CNN: Lawyer: Authorities were told student's gun was fake

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/14/teen.shot/index.html

The father and brother of a teenager shot at school Friday while brandishing a pellet gun told authorities before an officer opened fire that Christopher Penley's gun was not real, the family's attorney said Saturday.

<snip>

Nation said Ralph Penley was "angry" because he had spoken to police before he arrived at the school and told them Christopher did not have a real gun. Christopher's younger brother told school officials the same thing, Nation said.

<snip>
One of Penley's classmates knew gun was fake - did he tell the cops?
As the two walked toward the closet door, Penley grabbed Cotey and turned him around, and Cotey seized the chance to try to wrest away the gun from his older classmate, he said.

"He started to point the gun at me, so I started to grab for it and he pulled it away," Cotey told WKMG. "And then I grabbed for it one more time 'cause he pointed it at me for like a little while, so I grabbed it and I twisted it and I pointed it at him."

It was then that Cotey knew for sure the gun was a fake. (Watch Cotey describe the frightening ordeal -- 1:33)

I'd like to know in this case:

1-Were SWAT officers told?

2-Did they have a ballistic shield and beanbag/rubber shot shotgun available?

If they knew the kid in all probabilty had a fake gun, then I think they should've used one of their guys behind a ballistic shield or in a covered position to take a shot at him with a non-lethal weapon. Just in case the other SWAT officers could've still been covering with lethal weapons.

Tough to Monday morning QB on this. Maybe the cops had no other option, but maybe they did. I do think SWAT is paid to take a bit more risk than the ordinary street cop.

[applegrove]

1. Yes - it is always the case police get all sorts of conflicting

information. Gun was painted. Mircro-dots.

[ecoalex]

50. Police taught to shoot to kill always

Too bad the police training in this country is shoot to kill always. Killed are people brandishing hay forks at 30 feet, and others killed for being a "threat" when an imobilising shot would incapasitate the person, killing is unwarranted some of the time.

[Che_Nuevara]

85. That's actually not true. AT ALL.

I'm related to a lot of police officers.

The official training is ALWAYS that they learn where to shoot to kill and where to shoot to disable. They also learn that a 'disabling' shot is much less certain, and that it does not guarantee the safety of the officers or of bystanders. Anyone trained in SWAT tactics or in hostage negotiations is also taught that shooting at someone taking hostages is likely to cause that person to start killing the hostages if he's not immediately taken down.

[pinerow]

2. sheesh...!

nt

[benburch]

3. I wasn't a fake though...

It was a pellet gun, and those are weapons even if dressed up as a much deadlier weapon.

[napi21]

4. I'd love to know what convinces someone to test the cops like this?

In this case we'll probably never know. There are adults who do stupid things like this too! Robbers who use a realistic looking "toy" gun to rob a store becasue they think the sentence is less if you get caught. People try to test the TSA at airports all the time.

I guess, at the time, they think it's just fun, but don't think far enough to realize you can die from jokes like this.

[Karmakaze]

5. The thing is you shouldnt die from a joke...

I personally think cops are too aggressive. If I had my way I would make it a crime to fire the first shot, so police officers HAVE to wait until at least ONE SHOT is fired before they shoot. I know that won't be popular, but with modern body armour the risks from the first shot are a lot lower than they used to be.

In my opinion cops should not be allowed to be judge jury and executioner based on perceived INTENT. He may look like he is going to shoot, but until he does, you don't know for sure he will or even if the gun is real. Taking cover, containing and cordoning and waiting for the offender to fire the first shot, would save a whole lot of lives.

[theshadow]

6. I have a better idea.

Don't point a weapon at a cop or anyone else.

[Karmakaze]

15. What if its not a weapon?

What if it is a wallet, as has happened?

[theshadow]

29. Whole different situation.

In this case it was GUN.

[JVS]

35. That could never work!

:sarcasm:

[jobycom]

11. What if the first shot hits a civilian? Someone's kid?

It's a tragedy, and they need to investigate to see if the officer was negligent or too aggressive, or if someone failed to pass on information. But I have a belief that no one should die doing their job, whether they are miners or cops. You can't require a cop to risk dying before being allowed to defend himself, his partners, hostages or civilians.

Even a 14 year old knows that a cop is going to shoot you if you point a gun at him.

And that cop will never get a good night's sleep for the rest of his life, whether he's cleared or not. He may not even want to be a cop after this.

[Karmakaze]

16. This case is not the best example...

but there ARE examples of people being shot reaching for their wallets, or because they had cellphones in their hands. Do these innocent people not count? Are they merely collateral damage?

[jobycom]

19. Those are cases of clear police incompetence, and that's not what

we were talking about. You said cops should let the other person shoot first. That would be a bad policy. Cops who fire forty-one shots, stopping to reload, into a man who is brandishing a wallet should be imprisoned. There is a big distinction between shooting an unarmed person who you thought might have a gun, and shooting a person who is clearly pointing a gun directly at you.

[Karmakaze]

21. Not really, as we have seen...

Many "clearly guns" are not in fact guns. From lighters to toys, not all "gun-like" objects actually are guns. The funny thing is, if the offender fired first and killed, or even only injured, the cop, the assumption would be that the offender was wrong. But isnt the cop pointing a gun at them and threatening to kill them? Wouldn't shooting the cop be self-defence in that case?

