SWAT team shoots "armed" 8th grader.

[shield772]

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg....SXJcX4aWKDNw--

This is a photo of the replica the kid had, I would have shot him if he had pointed it at me.

[bishop]

i did some checking and it doesn't even look like you need an associate's degree (not even from some pushover community college) to be eligible to be a cop.

(my desire to have well educated police is based on my prejudice that educated minds are far more capable of making better decisions than uneducated minds.)

[Osborn F Enready]

Shield, I myself don't agree with non-lethal weapons if it affects where and how a weapon could be used. I do however, think in this case a weapons use was inevitable, and fully justified, so why not use the most appropriate weapon for the situation, which would seem to me to be the type of non-lethal weapons that are so highly touted at any other opprotunity when talking of weapons in general?

I am now curious as to what laws Florida has on non-lethal weapons, and why they weren't employed here.

I know for a fact, that garments and shields can be used to protect an officer from any small arms pistol rounds except certain exotic pistols that chamber rifle rounds and such.

Wouldn't it have been most feasible to equip officers with armor, to encircle the child while they pummelled him with beanbags or tasers to subdue him without injury if possible?

It happened in a bathroom, so why not barricade the entrances with armored cops armed with rubber bullets?

Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but without hindsight how could we ever form a comprehensive, intelligent debate on how to deal with problems that have a high probability of re-occuring?

[shield772]

CJD 0760 Criminal Justice Legal 1 46 hrs.
CJD 0761 Criminal Justice Legal 2 48 hrs.
CJD 0730 Law Enforcement Legal 3 32 hrs.
CJD 0762 Criminal Justice Communications 56 hrs.
CJD 0763 Interpersonal Skills 66 hrs.
CJD 0704 Criminal Justice Defensive Tactics 106 hrs.
CJD 0705 Criminal Justice Weapons 64 hrs.
CJD 0254 Medical First Responder 48 hrs.
CJD 0731 Law Enforcement Patrol 64 hrs.
CJD 0732 Law Enforcement Traffic 46 hrs.
CJD 0723 Vehicle Operations 36 hrs.
CJD 0734 Law Enforcement Investigations 64 hrs.

TOTAL 672 Hours

these are minimum requirements for Florida LEO

This is about 17 weeks of training or about 4 months

[shield772]

I have checked and Seminole County does have less than lethal weapons.

[Osborn F Enready]

As far as education and cops go, I know for a fact that our local police force SEEK those with median to lower IQ's. How do I know this? My brother who was put out of work, applied for the police program here in Toledo, and he was refused because they said his IQ showed that he "would become bored, and inattenetive" to police type work according to them. They said his IQ was "too high" to become a good policeman.........

To me this is just flawed logic, and a way of recruiting sheeple.

Also, note that I am NOT anti-cop, or trying to give cops a bad name.

[shield772]

http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/officerbehavior.pdf

Good reading on less than lethal alternatives

[bishop]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready As far as education and cops go, I know for a fact that our local police force SEEK those with median to lower IQ's. How do I know this? My brother who was put out of work, applied for the police program here in Toledo, and he was refused because they said his IQ showed that he "would become bored, and inattenetive" to police type work according to them. They said his IQ was "too high" to become a good policeman......... To me this is just flawed logic, and a way of recruiting sheeple. Also, note that I am NOT anti-cop, or trying to give cops a bad name.

we had the same problem when i lived in jersey.. nyc lowered the standards down at one point where all you needed was a high school diploma (think about all the losers you graduated with who could've become gun-wielding cops!).. i'm not sure if they've upped the standards, but i kind of doubt it.

they want less intelligent robots who will be more prone to follow orders without thinking/questioning.. in many cases, that also includes acting without trying to figure out if they're taking the best course of action.. this story's case in point - the cop could've easily used non-lethals to subdue the kid.

and shield... you don't seem to understand the difference between training and being educated.. being educated means that you have a developed mind -i.e. the ability to critically think. learning standard operating procedures don't do a damn for educating people.

[Osborn F Enready]

Shield, thanks for that link. I surface skimmed it, and plan on reading it in entireity.

