shot"? Ask your friend how much of his body is covered by his plate. He'll probably say his plate carrier (Shit, that's if he even wears one) will cover the front of his upper torso. A shot to the stomach, groin, thighs, neck or head will probably end his life. Furthermore, a firearm usually has more than one round in it. He might be lucky with the first, second or even third shot from the offender, but eventually he will be killed.

Thing is, with the police, it's always damned if you do and damned if you don't. These officers did the right thing and shot the perp, and now people will tear them a new asshole for it. Imagine how bad this could have been if the cops refused to shoot an armed suspect just because he was a kid? Columbine, anybody?

Good work to whichever officer shot this piece of shit kid.

- Yogi

[Shawn K.]

Originally Posted by Yogi

Bullshit.

Furthermore, I hope your cop buddy is just feeding you some liberal crap to keep you happy. If your friend seriously believes he would rather be killed than have to shoot an armed kid, then he is failing is his job. If a child shows hostile intent (Ie, refuses to lower the weapon) with a firearm, he needs to be dropped. I hope you understand that. If your buddy allows himself to be shot, then your buddy is responsible for failing to prevent whatever happens next. If that happens to be the massacre of a bunch of schoolkids, then that goes on your buddy's head. Taking an armed offender out of the fight is the FIRST priority - it does not matter what their age, religion, appearance or gender is.

Secondly, "hoping my vest would absorb the shot"? Ask your friend how much of his body is covered by his plate. He'll probably say his plate carrier (Shit, that's if he even wears one) will cover the front of his upper torso. A shot to the stomach, groin, thighs, neck or head will probably end his life. Furthermore, a firearm usually has more than one round in it. He might be lucky with the first, second or even third shot from the offender, but eventually he will be killed.


Good work to whichever officer shot this piece of shit kid.

- Yogi

Seems kinda cold. Can't wait to talk to my dad about this. He's an ex-cop. My uncle is the rangemaster for a police department, and my cousin is a police cadet. I'm betting all three will agree with you, though. Except for the "piece of shit kid" part.

[thebigmole]

Yeah I'm glad I read the articles and not just the OPs original post. Two completely different stories. This kid came to school with a weapon (since the rule is in schools, it it shoots ANYTHING it's a weapon), punched another kid in the nose, harassed the police, and refused to just put the gun down. Sounds like the kid wanted to get shot to me. The police did the right thing, it looked like a real gun and the kid had already assaulted another student.

[ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST]

If it looked like a real gun, then, it may be quite reasonable to believe it was. However, if the officer seriously would rather die than kill the person yes sometimes officers die before they kill the people. Fairly recently in my area that happened.

[Baxter]

Originally Posted by Yogi

Bullshit.

What's your agenda here? What makes you think this kid got this as a toy for Christmas, and then wanted to "show it off" to his buddies?

Baha. I actually fully support the police in this instance, I don't think I really gave off much of an impression that I didn't but whatever. But first day back from school on a Christmas break? I was repeating what I heard on TV on CNN, so I probably should have said "probably" though.

And it's the fact that its fucking traumatizing shooting a child, that's why. I can imagine even more so when you're a father to one at home. I don't necessarily completely agree with it in a school instance, but it's pretty damn understandable when someone doesn't want to kill a "piece of shit" little kid. Not everyone is so much of a robot that they see an armed gang banger the same as an armed child.

I have the book of that #1 Navy Seal sniper Chris Kyle who talks about when he saw a 7 year old carrying an RPG to hand off to someone. He could have shot the kid and stopped him, but he didn't, and instead prayed it would be taken care of later on by someone else, and is an event he doesn't regret. If the deadliest marksman in US history has issues like that, I can imagine millions of other officers and military men do too. I don't know about you, but stuff like that's pretty damn understandable if you have any sort of a heart.

[Aletheia*]

Cops aren't trained to ask "What kind of weapon is that?". Shoot first, ask questions later is their mentality. While at some points this isn't the best mentality to have, the cops were in the right here. This boy had every opportunity to put down the pellet gun, but he didn't want too. The cops COULDN'T have known what kind of gun it was, and honestly, they weren't going to take chances as not only their lives were at stake, but the lives of many young students. It's a sad story after the Christmas holiday's, but it sounds like this boy was asking for trouble.