Why not? The only reason I can see is that society has determined that police officers doing their job have the right to threaten ANYONE for ANY REASON with death should they fail to comply. Be drunk or diabetic and a cop can kill you because you refused to get out of the car. Run away, and the cop can kill you because you refused to stop.

Do ANYTHING even remotely explainable as "threatening" and the cop can kill you and walk away with nothing but people saying "well he was just doing his job".

How many innocent people have to die for want of a little police restraint?

[LisaL]

51. You have some bizarre logic going on there.

You seem to be advocating the right of private citizens to shoot at police officers. Yet at the same time police officers should have no right to shoot at private citizens.

[cornermouse]

27. Good. The person who shot the kid shouldn't be a cop.

[seriousstan]

12. I am sure you are ready to be employed under such a ludicrous rule.

[Karmakaze]

18. Actually NZ police are...

they dont even have guns on their person, and they had no problem with that. In fact even the US military has had Rules of Engagement that state they can not fire the first shot in the past. Why should cops be any different?

[Pavulon]

43. Because that would kill people

A bullet is not nerf. Allowing a person holding a hostage or preparing to fire a weapon to continue their behavior is dangerous. The first shot could easily kill its target.

The ROE you mentioned has NEVER applied to infantry. It was shot when a threat was present. That threat was determined by the situation.

It could be a person with binoculars. Far beyond the ability to react than any police force.

Judgment is critical. If a police officer felt he was going to be shot he has a Right to defend himself.

[LisaL]

49. What are the gun laws in NZ?

Here in US, it would never work, because so many private citizens are armed with guns. If public was not allowed to have guns, it would be a different story.

[RamboLiberal]

13. Sorry but that is stupid for cop to wait till first shot

What if the shot hits the cop in the head? Or hits where the body armor isn't. Or even the body armor fails to stop the shot.

Would you bet your life on that bullet hitting your body armor? Maybe you should join the police and the SWAT team.

[Karmakaze]

20. Chances are that won't happen.

In fact handguns are notoriously inaccurate in actual "combat" situations. In fact that is why police officers are trained to shoot for the center mass, because even a well trained officer is unlikely to hit someone in the head with the first shot.

But if you read my post you will see I suggest less aggressive tactics - these include BACKING OFF and taking cover, making that first shot even less likely to do damage. Add to that, that many if not most SWAT-type teams world wide have access to ballistic shields and even kevlar face masks that can prevent serious injury from a handgun shot to the head.

The thing is, if you dont want to take the risk, don't join the police. Hell cops can be killed in high speed car chases, and no one would question that sometimes it is better to back off for the safety of all involved.

The point is, waiting for the first shot will NOT increase the risks much more than they already are, but will reduce the instances of innocent people being shot BY MISTAKE to zero.

Its like the death penalty - killing even ONE innocent man far outweighs the benefit of killing hundreds of guilty men. Hell even the court system is designed around that very premise - It is better that a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned.

Of course the first priority should be innocent civillians, and no one is suggesting that they should not be protected, but a simple rule change that ASSUMES firing first to be wrong could still allow for that case in situations where there is a threat to an innocent person (not the police, but true civillian bystanders).

At the moment, the automatic assumption is the police officer was acting within his rights, even when it is clear that no weapon existed and no reason to believe a weapon existed except the cop's fear. Change it so the assumption of a first shot is that the officer was in the wrong, and they will take greater care to enure that they are NOT charging into a dangerous situation needlessly, and that when they DO pull the trigger there is a valid reason to do so - not "I thought he had a gun", but "he shot at me".

[Pavulon]

45. No way

You take a head shot from a handgun round even with a helmet and shielding you are fucked up.

Say he the weapon is to your head. You want the first shot to be through your head?

Sorry if that is me I would prefer the first shot to be a sniper round through the bad guys brain.

A handgun round will put you in the ground.

The police have the right to defend themselves. What you are suggesting is insane and ignores the facts of firearms, the reactions of criminals to this rule, and the time frame involved in a real gunfight.

[LisaL]

48. When someone points a gun at you, you can wait all you want.

Maybe they will miss.

[LisaL]

47. Well, after he shoots, it will be too late.

Geez.

[raccoon]

113. Body armor doesn't protect you from a shot in the head. nt

[theshadow]

7. So the officer doesn't shoot because some kid....

.... assured him it wasn't real, only the kid was wrong. And the cop gets killed. Or some bystander gets killed, and that person's family sues (which you know the suspect's family is already thinking about). The point is, you don't point a gun at someone. Especially someone armed. You do, and there will be consequences. This isn't complicated. The person at fault is the person who is dead.

[file83]

8. The S.W.A.T. team had other options - they just chose to execute the kid..

Anyone who knows anything about SWAT tactics knows that they have in their arsenal TWO options that could have incapcitated the child even if he was brandishing a live weapon.

