8th-grader killed by Texas police had pellet gun

[mojaveman]

A terrible tragedy.

Because of that young mans poor judgement, his parents, relatives, friends, etc, all have to live with the consequences of his actions as well as the officers who responded. At close range, weapons that fire projectiles that are propelled by air can kill very easily. Even if the officers had known that he just had a pellet gun I don't know that I would have blamed them for what they did. This catastrophy was entirely that kids design.

[Ken Brock]

it's a justified shoot all day long

yeah, it sucks because of all the negative media that the LEO will have to put up with

imagine though that the officers hadn't taken the shot and the 15 year old had a real gun and proceeded to murder a bunch of students

the media outcry would be even worse

buffalobob, I just can't understand where your judgement of this comes from

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Ken Brock

it's a justified shoot all day long

yeah, it sucks because of all the negative media that the LEO will have to put up with

imagine though that the officers hadn't taken the shot and the 15 year old had a real gun and proceeded to murder a bunch of students

the media outcry would be even worse

buffalobob, I just can't understand where your judgement of this comes from

I believe it might have something to do with what Buffalo Bob mentioned here:

Just a pure and simple case of cowardice and shooting a kid in the back of the head.

There were reports the kid was shot in the back of the head, which might lead one to believe the Kid wasn't facing the LEO(s) when he was shot....he may have even been running away. Since that report I have read that the injury in questions was incurred from falling.

But if that initial report turns out to be true in any form, meaning the kid wasn't facing or engaging the the LEO(s), then they likely over reacted.

[Ken Brock]

Originally Posted by Paslode

I believe it might have something to do with what Buffalo Bob mentioned here:



There were reports the kid was shot in the back of the head, which might lead one to believe the Kid wasn't facing the LEO(s) when he was shot....he may have even been running away. Since that report I have read that the injury in questions was incurred from falling.

But if that initial report turns out to be true in any form, meaning the kid wasn't facing or engaging the the LEO(s), then they likely over reacted.

if I was engaging a potential active shooter (especially in a school) I wouldn't hesitate to shoot them wherever I needed to

whether they are shot in the head or beaten to death with a brick, the end result is they are still dead

I guess I just don't see where the method of application matters when deadly force was justified

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Ken Brock

if I was engaging a potential active shooter (especially in a school) I wouldn't hesitate to shoot them wherever I needed to

whether they are shot in the head or beaten to death with a brick, the end result is they are still dead

I guess I just don't see where the method of application matters when deadly force was justified

If I shoot some stranger (armed or unarmed) attempting to exit my property in the back I am going to have a lot more questions to answer, and the possibility of it being considered self defense is going to plummet, whereas if the stranger is facing me the odds of self defense are in my favor.

Same goes for the cops, or at least it should be.

I have read the kid was in a hallway and also that he was in the Administration Office and that the school was already locked down. He allegedly had been in a fight and was also carrying a knife.

Lots and lots of unknowns. We'll just have to wait and see what the investigation brings.

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Ken Brock

if I was engaging a potential active shooter (especially in a school) I wouldn't hesitate to shoot them wherever I needed to

whether they are shot in the head or beaten to death with a brick, the end result is they are still dead

I guess I just don't see where the method of application matters when deadly force was justified

Concur. Maybe I've been soldiering too long but as far as I'm concerned once the decision is made the person with the shot, takes it. Front, back, etc. makes no difference whatsoever.

[RHINO1]

People do stupid things. Kids are even more stupid than most people are. If they can just live through their stupidity to emerge on the other side of life, that's the hard part.

As a LE Professional, now retired, I can understand, since I almost killed someone while inspecting them on the southern border. The gun looked real, in his right hand, I went through the driver window to control his Head and arm. We found out it was a .357 m but had a filled barrel. A moment I still remember.

The Cops will live with this for the rest of their lives. But they have to save their lives by doing what they needed to do. Clearly the youngster had some problems and felt he had nowhere to go with his problems.

Prayers out to all.

[longrange1947]

Originally Posted by Paslode

If I shoot some stranger (armed or unarmed) attempting to exit my property in the back I am going to have a lot more questions to answer, and the possibility of it being considered self defense is going to plummet, whereas if the stranger is facing me the odds of self defense are in my favor.

Same goes for the cops, or at least it should be.

I have read the kid was in a hallway and also that he was in the Administration Office and that the school was already locked down. He allegedly had been in a fight and was also carrying a knife.

Lots and lots of unknowns. We'll just have to wait and see what the investigation brings.

Sorry does not wash, if he was running and it was feared or thought that he would collect hostages then he is due to be dropped; STOP second guessing from the armchair.

Running away does not mitigate an armed threat, only that it may now be an ambush, hostage situation or anything worse then now.