One thing that caught my attention right of the bat though, was this, from the second page.

The mandate to use force, within the confines of the law, is the defining feature of the role of police in society. The use of excessive force, or the allegation of use, can threaten not only the legitimacy of the police but of government itself. Clearly, there is a need to devise approaches involving technologies and tactics that permit the police to control difficult situations with the minimum force possible.

Now, I agree entirely with what IS SAID, but it is what is not said that bothers me most.

There is ALL truth in the point that the use of force and the validity of its application affect public interpretation of both law itself, and government itself. Well they are clear to point out that fact, but they only address the application of force issue, leaving out entirely, the process or channel for feedback from police to lawmakers on the disputes of or allegations of the validity of the laws.

They want to learn to better apply force for any given situation, moreso than ensure that all laws where force can be applied legally are valid laws.

Now, I understand fully that this SHOULD not be the main goal of a law enforcement agent whatever form his allegiance or loyalty is to, federal, state or city. However, I feel education and skeptical thought should be taught just the same, as they both equally impact the problem. If they equally impact the problem, they should be equally stressed as to obtain a balanced result, which is what is desired.

For example:
The War on Drugs. Police far and wide, from every level of law enforcement are split on this idea of policy, as well as a means of realistic, reasonable enforcement, and expectations of that enforcement on agents who do so. Time and statitistics show that drugs both legal and illegal have been the root cause of lawless behaviour in many circumstances, as well as often times the only action of documented example that is actually illegal, is possesion or consumption of said drug. This begs to question at what level of reason law enforcement agents will enforce laws with the ever-present threat of deadly force, when the only person being harmed is the person committing the action. Much like suicide, we must weigh what cost is rational to expect of man when people are asked to risk their own, sometimes multiple lives, to save one life that endangers itself of its own intrest and un-forced volition.

I think it should be part of the policemans job to not only question methods of enforcement, but what is actually being asked to be enforced, and at what cost to the people who both pay for, and actually do the job. They should have a responsibility to speak out when they feel laws are being expected to be enforced when enforcing them is either unreasonable due to the level of privacy encroachment or due to the level of threat to human life for enforcement, both based on actual real life cases since the law has been passed and enforced.

I believe that what is not said, often leads to the root cause of the problem, which in this case points to law enforcment officials have been more and more expected to act as military men, in the sense they no longer serve a community, they serve the nation. Community involvement has taken a back seat to enforcement without question, since they preach the code of the military man with respect to brothers in arms, and a code of brotherhood united against the masses. Citizens are no longer citizens, they are civillians in the eyes of many policeman. This is due to certain lines that must be drawn when taking up the role of law enforcement in our MODERN society. We have allowed many laws to be passed that force true questions of what we are, and what liberty is, and where we will draw a line to be lawful or not lawful in ALL respects. We are forcing people to draw lines in how much they respect their system of law, and government itself, because we allow laws to be passed that limit very common, very personal cravings, desires and basic tenets of life.

I can't even work in LAWFUL, gainful employment without complying to unabashed, unrepresented taxation that is used to FURTHER disenfranchise me from my constitutional rights, without a single right of protest or meaningful protest without threat of force being IMPLIED.

My point is, that the threat of force is implied in most any situation anymore, thanks to an ever growing authoritarian government, thanks to a lack of constitutional adherance to limitations on that ability to concentrate power. I can be fully within the law, to my best ability, but due to a light going out on my vehicle, I may be under threat of force if pulled over by a police officer who wishes to make me aware of the mechanical malfunction, and a situation of confusion for whatever reason arising.

The more interaction with law enforcement, the more the risk of error in the application of force. The best way to lower that level of interaction, is to ensure that laws are not only Constitutional, but within reason able to be enforced.

There are many laws today that can not be reasonably enforced, as well as there is a culture of recruitment and mis-education on what priorities are central to maintaining not only peace but stability in citizens and police interaction, and even government. Coupled with those, is a conscious effort to seek people who do not tend to resist authority by those charged with enforcing authority, and this to me added all together equals a clear picture of what is happening and why.