CHOICE #1: Concussion grenade

This grenade will temporarily blind, disorient, and deafen the target - NOT KILL HIM. After they toss this bad boy into the bathroom where the kid was, the kid gets completely immobilized and drops the weapon. The SWAT team then quickly moves in to apprehend the incapcitated child target.
More Info: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/84250p-77083c.html


CHOICE #2: Tear gas canister

We are all more familiar (and some of us experienced on the receiveing end of this nasty shit) of tear gas. The kid in the bathroom will quickly become panicked, shut his eyes, and simply drop to the floor trying to breathe. More than likely, he'd then try and run, smack into a wall and get disoreintated, drop his weapon and begin coughing and potentially vomiting violently. Then the SWAT team moves in with their gas masks and apprehend the disarmed child target.


But, the SWAT simply chose to go in and shot him. They did this knowing he had a weapon (potentially a toy gun) and make an example of him for all American kids to see. Once again, the authorities claim they had that right to shoot and rhetorically argue "what would you do if someone is pointing a weapon at you?" - COMPLETELY dodging the question and FACT that they had other options at their disposal.

I believe this was just used as an opportunity by the authorities to exploit the situation and remind the American public that if you are EVER seen brandishing a weapon in public, you will be executed. Seems to be working...Never mind the fact that SWAT had other options. They train for this scenario all the time. ALL THE TIME.

So you must ask youself, why did they chose this plan of action?

[RamboLiberal]

14. I wouldn't go so far as they chose to execute him

But very good point about the flash-bang, then throw in a gas grenade or fire a pepper ball round into the bathroom.

I still want to know if info on pellet gun got to the SWAT officers facing down the kid.

[CanSocDem]

32. When your only tool is a hammer....

....(as the saying goes), everything looks like a nail.

The 'tool' being wielded by the authorities these days is just a big ol' SILENCER.

[HuffleClaw]

9. i wonder what asshole made the decision to 'go in'

and why they ignored what they were told. yeah, they sure have some answering to do. there was no need to gun the kid down. they had lots of options.

[niallmac]

10. Why don't swat teams ever use cribbage boards?

I mean what's the hurry? If there is risk to perp and cop alike and there is no immediate danger then whats the rush? Get a psychologist trained in this stuff to do a some talking.
Order out. Play a few hands of cribbage. Is it all about demonstrating merciless power to anyone who is or is thinking of acting out, out of the norm?

[TX-RAT]

76. Play a few hands of cribbage

Not meaning to change the subject but you don't meet many Cribbage players anymore. Was beginning to think i was the only one left.

[Evergreen Emerald]

39. weren't the police vilified for waiting to go in during Columbine?

They can't win. In fact, I beleive much of the protocol used by the police during school incidents stems from Columbine.

[Pavulon]

42. You hit the the nail

on the head. There are people who are critical of the police no matter what they do. If the gun was real and he shot a classmate, the police are to blame. The gun, that looks enough like a real weapon to get anyone shot, is fake..Blame the police.

Guns are life and death. Police have to act like a gun pointed at them is real. That inaction will result in a piece of metal leaving a hole in your head the size of a half dollar with gray mater leaking out of the back side.

Yes there are police misconduct cases but this does not appear to be one of them.

[Tesha]

79. In Columbine, the bad guys were already shooting. (NT)

[LisaL]

17. Does anyone really think it's a good idea for policemen to

listen to suspects relatives? Geez. Of course they are not going to believe what suspect father is saying. First of all, how would the father even know if the gun was real or not? I doubt the boy told the father of his plans.
And second of all, the relative might just plain out lie to protect their loved one.

[Zynx]

23. Mindless police hating is strong on DU.

Yeah, the cops should have really let the guy fire at them before deciding the gun was real or fake or that he meant business. *rolls eyes*

[cornermouse]

28. Its not hating police. Its acknowledging the way the police have

changed.

When my children were small, I used to tell them to go to the police and ask for help. Were I raising a child now, I wouldn't do that any more. The mindset they have, the willingness to use weapons first and ask questions later. No. They might as well ask a stranger. They might even be safer.

[saigon68]

30. A lot of Cops are Pigs

Just view "Born on the 4th of July" to see the "Dark Side" of Law Enforcement.

Or the "Shield' where the constitution is used to wipe Vic Mackey's ASS

[theshadow]

34. That's the same mentality that had people calling Viet Nam...

.... veterans Baby Killers.

[saigon68]

36. I suppose you were there for that too.

Charlie Company met no resistance; there were no Viet Cong soldiers at My Lai. Calley then ordered the slaughter of the civilians. People were rounded up into ditches and machine-gunned. They lay five feet deep in the ditches; any survivors trying to escape were immediately shot. When Calley spotted a baby crawling away from a ditch, he grabbed her, threw her back into the ditch, and opened fire. Some of the dead were mutilated by having "C Company" carved into their chests; some were disemboweled. One GI would later say, "You didn’t have to look for people to kill, they were just there. I cut their throats, cut off their hands, cut out their tongues, scalped them. I did it. A lot of people were doing it and I just followed. I just lost all sense of direction."

Link for your reading pleasure

http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/mylai.htm

[theshadow]

37. No, I missed the draft by 2 years.

I think. When I turned 18 I was 1A but they had already started the draw-down.

Anyway, my point is that calling cops "pigs" is the same kind of generalization.