Running away is the liberal BS of don't shoot unless "you have been shot first". It ranks right along side of MA's law that put a young mother in jail because she killed a home intruder without first trying to run away. Her out, a small basement window and her child was still upstairs unguarded. Mother still went to jail. They claimed she should have climbed through the window, with him in the room, and ran for help. "No life is worth property" according to the anointed, but tell that to a parent whose child is left behind. Oh yes, that law is still on the books in lovely Mass.

I will buy those guys a drink. They have caught enough hell from Monday morning quarterbacks.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by longrange1947

Sorry does not wash, if he was running and it was feared or thought that he would collect hostages then he is due to be dropped; STOP second guessing from the armchair.

Running away does not mitigate an armed threat, only that it may now be an ambush, hostage situation or anything worse then now.

Running away is the liberal BS of don't shoot unless "you have been shot first". It ranks right along side of MA's law that put a young mother in jail because she killed a home intruder without first trying to run away. Her out, a small basement window and her child was still upstairs unguarded. Mother still went to jail. They claimed she should have climbed through the window, with him in the room, and ran for help. "No life is worth property" according to the anointed, but tell that to a parent whose child is left behind. Oh yes, that law is still on the books in lovely Mass.

I will buy those guys a drink. They have caught enough hell from Monday morning quarterbacks.

The kid had a gun on school premises which pretty much answers the question for me. Based on the information available at present, I don't believe the cops had any other choice than the tough choice they made.

But most everyone is a bit puzzled by Buffalo Bobs response, and I am just saying, I can see where some would have an issue if the kid was shot in the back. We are already condemning the kid and patting the cops on the back for a job well done, and we don't even know the facts yet.......And there have been those rare instances where brotherhood and loyalty cover up the facts and someones ass.

Not that is what BB had in mind when he made his post, but it crossed my mind that some might view it in such light

[MTN Medic]

I swore I was done with this thread because it is ridiculous and made me mad. Please ensure your facts are straight before debating on nefarious ones.

1) The gunman was not shot in the head. He was shot twice; once in the abdomen and once in the torso.

2) There is a 911 tape where it can be clearly heard that the police told the boy to drop the gun, the kid said something about being ready to die and then he was killed.

I am not going to bother posting the links because it might be good practice for those espousing police brutality to do their own research so that this kind of confusion does not happen again and tempers get unnecessarily flared.

[Endorphin Rush]

Gentlemen,

I read a few posts in this thread that mention that the police had to "protect themselves", as well as the term "self defense". Please consider this outlook: it is possible that the police did not respond to that school on that day to "protect themselves" or even "defend themselves". Consider, instead, that they responded to that school to save young, innocent lives other than their own. From what you ask??? Could it have been a scenario that may have turned into our nations next active shooter incident. I would bet that the thought had crossed the minds of those responding officers.

Put yourselves in the shoes that those officers wore on that day. The BEST case scenario, had they not engaged this armed young man, is that they could have been shot. And the ABSOLUTE WORST thing that could have occurred is that he might have escaped with that firearm and begun to engage innocent school children.

Those officers were not in their own homes defending their lives. They were in a school and potentially defending the lives of every innocent child that was present on that day.

If it worries anyone that the youthful, but still armed, male might have been shot in the back of the head as he turned away from the police, then consider this. Is it possible that, when he turned away, he no longer intended to engage armed police officers, but instead made a decision to seek softer, unarmed targets (students)??? What do you believe those officers would have thought had he had that chance to do so?

I do not bear a calloused heart. It is tragic that any person so young should have to die for any reason. But, it is exponentially more tragic to allow the death of innocent children in an attempt to save one who displays malice towards all.

[JimP]

The "where" of you being shot is irrelevent. You can be face to face with someone (most law enforcement gunfights occur within arms length to about 3 yards) and when the lead starts flying both participants are often doing the "funky-chciken", dodging, diving, dancing, running, etc.

Just as it took a few reaction intervals to get on the trigger and start yanking it, it also takes a few reaction intervals to perceive the negation of the threat, formulate a response, telegraph that response to your muscles and actually stop the yanking of the trigger; your adversary could very well have turned and be ruinning in that time frame. You CANNOT, nor is it required, instantaneously process the negation of the threat and immediately stop and recall all sent bullets.

For people to categorically state that if "one is shot in the back it is a bad shoot", simply lends credence to the fact that the individual has: 1) never been in a gunfight; or, 2) doesn't know what they are talking about.

You can be in a legitimate, straight-up gunfight and when the dust clears your adversary may have some holes in his back you don't recall putting there. Doesn't mean a thing.

Unless you are one of the cops in the hallway on THAT day and in THAT moment - it would be prudent to take a deep breath, step back and support the guy on the ground.

We are the profession of arms - we owe our kids and our law enforcement professionals better analysis and understanding than some of the posts here.

If WE have these issues.....is it so hard to understand why libs and the media have some of the whacky misperceptions THEY have??