When you look at the changes in law enforcement agencies over the last 50 years there seems to me to be a trend of militarization taking place. The weapons as well as the funding for reasearch and development, training, and weapon tactics and use have all increased considerably. Much of that trend coincides with the increase in drug laws, which have been PROVEN through example to be unenforceable, especially with respect to constititional rights of citizens.

Along with the increase in police recruitment, we have seen a trend towards more authoritarian recruits, due to the over-reach of bad laws forcing people to draw lines earlier in life, and harsher lines than normally dealt with when speaking of widely accepted laws over things such as fraud or murder. These lines we draw affect who we associate with, who we aspire to emulate and idolize as well as guide ourselves off of. It leads to cultural division, and seperation. It encourages segregation based on thought, not on race, as we have had open political discussion about. This is also aided by "corporate" theories being applied to law enforcement agencies as far as power structure, but not for funding. Their funding is not RESULT based, it is NEED based, and that need is defined by the lawmakers. For the last 50 to 100 years we have been seeing an increase in those NEEDS and CAUSES of those needs being misdefined, misinterpreted, and misapplied.

Man, this is getting long, but I really could go on and on about how all these things are interconnected.

Again, I am not trying to be anti-cop, I am trying to if anything help police and citizens better get along and respect one another by insuring the laws reflect the ACTUAL needs and respect the scope of each of their roles in society.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready When I was 15, I had several pellet guns like that one, different models, and I modified them all to look as real as possible. I also used to wear camoflage when I was 15 because I wanted to join a military school. I also played guns in my neighborhood all through my childhood. I watched war movied, played war video games, had plastic army men of all varities to play with, owned a real gun, and several knives. I used to practice scaling buildings at night by climbing the local Libbey Owens Ford Devlopment Center, because it had big protruding ledges and brick abuttments. Everything above, I think today, would be viewed as being "questionable", or "unhealthy" behaviour, yet I and several friends did it from dusk to dawn, in a lot of our freetime, including bb-gun wars.

Good point, Osborn. Let me add just a little to that. When I was a kid no one raised an eyebrow when they saw 2 or 3 12-13 year olds walking down the street with .22 rifles and even an occasional shotgun. Almost every boy was expected to own a good ol' Daisy BB gun and any number of hunting knives. And those were just the most basic of boy necessities.
Like you, we watched war movies and cowboy movies and pretended we WERE these people. The difference was we used FAKE guns when we play acted. We somehow just knew not to use the real thing.

But we had a lot of help when it came to being potential killers. We had the TOY COMPANIES. The 60's was the decade of 007, the Man From UNCLE, Mission: Impossible and a lot of other violent, gadget-filled TV shows and movies. Even the standard cowboy show was influenced, with shows like The Wild Wild West! And the toy companies were more than willing to provide us with every kind of realistic gun imaginable (and some NOT so imaginable). Not only did we have REAL guns, in my case I had a portable radio, a pocketknife, a camera and a big belt buckle that all turned into guns. Not just cap guns but a lot of these things fired real plastic bullets. Harmless, but they did shoot bullets. We had guns that shot water, air (one even looked like a Bazooka), and suction cup darts, as well as machine guns that attached to the handlebars of our bikes. We even had "Sixfinger", a single shot pistol that, when held, looked like an extra finger. Pretty sneaky if you didn't get a good look at it.
A lot of kids had longbows and real arrows, some were razor-sharp 3-bladed hunting arrows that could take out an adult deer.
Of course, you couldn't take those things to school. For school we had home made rubber band powered pellet guns, cardboard crossbows that shot pencils, paper clip guns, and guns that just shot the rubber bands themselves.

All things considered, I would say that counts as a national obsession with guns and violence. This raises the obvious question, why is the rate of gun related crime as high as it is NOW, in this "enlightened" age of ours. Just how in HELL did the 60's pass without wholesale slaughter of half the population at the hands of an army of deranged under-18 year olds with a lust for blood??

Bad parenting, maybe. But I don't think it's that easy to identify the problem. Most males who grew up in the 60's would attest to the fact that we weren't home all that much to GET that parental supervision. If school wasn't in session we were usually outside, out of the sight of parents, from a little past sunrise to a little past sunset and often later. More than enough time to screw up our pliant little minds all by ourselves.