[saigon68]

63. I saw a lot of pigs beat up demonstrators

I also saw a lot of inhumanity in a stoopid war

Those people who want to defend the criminals should all join up for a a few years and change it

IMHO

[Pavulon]

46. My father

Spent two years in vietnam. The vast majority of kids there just wanted to go home. Massacres were not the rule. Just like crooked police are the exception, not the rule.

[crankybubba]

53. a little clue..

"Just view "Born on the 4th of July" to see the "Dark Side" of Law Enforcement.

Or the "Shield' where the constitution is used to wipe Vic Mackey's ASS"

these examples are MOVIE and TELEVISION. fiction not real life. good and bad in all professions. gross generalizations are bad in all aspects.

[saigon68]

78. Ever seen the "Pigs" at a peace demonstration ?

In person I mean?

And yes the police riot in Miami at nixon's coronation was just like in the movie

[crankybubba]

the riot you speak of

was over 30 years ago. times have changed and law enforcement has changed in that time. You have not... cops are now better educated and trained. the whole country has changed. You have a personal grudge agsinst the police. so what. keep making silly posts its really entertaining. maybe you could use adam 12 or chips as your next example.

[saigon68]

88. You must be a cop

Anyone else want to chime in on how the P--errr cops have changed for the better?

[crankybubba]

91. so what if I am?

training, education, and community oversight. every use of force is reviewed. and cops if wrong will be charged with a crime. yes, there a some bad ones out there but the majority is there to help. your problem with cops rests with you. I will discuss things with you in a reasonable manner. but, if you continue with a emotion driven tirade. well... were through here and you just make yourself look foolish.

[saigon68]

94. I knew it

[crankybubba]

105. i guess were done here

you have nothing productive to add. bye

[TX-RAT]

77. So your opinion of peace officers come from a Movie script?

Slowly back away from the TV.

[theshadow]

31. Are you serious????

"Ask a stranger, they might be safer"?

[cornermouse]

64. Yes. I am serious.

I used to trust the police but not any more.

About a year ago, I was pulled over (its only happened one other time). I got out and started walking back to talk to him. Keep in mind I'm a late middle-age, not very big, very tame in appearance female in a small town where almost everyone knows everyone else, not a big city. I always put my hands in my pockets because it keeps my hands warm and I'm more comfortable that way. When he told me to stop and take my hands out of my pockets I thought he was nuts. For that matter to some extent, I still do. Anyway I let go of the car keys that I had just put in one pocket and the kleenex that was in the other pocket and after a couple of minutes of talking, he let me go on home.

My point is if they're that jumpy about someone walking up to them in a small town, what are they like in a bigger city. Add the fact that area news from several counties in the vicinity have had accusations of misbehavior against law enforcement personnel... I absolutely would not tell my kids to ask a policeman for help any more. Putting on a badge does not endow common sense or ethics.

[neonplaque]

66. Are you nuts?

Being pulled-over by the police is entirely different than just approaching an officer on the sidewalk. When you are pulled-over, you are actually being legally detained and you become a suspect. There is a reason officers keep their hand on their gun while they approach a car they have stopped. Why did you get out of the car in the first place? Were you told to? Stay in your car unless instructed diffferent (and you would not have to worrry about keeping your hands warm, would you??).

You seem to suggest officers should "profile" the people they pull-over. Since you don't fit the profile you believe an officer should suspect of having a weapon in their pocket, they should treat you different?

Next time you get pulled over, stay in your car and place both hands on the steering wheel as the officer approaches. Turn on your interior light if it's nighttime. You'll have a much better experience.

[cornermouse]

67. Well. excuse me.

I've only been pulled over twice.

Small town...not like big city.

A suspect?????? Wrong side of middle-aged lady, no record, no tickets, (I assume that was one of the first things he checked) wearing dressy clothes on her way to work. If I remember correctly he told me the turn signal didn't work.

As far as I'm concerned you're the one who's not dealing with a full deck.

[neonplaque]

68. Profiling

Again, you are suggesting police should "profile" you as not being a potential threat.

Until the officer confirms your ID, he has no idea if you are even the registered owner of the car (when he ran the plate). I don't care how old you are, what clothes you wear, or how nice your car is -- you are still a suspect when you are pulled over. You could have a warrant out for your arrest, you could be drunk or on drugs, you could have a weapon, or you could just go completely nuts angry at him for detaining you. The officer doesn't know.

[theshadow]

71. Two police officers were shot by a nice old....

..... man who they found walking on the road. They offered to give him a ride. As they did, he pulled out a pistol and blew both their brains out. Grandpa had a record of felonies going back decades. I don't recall the city anymore, but it isn't an urban legend because it was used as an abject lesson in what can happen.

The police officer didn't want to get blasted while the nice lady walked towards him. That's why you shouldn't get out of your car unless you are asked. Cops are not mind readers; they don't know what your intentions are. 99% of the time they're good; they don't want to guess if you're that 1%. If you consider that being "jumpy".....!

As for your "small town", more officers are killed in small communities and rural areas than in big cities.

So would you home school your kids because some teachers sexually assault their students? Or stop going to doctors because some are incompetent? I think you are really over-reacting.

[pinerow]

84. If it's not an "urban" legend...please be kind enough to

post a link to prove your assertion...