[JKmadu619]

Being willing to die before being killed is by far the stupidest thing in the world. A police officer is supposed to serve and protect. Assuming the officer thought the gun was real: leaving yourself be killed, and leaving the school and/or other officers at the mercy of a psychotic bastard is by far the stupidest thing ever. It almost deserves the Darwin award.

It is sad the boy died, but sucide by law enforcement is more commong then you'd like to think, similair to joining the military with the intention or expectation of being killed in action.

[TigerTank77]

Let me post an example here.



Looks pretty real right?

Well, it's not. It's a BB gun. When they are sold on the market, they all come with an orange tip. However in some situations, like this one, and the 8th grader, they remove the orange to make it look more real. Which isn't illegal, but it can create problems.

It's a shitty situation, but the kid unfortunatley got what was coming to him.

If it was real, and he had shot someone while the cops were standing around, the backlash from the media and public would have been astronomical.

[ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Let me post an example here.



Looks pretty real right?

Well, it's not. It's a BB gun. When they are sold on the market, they all come with an orange tip. However in some situations, like this one, and the 8th grader, they remove the orange to make it look more real. Which isn't illegal, but it can create problems.

It's a shitty situation, but the kid unfortunatley got what was coming to him.

If it was real, and he had shot someone while the cops were standing around, the backlash from the media and public would have been astronomical.

Well either way they get backlash so they can't win either way.

[Shawn K.]

Originally Posted by ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST

Well either way they get backlash so they can't win either way.

The city's lawyers will tell you there's a big difference between "backlash" and "liability."

[ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST]

Originally Posted by Shawn K.

The city's lawyers will tell you there's a big difference between "backlash" and "liability."

big difference, but neither looks good on the city/department ECT.

[Anthropomorphic]

The cop was doing exactly what his training told him to do. The title of this thread seems to invite some loaded questions, but reading the article offers great clarity. Yes, I think it's unfortunate that a cop had to shoot a kid, but common sense dictates that he truly HAD to do it.

[Cosmo]

Most of you would probably expect me to be the first to jump on the Cop-hating bandwagon in this scenario.. but I actually think the cop did as well as he could. There's no way of telling the difference between a real gun and a fake gun. The officer ordered him to drop the weapon, and the kid refused. At this point it's Suicide By Cop, the kid clearly wanted to be shot, otherwise he'd have lowered the toy gun wouldn't he? Then there's also the fact that, if the gun was real, and the cop was himself shot by the kid, that kid can go on to shoot dozens more kids and it's on the cops head. He has to make that decision; does he risk it?

I would add though that the shot didn't have to be lethal. If he had shot perhaps the arm, maybe the leg, there would have been little to no permanent damage and would have most likely successfully defused the situation. However the cop was clearly in a very stressful situation that didn't leave a lot of time for decision making and he made the best effort he could.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Most of you would probably expect me to be the first to jump on the Cop-hating bandwagon in this scenario.. but I actually think the cop did as well as he could. There's no way of telling the difference between a real gun and a fake gun. The officer ordered him to drop the weapon, and the kid refused. At this point it's Suicide By Cop, the kid clearly wanted to be shot, otherwise he'd have lowered the toy gun wouldn't he? Then there's also the fact that, if the gun was real, and the cop was himself shot by the kid, that kid can go on to shoot dozens more kids and it's on the cops head. He has to make that decision; does he risk it?

I would add though that the shot didn't have to be lethal. If he had shot perhaps the arm, maybe the leg, there would have been little to no permanent damage and would have most likely successfully defused the situation. However the cop was clearly in a very stressful situation that didn't leave a lot of time for decision making and he made the best effort he could.

Agreed on all counts. Much as it is preferable to go for a non-lethal shot where possible, in the end the cop made the decision they did and had reasonable grounds for doing so. It's a tragic situation but blaming the cop for acting as if it were a real gun is purely a hindsight reaction and thus an unfair one.

@Baxter: Much as I approve of your friend's sentiment, it does somewhat overlook the possibility of the child shooting them in the head...

[Loving Linux Penguin]

I agree that the officers have every right to defend themselves, but they should also know how to disarm someone without killing them (for example shooting their hands or shins to make the person drop the weapon or fall to the ground). Someone being armed is no excuse for killing them.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Loving Linux Penguin

I agree that the officers have every right to defend themselves, but they should also know how to disarm someone without killing them (for example shooting their hands or shins to make the person drop the weapon or fall to the ground). Someone being armed is no excuse for killing them.