[gr8fuldaniel]

The kid was cornered in a bathroom? Nobody thought to use tear gas and a baton to the knee cap when he came out? No, They had to kill the kid to send a message. The Prison Planet has spoken.

[Jack]

It's not easy to second-guess in these situations. Perhaps the officers just happened upon him there without prior warning that he was there. Once someone points a gun at you, it's not easy to just back out of the room. We don't know what resources were available to the officers.
If he was known to be cornered in a bathroom, if there were non-lethal means available to subdue him, if there were options available to the officers that would have allowed them to take the kid into custody without killing him and they were ignored, then I'd agree with your analysis.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel The kid was cornered in a bathroom? Nobody thought to use tear gas and a baton to the knee cap when he came out? No, They had to kill the kid to send a message. The Prison Planet has spoken.

To make that charge work you have to show the cops WANTED to shoot the kid. I think you will find that a tough sell.
Even if you can show that attitude is in the system itself you still have to factor in the man who fired the shot that killed the kid. I don't think you'll find killing this kid was the cop's first choice.

[Chris]

This whole thing sounds fishy to me.

if he was armed, or suspected of being armed, they should have not entered the bathroom at all. I wonder what they would have done if this was a high schooler (17-18) or an adult.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Scribbler To make that charge work you have to show the cops WANTED to shoot the kid. I think you will find that a tough sell.

That would be like proving how many of those kids at Columbine were killed by the cops.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel That would be like proving how many of those kids at Columbine were killed by the cops.

I was talking more of motivation to waste a kid. A LOT of these cops are parents.

While it DOES make more sense in hindsight (and not having actually been there) to lob some gas into the bathroom or even one of those concussion bombs we may never really know why they didn't try that. If there was only one door to this bathroom, or even two, they could have just waited and sweated the kid out.

I suppose we will find out more in the coming weeks or months, as you KNOW this is going to court, and I suspect these cops will take the complete fall for this whether this is institional policy or not.

[Autolykos]

I have to concur with Gr8fuldaniel and |Chris|. It seems like we're not being told the full story here.

Who else remembers the "Air Marshall Shooting" incident back in December? Interestingly enough, it also occurred in Florida (albeit in Miami). A man (I can't recall his name offhand) was gunned down by a federal air marshall after fleeing down the jetway from a plane. At first, it was claimed that he was yelling about having a bomb with him; later this story was confirmed to be false. Rather, the offending air marshall was a little too trigger-happy.

It seems likely to me that the officer who killed poor Christopher Penley was also trigger-happy. Then again, hindsight is 20-20. In any case, this whole thing is a terrible tragedy and my sympathies go out to all of those who knew the victim. May he rest in peace.

- Rob

[shield772]

Just a question not really trying to be argumentative but how many of you that think the cops should have done something else have ever had someone point a gun at you in anger? I have and let me tell you the last thing on my mind was how I could make this easier on him.

[bishop]

does that excuse the cop(s) from an apparent failure to plan ahead? the cop could've had rubber bullets or a bean bag gun to subdue the child. i don't fault the cop for firing, i am criticizing the appalling lack of judgement concerning the use of lethal (instead of non-lethal) weapons..

[Chris]

Quote by: Autolykos I have to concur with Gr8fuldaniel and |Chris|. It seems like we're not being told the full story here. Who else remembers the "Air Marshall Shooting" incident back in December? Interestingly enough, it also occurred in Florida (albeit in Miami). A man (I can't recall his name offhand) was gunned down by a federal air marshall after fleeing down the jetway from a plane. At first, it was claimed that he was yelling about having a bomb with him; later this story was confirmed to be false. Rather, the offending air marshall was a little too trigger-happy. It seems likely to me that the officer who killed poor Christopher Penley was also trigger-happy. Then again, hindsight is 20-20. In any case, this whole thing is a terrible tragedy and my sympathies go out to all of those who knew the victim. May he rest in peace. - Rob

damn I dont remember that case. Was the poor guy just trying to catch a plane?