[theshadow]

33. Oh, it sure is.

If they shoot, they're trigger-happy stormtroopers. If they don't, they're incompetent stormtroopers. I've seen posts wishing they'd get killed.

Some DU'ers think we have more virtue, tolerance and love of our fellow humans than the greedy, cold hearted Republicans. It's a myth. There's plenty of cold-hearted prejudice here, too. Just write something people disagree with and watch what happens.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NVMojo]

24. fucking sick, first air marshalls gun down a mentally ill man at airport

and now this. suicide by cop at 15???

[LisaL]

25. Aren't teenagers more prone to suicide than older people?

[sandnsea]

26. Shoot first

No other options available anymore, not even thinking and negotiating, cuz dang, who gives a shit about crazies and criminals anyway. They all deserve to die. Better to just kill them on the spot, save us a bunch of money on jail cells and court costs.

[pinerow]

38. Unless of course they are illegal aliens in Eagle Pass, Texas,

where they are emptying jail cells to make room for undocumented people instead of running a records check and safely escorting them back to Piedras Negras which is about two miles from the county jail...

[High Plains]

57. Which has nothing to do with this thread

[pinerow]

59. Neither does Vietnam...whats yer point newbie...

I'm referring to avilable jail space as a previous poster pointed out...

[Zhade]

70. I assume (I hope?) you forgot this...

:sarcasm:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

40. Point a gun at a cop --- YOU DIE

I don't know how many times people have to learn this lesson. While I believe that police need to be held responsible when they abuse suspects, I strongly believe that if you aim a weapon at a police officer, you deserve whatever happens to you next.

Cops have rights, too, and one of them is to come home alive at the end of their shift.

[LisaL]

44. Exactly. And they didn't want to kill the kid.

Some here say they should have let the kid in the bathroom. Well, the kid was suicidal, and was pointing the gun to his own head. They were trying to save him. There is simply no win for a lot of DU, no matter what police does. Had they left the kid in the bathroom and he shot and killed himself, police would be to blame. Had he killed someone else, police would be to blame for not acting when they had a chance. When a person is armed with a knife, people claim that it's only o'key for police to shoot someone if a person is armed with a gun. Well, now he was, or police believed he was, but it's still no good.
Basically, they will be blamed, regardless.

[eek MD]

52. So better to shoot the kid?

Well, if he was really suicidal, i guess the cops granted his wish for him then.........too bad he wasn't even given the opportunity to make up his own mind...*sigh* If they were trying to save him, they did a damn poor job of it. /sarcasm

If you have non-lethal methods to use, why use the lethal ones?

[LisaL]

54. He made his own mind when he pointed a gun at them.

WTF do you think he did it? He of all people knew it was not a real gun. So, what did he want, do you think? Take a wild guess.
It was a very clear case of suicide by a cop. I wish suicidal people did the deed themselves and didn't involve others who will have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

[eek MD]

55. Perhaps...

Perhaps he wanted to call attention to his mental anguish, heck I don't know.

I might not be in the most rational state of mind either if i had a swat team full of people pointing guns at me. Maybe he wasn't thinking clearly. Maybe he was overwhelmed by all that was going on? after all, he's only a child.

If they have gas that they can throw in the room to knock him out...why shoot?

[LisaL]

56. Because they only have a split second decision to make when

he is pointing the gun at them. By that time, if they haven't used any tear gas, they don't have time to go and get some while he is pretending he will shoot them. It's a clear case of suicide. Obviously the boy is depressed, but when he brought a fake gun to school and pretended it was real, he set to accomplish his own suicide by having someone else to do it.

[eek MD]

58. I guess he succeeded then....

I guess that even he knew how gung-ho police are about using lethal force on children. What a sad commentary on our times.

Edited to take out a portion of the article that i misread

[LisaL]

62. Isn't he about the same age as columbine killers?

THe reason police are using lethal force on children is because they know what some children are capable of.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Evergreen Emerald]

73. It makes me angry too Jeff

And I also am thinking of the officer who in one moment had to make that decision that will forever affect him.

This "progressive" board, instead of looking at the societal forces that created this boy and of what led up to this moment, instead chooses to blame this police officer who was brought into this situation not of his making, and risked his life so there would not be another Columbine.

I am tired of the constant law enforcement bashing. There are many liberal people who work in law enforcement and who protect people like the ones on this board who do not hesitate to jump on the hate bandwagon (and who do not hesitate to use the police when they are in trouble). There are also many in law enforcement who are members of DU.

[LisaL]

83. Exactly. Can you imagine getting a phone call-the armed kid

in the school, other children in danger, and you have to go and fix the situation. The officers do not go in there thinking that it would be nice to shoot themselves some little kids. They put their life in danger, something many here would not want to do, for the safety of others. The boy, being suicidal, of course does not think about the consequences of his actions on other people. But people who want to commit suicide should just stick to their own devices instead of having others kill them.

[eek MD]

92. It makes me angry....

It makes me angry to know that this child is dead because someone had an itchy trigger finger. The child isn't coming back. The family of the child has to live with that.....The cops isn't the only one who has to live with his/her decision. The family of the dead CHILD also has to live with the cops decision. And i can guarantee you, it stings a whole hell of a lot more for this family than it does for the police officer.