If the kid had shot the cop, what could he have gone on to do? Killed a few dozen students before the rest of the cops arrived? He had to make a decision, quickly. The gun looked real. He'd refused to put it down. He'd assaulted another student and brandished it in public. It's not as easy as just deciding to shoot the kid's right hand, or his leg, or his arm. When you point a gun at a cop, threaten members of the public and pose a viable threat to all involved you need to be taken down, immediately. The kid got what he deserved.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Loving Linux Penguin

I agree that the officers have every right to defend themselves, but they should also know how to disarm someone without killing them (for example shooting their hands or shins to make the person drop the weapon or fall to the ground). Someone being armed is no excuse for killing them.

Someone being armed, brandishing said weapon, and pointing at a cop. No excuse for killing them?

Come on, even you have to realize how ridiculous that sounds.

If you endanger other people's lives, including a cop's, your life is forfeit.

[Loving Linux Penguin]

I don't care if he was perceived as a threat or not--it is not necessary to kill him in order to mitigate the threat.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Loving Linux Penguin

I don't care if he was perceived as a threat or not--it is not necessary to kill him in order to mitigate the threat.

He wasn't shooting to kill, he was shooting to eliminate the thread. Whether it ends up killing him is a different story.

[Shawn K.]

Originally Posted by Loving Linux Penguin

I agree that the officers have every right to defend themselves, but they should also know how to disarm someone without killing them (for example shooting their hands or shins to make the person drop the weapon or fall to the ground). Someone being armed is no excuse for killing them.

Chris, my uncle trains cops to shoot their weapons. He's a rangemaster and trains on everything from 9mm to UPRs (Urban Patrol Rifles). Every time we talk about shootings like this he says you can't count on an officers accuracy under stress. There's just too much of a risk that the officer that's trying to just wound the guy misses, and the guy gets off a lucky shot that hits somebody between the eyes. He's shown me several cases where the officer actually got off a lethal shot, but so did the bad guy and they both died.

He said this is the same reason they don't taser or beanbag a guy holding a gun because it's too big a chance that the guy still gets a shot off. Cops are trained to shoot when the weapon is pointed, and not to wait until the guy actually shoots for this same reason.

Me and brother keep talking about this could have been one of our friends or classmates. It sucks.

[JKmadu619]

Shawn K.: So... much... win. I fact checked you, and indeed police are trained to shoot to kill. Simply "Injuring" the gunman, or even in some movie cases, shooting the gun out of his hand, just don't happen in real life. If you believe there is enough danger to be shooting someone, you will NOT be pissing around trying to knee cap them. Anyhow, shooting him in the leg may have hit an artery and the child would be dead anyway, plus the officer would be facing charges for endagering the rest of the school by taking a potentially non-lethal shot.

No one wins in suicide by law enforcement.

- Justin

[TakeTheLeap]

I agree on most of the points that everyone here has made. The cop was certainly in the right here, and shouldn't be punished in any way for it. It sounds like the cop responded in exactly the way he was trained to do - request that the gun be dropped, and since it wasn't, to proceed to the next step.
For those that say the shot doesn't have to be lethal, I want you to consider someone who is, say, on steroids and has a gun. If you shoot them in the leg, for instance, it's not likely that they will stop. Although that wasn't the issue in this situation, those who weild guns are trained to, "Shoot to stop." A shot to the chest is the first step, not because it will do the most damage, but because it is the largest target and most easily hit. Going for the arms or legs is stupid because they are the most easily missed and in many situations, shooting for smaller masses means putting those around the criminal at risk as well.

I'm glad the cop did as he was trained and I'm sure he will feel guilty for the rest of his life... Most people don't realize that cops do have hearts, and although they're trained to shoot, they aren't trained to cope with it. I'm sure he'll be the first to send flowers to the family to offer his condolences, will apologize profusely, and I'm -sure- he will probably go to the kid's funeral.

[Loving Linux Penguin]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

He wasn't shooting to kill, he was shooting to eliminate the thread. Whether it ends up killing him is a different story.