They could've done something non-lethal, but they didn't.......So go ahead and make a hero out of them. I won't be participating in the parade that you're holding in their honor.

[Evergreen Emerald]

95. You are blaming the wrong person.

This officer did not have an "itchy trigger finger." The child isn't coming back because of HIS actions and the actions of his family that created him. He pointed a gun at the police. All he had to do was put it down. And he acted so reckless and dangerous and nuts. Remember what he did just before that? He attacked a fellow student.

The sting for the family is not the fault of the officer. It is the fault of the family and the history of this child and his mental instability that put the officer in that position.

I am sick about the fact that a child was attacked (who is also suffering). I am sick that a child died was so fucked up that he resorted to such ugliness. I am sorry that the officer has to live with the fact that he killed a child.

Instead of blaming the officer--who had nothing to do with the creation of the situation--perhaps your time would be better spent looking at the societal pressures, institutions, issues, that created this boy.

You do not know that they could have done something non-lethal. You do not know that. It is so easy for people like you to use tragic situations like this to push forward your own agenda. You are wrong.

[eek MD]

100. Obviously...

Obviously your experiences with police officers are radically different from my experiences with police officers, so i'll leave it there.

Hopefully you won't have to go through the anguish that this family is going through. If you did, i'd be willing to bet your callous view would be a bit different. (It's the family's fault for raising a mentally ill child?) As far as having an agenda goes, I still believe that there would've been ways to resolve this without FATALLY shooting a child who had a PELLET GUN, and if not, then the Swat team was woefully unprepared.

[LisaL]

99. The child had died because he wanted to die.

I have no doubt he knew exactly what he was doing. When he pointed that gun at the officers, he wanted them to kill him. It's his own damn fault, or he got his wish, that he is dead.

[eek MD]

102. If he wanted to die so badly...

Then why didn't he do it himself? Perhaps he was only seeking attention. That might explain why he didn't bring a real handgun into the school...Wouldn't you freak out if you had a swat team pointing their rifles directly at you? Would you be rational?....Even if you were a mentally unstable child?

But i guess since you have "no doubt" that he wanted to die....and you're really smart...i guess the lil rascal got what was coming to him then....*sigh*

[LisaL]

103. It's not easy to do it yourself.

Much easier to get killed by someone else.
Suicide by a cop is a well known phenomena, the kid didn't discover it. And if he was "only seeking attention", he sure picked a wrong way of going about it.

[eek MD]

104. I agree

If he was doing this to seek attention, or as a cry for help... it was a damn poor way of going about it.

But troubled youngsters aren't the most rational people in the world oftentimes.

[Speed8098]

110. So children his age are mature enough to make a decision?

According to your logic, we can now engage in a contract with a minor.

Lethal force was NOT called for IN THIS CASE.

That's not to say lethal force is sometimes necessary, because it is.....sometimes.

[LisaL]

111. No, children are not "mature enough" to make that decision.

Which is a moot point, because suicide is not legal for adults either. Which somehow haven't stopped many people, including teenagers, from killing themselves. Go figure!

[Speed8098]

112. You missed my point

When do children EVER know what they want?

They live in the now.
If it feels good, do it. If it hurts, make it better now.

A child that age has no idea what the consequences of their actions will be.
Are you a parent? If you are then you know how fickle children are.

The police had many options available to them, shooting this child, regardless of how he was armed, should have been the absolute last option, not the first.

As I said in my first reply, lethal force is sometimes warranted.
In this case it was not.

[LisaL]

114. And if he gets a rope to hang himself, what are you going to

blame-a rope?

[Speed8098]

118. What was that?

Blame-a rope???

Are you trying to be snippy?

I don't get it?

The cops shot this kid when they didn't have to and you reply with this???

Ok fine.................have a nice life.

[LisaL]

119. They didn't have to?

He didn't leave them a choice. And the father didn't tell them the gun was fake, seems the father didn't even know about the shooting until afterwords. And the kid knew exactly the consequences of his action, seems he even wrote about pointing gun at police for school paper. Maybe you, having a crystal ball, "wouldn't have to shoot" the boy. But when somebody else sees a gun pointed at them, they will react accordingly.
http://www.local6.com/news/6188583/detail.html

[bling bling]

75. In my experience here,

threads like this tend to be filled with posters who have a grudge against police, or a general paranoia about authority figures in general, or who are hopelessly and unforgivably clueless about the reality of being a LEO. Yeah, yeah, ok, there are bad cops to be sure. But most down to earth people who understand the nature of the job tend to give the cops the benefit of the doubt until it's proven otherwise - which is how it should be.

Believe it or not, I actually think it's gotten better around here. A couple of years ago one post out of fifty at the most would be supportive of the police on a thread. Lately I see more and more people who think like you and I do actually posting their opinions. I think some people are just getting tired of the fringe posters controlling the threads like this and are starting to bring the discussion and comments back down to earth. That's heartening to see.

Thank you for pointing out how ludicrous it is to suggest that cops in general are gung-ho about shooting kids. It's unbelievable how outrageously naive and ignorant some people's opinions can be. Utterly unbelievable.

[Evergreen Emerald]

97. That has been my experience as well BB

They use these types of tragic incidents to further their own agendas. It is utterly unbelievable.