I didn't say he was INTENDING to kill, but that doesn't mean he couldn't try to AVOID killing him.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Loving Linux Penguin

I didn't say he was INTENDING to kill, but that doesn't mean he couldn't try to AVOID killing him.

You're asking him to do something he's not trained to do, that would ultimately endanger more lives and create more issues than what he's been actually trained to do.

The utopian fantasies of "non-lethal" shots are for action movies and video games. Do you know how difficult it is to hit a target with a handgun? Now imagine there's some kid pointing a "gun" at you, who's refusing to put it down, who you already know has assaulted one student. Your adrenaline is pumping, your hands are shaking, and you have ONE shot. What do you do?

You shoot to neutralize the threat, in the quickest and most efficient way possible, and that way is a shot at center mass. Whether or not the shot was lethal is irrelevant. Cops don't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop. You shoot until the threat stops being a threat. If the target should survive, fine. If not, well that's unfortunate for the target.

Anything else is foolish and a liability.

Look, I get where everyone who's saying he didn't have to kill the kid is coming from. We all do. It sucks, and it's horrible, and we all wish it could have ended differently.

But it didn't. The cop shouldn't have killed the kid? The kid shouldn't have painted over the gun. The kid shouldn't have brought the gun to school. The kid SHOULD HAVE DROPPED IT WHEN THE COP TOLD HIM TO DROP IT OR ELSE. When I was in 8th grade, I was fully aware of my actions. So was he, and he paid the price.

This whole "WHAT IF HE DID A SLOW MOTION COMBAT ROLE AND SHOT THE GUN OUT OF THE KID'S HAND" non-sense needs to stop. Now. The only thing this kind of thinking shows is a severe lack of understanding about how firearms and firearms training works.

[Loving Linux Penguin]

To say "this is how it works, and that's the end of it" is plain ridiculous. Just because cops AREN'T trained to mitigate threats with the least possible harm doesn't mean that said training cannot take place. While I admit that I do not know every fact of the story, and therefore this may or may not be true, but I would like to submit that I would THINK it would be conceivable for a taser to be deployed in this situation. Win win for everyone. The kid gets tased, he loses control, probably drops the gun because every muscle in his body is in a state of spasm, and he can be safely taken into custody and tried. Again, I don't know all of the specific facts of the situation, so it may be impossible, but I think this is a situation where a taser would be reasonable use of force.

Look: of COURSE he shouldn't have a gun in school, of COURSE he should not be aiming it at police, and of COURSE he should be dropping the weapon upon command from a law enforcement officer. But that does not change the fact that police officers are not judges, juries, and executioners. They are police officers--nothing more and nothing less. And whether he was using poor judgement or not, whether he was disobeying a lawful order or not, whether he was pointing a gun at a cop which he should NEVER do or not, whether he had assaulted another student or not: it is not the job of police officers on the scene to find him guilty of all these things and shoot him dead because of it. Their job is to enforce the law, and they should be required by both regulation and law to do that with the least amount of force and bloodshed possible--and this does not sound like a situation in which they had no other option but to kill a 13 yr old child.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Loving Linux Penguin

To say "this is how it works, and that's the end of it" is plain ridiculous. Just because cops AREN'T trained to mitigate threats with the least possible harm doesn't mean that said training cannot take place. While I admit that I do not know every fact of the story, and therefore this may or may not be true, but I would like to submit that I would THINK it would be conceivable for a taser to be deployed in this situation. Win win for everyone. The kid gets tased, he loses control, probably drops the gun because every muscle in his body is in a state of spasm, and he can be safely taken into custody and tried. Again, I don't know all of the specific facts of the situation, so it may be impossible, but I think this is a situation where a taser would be reasonable use of force.

How in the name of all that is holy is a taser the appropriate response to a suspect with a gun? That's insane. Completely insane. You again are using facts after the event has happened to determine your judgement of how the officer responded.

No, he would not drop the gun, his muscles would not "spaz" out. Most people lock up and go completely tense. That'll almost certainly ensure the trigger gets pulled. And then a cop or some innocent bystander could have caught the bullet. And then we'd all be asking why they didn't just shoot him.

Originally Posted by Loving Linux Penguin

Look: of COURSE he shouldn't have a gun in school, of COURSE he should not be aiming it at police, and of COURSE he should be dropping the weapon upon command from a law enforcement officer. But that does not change the fact that police officers are not judges, juries, and executioners. They are police officers--nothing more and nothing less. And whether he was using poor judgement or not, whether he was disobeying a lawful order or not, whether he was pointing a gun at a cop which he should NEVER do or not, whether he had assaulted another student or not: it is not the job of police officers on the scene to find him guilty of all these things and shoot him dead because of it. Their job is to enforce the law, and they should be required by both regulation and law to do that with the least amount of force and bloodshed possible--and this does not sound like a situation in which they had no other option but to kill a 13 yr old child.

"Serve And Protect."

Protect means making sure someone with a firearm doesn't kill an innocent person. It also means protecting themselves from something life-threatening.

If this was an older individual, no one would be saying a damn thing. "oh, should have known better. oh well." The fact that it was some 13 year old kid is the only reason people are attempting to pull the "cop should have known better, this should have been done differently" card.

The cop wasn't thinking that he was executing the kid for his crimes. He was thinking about protecting himself and the people around him from some maniac with a gun. Age was not a factor. "Child" was not a factor. "Gun being pointed at me and others" was the factor.

Thats it.

Stop defending this kid, seriously. Again, this whole "non-lethal only" thing is a fantasy, plain and simple.

They don't train cops in this manner out of laziness. Do some research on it, seriously. Not from a shoot-em-up flick either. They do it because when all of the factors are considered, it's the best option available to them, in the terms of lives saved and force applied.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Loving Linux Penguin

To say "this is how it works, and that's the end of it" is plain ridiculous. Just because cops AREN'T trained to mitigate threats with the least possible harm doesn't mean that said training cannot take place. While I admit that I do not know every fact of the story, and therefore this may or may not be true, but I would like to submit that I would THINK it would be conceivable for a taser to be deployed in this situation. Win win for everyone. The kid gets tased, he loses control, probably drops the gun because every muscle in his body is in a state of spasm, and he can be safely taken into custody and tried. Again, I don't know all of the specific facts of the situation, so it may be impossible, but I think this is a situation where a taser would be reasonable use of force.

Look: of COURSE he shouldn't have a gun in school, of COURSE he should not be aiming it at police, and of COURSE he should be dropping the weapon upon command from a law enforcement officer. But that does not change the fact that police officers are not judges, juries, and executioners. They are police officers--nothing more and nothing less. And whether he was using poor judgement or not, whether he was disobeying a lawful order or not, whether he was pointing a gun at a cop which he should NEVER do or not, whether he had assaulted another student or not: it is not the job of police officers on the scene to find him guilty of all these things and shoot him dead because of it. Their job is to enforce the law, and they should be required by both regulation and law to do that with the least amount of force and bloodshed possible--and this does not sound like a situation in which they had no other option but to kill a 13 yr old child.

I'm sorry but this post is INCREDIBLY naive. And I shall excuse that slightly because you obviously didn't read the article closely enough. While the boy was in the 8th grade he was 15, which would suggest that the kid had some issues anyway. He was NOT a child. 15, if he had shot someone in lived he would probably be tried as an adult. Now that that's out of the way.

If he had actually shot someone I highly doubt you would be saying this. The kid had already assaulted another student, and let's keep in mind he was 2 years older than most of the other oldest students in the school, what if he had a real gun and had shot that kid. Would you still be wishing that the cops had only wounded him, or would you be glad the effectively eliminated the threat before another CHILD was shot.

The cops were not being "judge, jury, and executioner" they were doing their JOB and protecting the other CHILDREN that were there. I care significantly less for the brat TEENAGER who put the other kid's lives in danger, than the other children. The cops job were to protect the people who weren't holding the gun. And they did their job. And the kid got what he obviously wanted.

I mean I just don't think you get it, have you ever really looked into some of the major school shootings? Columbine? Virginia Tech? Let's look at Virginia Tech shall we. Two hours before the shooting spree in the classrooms the shooter shot two people in a dorm. Now of course the cops were called and let's say someone else saw that Cho was the guy who shot and killed these two people. So now the cops are on the lookout for him. And let's say a cop spots him walking towards the building he was about to shoot up. And the cop tells him to freeze or whatever and Cho pulls out a gun. Now let's say that the cop decides just to shoot to wound and succeeds. Except as a result of adrenaline and sheer will the gunshot didn't slow the shooter down, instead he shoots the cop and then continues on his way shooting more students. You really want to pat that cop on the back for not killing the guy? Or Columbine? Let's say the friend that the boys told to stay away from school figured out something was going on a called the cops. And let's say the cops got there just as they were going to enter the cafeteria and saw the guns. And let's say they didn't shoot to kill, and the boys got away into the school and started shooting people. Again are you proud the cops didn't bring those boys down when they had the chance?