[eek MD]

90. Touchy Touchy.....

Well, i guess i'm a piece of human filth then......

But at least i haven't shot a gun at a fucking child.....

..........
Oh and by the way..........Dick Cheney also said something quite similar to "Go fuck yourself" if I remember. I guess you two don't seem to fall far from the same tree... :)
Have a nice day....

Edited to add: I haven't been called a douchebag since the 4th grade. But then again, most adults don't namecall very often.....hmmmm...just a thought..

[Evergreen Emerald]

96. You deserved it.

[eek MD]

101. Sticks and stones may break my bones...

But names are for children. Grow up.

[raccoon]

115. "Suicide by cop"--that was my thought, too. nt

[Burning Water]

41. They're not paid

to be stupid. Just because someone tells them the gun is not real, doesn't mean that it is so. Pull a gun on the police, you have taken your life in your own hands. Doesn't really matter if you were insane, or just kidding, or a serious criminal. Doesn't matter if the gun was fake or real. None of that will bring you back to life, and if the gun happened to be real, and you shot the policeman, none of that would bring him back, either.

[pinerow]

60. IMO...Seems like a lot of folks here believe all LEO's are above

reproach and should never be questioned...the sad part is that history does not bear that out...I've had friends in Law Enforcement who have never drawn their weapon, they have never had a suspect go free because they "forgot" to Mirandize a suspect, they are professionals through and through. Having said that. it seems to me that some folk just cannot wrap their brains around the idea that there may have been a mistake...there is an on-going investigation that will determine whether the shooting was justified, it may be that it was, there is also the not too impossible theory that the police were wrong, I know that sounds like heresy, but it has happened entirely too many times to rule it out.

[Occulus]

61. The core problem, of course, is

there are too many people, even here, who have an implicit trust in authority simply because it is an authority. They apparently feel that posession of a badge automatically elevates its holder above his fellows, the holder's disposition and biases notwithstanding. Something else I'm seeing here is a lot of people desiring that a job which by its very nature carries risk carry no risk, and asking us that those employed as police officers be forgiven- unlike the rest of us- for simply not thinking. Yet, at the same time, these very same people will tell you police are people too, and make misteakes just like the rest of us.

All this comes from a reverence for Authority, something I outgrew when I realized those very same authorities will not actually do anything when I've been harmed or robbed- even when they have evidence signed by the thief as a "ha-ha-gotcha" note.

I think the cracked rib I got from a police officer during a noise complaint just for trying to get his badge number had something to do with it- or maybe it was the illegal drug search performed during the same incident. It might also have something to do with their failure to investigate the vandalism of my roommate's car by the company that illegally towed it out of our apartment complex- said vandalism having been done in the towing company's lot.

It might also have something to do with the "your papers, please" stop I suffered while walking down the sidewalk several years ago. Wanted to know where I lived, why I was out, where I was going... in the middle of the day, as a pedestrian.

Drug enforcement officers in our area recently bullied their way through the front door of a friend's place; an eleven-year-old kid was the only one home. Despite actually living there, the police ordered him onto the couch and proceeded to perform a warrantless search. Of course, my friends, being fairly poor themselves, cannot afford the money it would take to defend their civil rights. The police forces of this country know this phenomenon all too well, and constantly exploit it.

By implicitly trusting Authority, we ourselves have in that way allowed us to be set into an ever-tightening noose. The more we refuse to deal with police who go over the line, allowing them to keep their jobs and pensions, letting the truly bad ones hide behind the blue wall, the more corrupt and authoritarian they will become. Police in America today are, generally, far too eager to "eliminate the threat", rather than deal with it; tragedies such as this one are the end result.

[Evergreen Emerald]

69. I disagree with your premise

I further disagree that we refuse to deal with police who go over the line. We are diligent in dealing with police who abuse their power.

I believe the core is the 'us versus them' attitude. The police were at that school in an attempt to prevent another Columbine. The police were there, risking their own lives, so the children of that community would not have to risk their's. The automatic assumption in foul-play, the automatic criticism of the police without knowing the facts, is the core of the problem.

[superconnected]

80. Having worked at two police depts I agree.

Some cops are good and others do have the violent prone and us verses them attitude. Saying blanket statements that all police are either is severely uninformed.

[Zhade]

74. Fantastic, and distressing, post.

I've experienced that feeling of trepidation when it comes to cops, and with good reason: a few months after 9/11, I got pulled over for having an upside-down flag on my car antenna.

Then there was the police brutality I witnessed literally right in front of me on Santa Monica and Highland.

I know it's unfair to the good cops, but the fact that bad cops are so often protected doesn't put any of them in a good light.

[progressivebydesign]

65. Cops had NO way of knowing that was true.. IF the parents did tell them.

Would any of you.. ANY of you risk your life or the life of you loved one listening to a parent who tells you that the gun is fake? How did they know? Parents don't fucking know 90% of what goes on in their kids life. Sad that the kid had to be shot, but I'm not second guessing the cops in this. The responsiblity for this incident rests soley on the kid who altered a pellet gun to look real. Sad, but true. He is solely responsible.