[JKmadu619]

Originally Posted by Loving Linux Penguin

To say "this is how it works, and that's the end of it" is plain ridiculous. Just because cops AREN'T trained to mitigate threats with the least possible harm doesn't mean that said training cannot take place. While I admit that I do not know every fact of the story, and therefore this may or may not be true, but I would like to submit that I would THINK it would be conceivable for a taser to be deployed in this situation. Win win for everyone. The kid gets tased, he loses control, probably drops the gun because every muscle in his body is in a state of spasm, and he can be safely taken into custody and tried. Again, I don't know all of the specific facts of the situation, so it may be impossible, but I think this is a situation where a taser would be reasonable use of force.

First of all, if the officer were close enough for a taser to be effective (within a few feet.) and happened to have one on him, he would still be risking lives. He didn't know what kind of gun it was, he didn't know if it were modded in some illegal fashion, he also didn't know if after being shot with a taser, if the kid would have been dehabilitated. He didn't know if when the gun hit the ground, or if the kid accidentally pulled the trigger if it would go off.

When assaulted we are allowed to use the same amount of force hitting us to defend ourselves. So, if we were hit with a baseball bat, in order to stop the attack we could hit the attacker with a baseball bat back. If a kid points a gun at an officer, he is allowed to point his gun back.

You also realize the potentially of hitting a walking target while you are walking in the opposite direction if roughly 1/100. Do you also realize over a literal ton of bullets are fired for every terrorist we kill in the middle east? It is not CSI, nor Call of Duty. Guns are extremely inaccurate when fired by man. Adreneline, natural movement of the hands, and considering the shot was taken with iron sights, the smartest choice was to shoot to the centre of the mass and pray to God that the bullet even grazed the shooter. It would be nice if bullets went exactly where they were supposed to, but guns are dangerous for a reason, and that is why they are not handed to kids, and kids are taught to not play with them, and not pretend to point them at police officers. Apparently the child who was shot did not learn that lesson in time.

Edit: Also, to put this in perspective, imagine as person punches your *sister's* face in, and then points a gun at you. You also have a gun, and your mother, father, and grandparents are standing behind you. You probably would just shoot the dude in the heart. That's basically what the officer did.

- Justin

[Shawn K.]

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

First of all, if the officer were close enough for a taser to be effective (within a few feet.) and happened to have one on him, he would still be risking lives. He didn't know what kind of gun it was, he didn't know if it were modded in some illegal fashion, he also didn't know if after being shot with a taser, if the kid would have been dehabilitated. He didn't know if when the gun hit the ground, or if the kid accidentally pulled the trigger if it would go off.

When assaulted we are allowed to use the same amount of force hitting us to defend ourselves. So, if we were hit with a baseball bat, in order to stop the attack we could hit the attacker with a baseball bat back. If a kid points a gun at an officer, he is allowed to point his gun back.

You also realize the potentially of hitting a walking target while you are walking in the opposite direction if roughly 1/100. Do you also realize over a literal ton of bullets are fired for every terrorist we kill in the middle east? It is not CSI, nor Call of Duty. Guns are extremely inaccurate when fired by man. Adreneline, natural movement of the hands, and considering the shot was taken with iron sights, the smartest choice was to shoot to the centre of the mass and pray to God that the bullet even grazed the shooter. It would be nice if bullets went exactly where they were supposed to, but guns are dangerous for a reason, and that is why they are not handed to kids, and kids are taught to not play with them, and not pretend to point them at police officers. Apparently the child who was shot did not learn that lesson in time.

Edit: Also, to put this in perspective, imagine as person punches your *sister's* face in, and then points a gun at you. You also have a gun, and your mother, father, and grandparents are standing behind you. You probably would just shoot the dude in the heart. That's basically what the officer did.

- Justin

Damn!!! Score one for us fourteen year olds... Well said, homey.