[pinerow]

81. A tactical withdrawal could have been made until the veracity

of the parent is established, what many people don't seem to want to understand is that there exists other non-lethal options open to the police. The boy was alone...no hostages involved, and that point has already been established. We are in no position to "know: what the officer in question was thinking, I suspect that he feels like crap right now. A dispassionate investigation may be able to determine what was the proper course of action. While I do not lump ALL police into the same barrel, it must be understood that not ALL LEO's are the creme-de le creme, and if information was available to the line commanders that the parent wanted to try and talk the kid down, which is SOP in many stand-off situations, then the line commanders and the shooter need to be held responsible.

[brentspeak]

86. It's not the shooter who should be under scrutiny in this case

I agree with those who say the cop has no choice but to fire his weapon if a gun is aimed at him, regardless if he knows or not if the gun is real. My problem with this particular case is that after the commanders were told by others that the gun may not be real, word of that possibility apparently didn't reach the officers who were directly dealing with the boy. A few questions posed by the SWAT team to the boy concerning his weapon could have enabled them to determine if the gun was real or not. In the end, I'm not sure what to think about this case. I've read two different versions of the event, one which says the cop entered the bathroom to confront the kid, another where the boy stepped out of the bathroom and aimed his weapon at the cop. If the former occured, then that was clearly a mistake; if the latter occured, then the police did all they could, and really can't be faulted.

[brentspeak]

82. You could query the kid about the gun

If they received word that the gun might not be real, the SWAT team could ask him some questions about his weapon. What kind of gun is it? How did you load it? Where's the safety located? Depending on what the kid answers, the cops would have a better idea -- or even a definite idea -- if he's BS'ing or not.

[LisaL]

87. Yea, and I am sure the kid was ready for a test with

questions and answers. He put the gun to his own head, he also attacked his classmate with the gun. Clearly, the boy was pretending the gun was real. And I doubt he was going to sit there and explain to the police where the safety was located. Some here do say the darnest things.

[Rex]

89. Sorry no, the kid had to die. 911 changed everything.

If you flap your arms at 16 cops or have a fake gun or steal a purse (prepare to be run over by a cops truck) and run...you are a dead man! There evidently is no grey area on this subject - give even the hint of a threat and you DIE! Crazy and don't have meds? Better not fly on a plane! Elderly and frail? No fears...we have 8 tazers to shock you into a coma! Pepper spray to the face? How bout some CS gas for your toddler?


911 really did change everything...for the worst.

[saigon68]

106. Love your photo

I see the guys in blue have the negroes in check

They wear the same helmets and same expressions as these ethnic cleansers

[lynne]

117. The change came several years earlier -

- with respect to how police will handle kids in schools with guns. Columbine changed that.

Sad situation all way around. Sounds like suicide by cop to me.

[Matariki]

93. one question - where were their beloved tasers this time?

one time it might have made sense to use them.

[LisaL]

98. Maybe they would have "their beloved tasers" if people

haven't complained about them so much. You can't have your cake and eat it too-screaming bloody murder every time somebody gets killed by using a taser, and then demanding they use tasers in other situations.
:eyes:

[Matariki]

107. wow, you really DO have to use the 'sarcasm' icon around here...

*of course* I don't demand police use tasers on school children, or on guys at the Chucky Cheese salad bar. nor do i think shooting crazy stressed out 15 year olds who have barricaded themselves in a school lavatory is appropriate, even if they have a *real* gun. i think police are supposed to get training for situations like this, to diffuse the situation without anyone dieing. maybe i'm just idealistic?

and have police stooped using tasers? that's news to me.

[Tsiyu]

108. These swat officers were COWARDS

Sorry. They just wanted to kill something. Who cares if it was right or wrong? There is no right or wrong anymore. Just kill something.

It'll make you feel better. I hope the Sumbitch who killed the kid has nightmares for the rest of his pathetic life.

Sorry, but this is the kind of shit Alito wants to be commonplace in this nation. Shoot first, just to be "manly." Right.

[Trillo]

109. What is missing from the blamefest?

Three entities appear involved:

• Student (mentally ill?)


• Police


• School

All the discussion appears centered on the police versus the armed student. Great divisions are demarcated and perhaps greatly exaggerated by DU members.

One element appears missing from the discussion.

Why wasn't this student identified as at risk by the school authorities, and why didn't they take prior action to preserve his life? Were no bullying incidents reported? If they were, what actions were taken?

[crankybubba]

116. turns out it's not like the lawyer said.

http://www.local6.com/news/6188583/detail.html

LONGWOOD, Fla. -- A Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation into the shooting of a middle-school student holding a pellet gun by a SWAT team member revealed that authorities did not speak with the boy's father until after the shooting, according to a Local 6 News report.



Also Tuesday, Local 6 News learned that several years ago, Penley wrote a school paper concerning pointing a gun at a police officer.

Seminole County Sheriff Don Eslinger confirmed the Local 6 News report and read from a school paper written by Penley.

"It states, 'If you point a gun at a cop, they will shoot you even if you don't shoot him or a person,'" Eslinger said. "It's just to give you some idea of maybe, possibly state of mind."


seems he knew what he was doing. He knew point a gun at a cop you will get shot.

[LisaL]

120. Of course he knew it. That's why it's called "suicide by cop".

It's a sad story, but the kid wanted to die, and got what he wanted.