SWAT team shoots "armed" 8th grader.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Apeman81 Quote by: bishop using rubber bullets would've most certainly stopped a 15 year old boy dead in his tracks. How does an officer load a weapon before he strarts his shift? 1 rubber, 2 lead, another rubber and the rest lead?

You would think a police state would have a better arsenal. What do they do when they run into a peaceful protester? "Lets see, .45 or .9mm? , since I loaded my .45 this mornin those mother fuckin tree huggers are gonna get splattered today. Ahh what the hell we're SWAT hand me that AK, rat there."

Does he carry a special, rubber bullet magazine? How does he know when to load lead or rubber?

How about when he hears its just a kid...........Oh wait the cops werent briefed at all, were they? Too bad. Nobody questioned the witnesses, they just stormed the school like it it was Elian Gonzalez or Al Capone.

Does he ask the criminal to wait until he recharges his weapon with the state approved round?

Apparrently the state approves of executions with any round they choose.

If this kid's weapon had been real, and as the result of the police's attempt to use a non-lethal round in a lethal situation, an officer or a bystander had been shot, then where would we be?

Are they that untrained, incompetant? There are formulas that work. Including robotics. Send in a sexy woman with big titties and a pizza. Catch him off guard. If the kid is suffering from a spiritual malady that they have been treating with chemicals, explain to him there are alternate treatments. I could not look forward to a life of meds that make life unbearable.

The fact remains that we ask men and women to protect us from the varied and sundry dangers that arise in a world of unstable people.

Who will protect us from unstable pawns in the police state?

Lethality is best countered with lethality. Anything else puts the officer and the citizenry in danger.

Then you have a case like this where lethality was never really there. Hindsight is 20/20? Sure, and the same thing has happened before..... Did we learn from that? No, its still OK to kill unarmed kids.
If the cops had done their job and questioned the witnesses, that kid could get the help he needed and gone on to live a productive life.

I tried to commit suicide by cop once , fortunately I failed. I was arrested for drunk in public and eventually got the help I needed in Alcoholics Anonymous. I have been sober for 11.5 years, I found a long term solution for my temporary problems. And it wasnt suicide.

Note: I didnt pull a gun on the cop! I just acted like I was reaching for a weapon. The cop wrestled me down. I ran into him after a few years sober and thanked him. He saved my life.
Death would have been a relief at that time. I had no hope. I was living a tortured existense. Guess what, it all passed. Everything is temporary in this world. Good and Bad. Even if you cant wrap your brain around it, your pain will pass.
Depression is a terminal illness, left untreated. Usually our trusted doctors throw drugs at this malady, which could be either chemical or spiritual in nature. Diagnosis can be lethal force. Why dont we take a closer look inside the human condition, rather than throwing bombs and bullets at the kids we are entrusted with nourishing and educating and loving. The kids are the future of our race. Is a childs life is disposable? Are we teaching them to kill? Raising up more little hitlers?

Children are moldable. Lets teach them they wont be killed if they get mentally or spiritually sick.

[another day]

True...but you really don't know how the situation unfolded, so you can't make judgements like this...None of us can. We hear the basic story but that is not always telling...

[brien]

Quote by: Apeman81 And every moment waited is another moment which the suspect may choose to launch adeadly attack against someone else. How many officer's lives must be endangered? This kid did this to himself. He is solely responsible.

What are you writing here. The kid was in a lavatory ALONE. Who was he going to hurt? They could have locked the entry door and waited him out.

I have no quarrel that the kid set himself up but he was NO DANGER to anyone after he was in the lavatory.

The cops rushed to judgement and thereby acted recklessly and killed that kid when they could have diffused the situation in a peaceful manner. The cops crossed the line in this instance and they should be held accountable. This isn't Dodge City we are talking about here. But the cops sure did act like Doc Holiday and Wyatt Erp.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel You would think a police state would have a better arsenal. What do they do when they run into a peaceful protester? "Lets see, .45 or .9mm? , since I loaded my .45 this mornin those mother fuckin tree huggers are gonna get splattered today. Ahh what the hell we're SWAT hand me that AK, rat there." How about when he hears its just a kid...........Oh wait the cops werent briefed at all, were they? Too bad. Nobody questioned the witnesses, they just stormed the school like it it was Elian Gonzalez or Al Capone. Apparrently the state approves of executions with any round they choose. Are they that untrained, incompetant? There are formulas that work. Including robotics. Send in a sexy woman with big titties and a pizza. Catch him off guard. If the kid is suffering from a spiritual malady that they have been treating with chemicals, explain to him there are alternate treatments. I could not look forward to a life of meds that make life unbearable. Who will protect us from unstable pawns in the police state? Then you have a case like this where lethality was never really there. Hindsight is 20/20? Sure, and the same thing has happened before..... Did we learn from that? No, its still OK to kill unarmed kids. If the cops had done their job and questioned the witnesses, that kid could get the help he needed and gone on to live a productive life. I tried to commit suicide by cop once , fortunately I failed. I was arrested for drunk in public and eventually got the help I needed in Alcoholics Anonymous. I have been sober for 11.5 years, I found a long term solution for my temporary problems. And it wasnt suicide. Note: I didnt pull a gun on the cop! I just acted like I was reaching for a weapon. The cop wrestled me down. I ran into him after a few years sober and thanked him. He saved my life. Death would have been a relief at that time. I had no hope. I was living a tortured existense. Guess what, it all passed. Everything is temporary in this world. Good and Bad. Even if you cant wrap your brain around it, your pain will pass. Depression is a terminal illness, left untreated. Usually our trusted doctors throw drugs at this malady, which could be either chemical or spiritual in nature. Diagnosis can be lethal force. Why dont we take a closer look inside the human condition, rather than throwing bombs and bullets at the kids we are entrusted with nourishing and educating and loving. The kids are the future of our race. Is a childs life is disposable? Are we teaching them to kill? Raising up more little hitlers? Children are moldable. Lets teach them they wont be killed if they get mentally or spiritually sick.

Your comments are as nosnsensical as well as histerical in nature.

Do not expect further response from me.

[brien]

Quote by: Apeman81 Your comments are as nosnsensical as well as histerical in nature. Do not expect further response from me.

The only "nonsensical" and "hysterical" statement I see here, is your writing that you are abdicating your role in the debate.

I don't call a person, who in his life experience, faced a situation with police in a similar manner as this boy, nonsense. I don't call someone who has battled back from alcoholism to sobriety, nonsense.

What I do call nonsense is running out of ideas that continue to be answered by intelligent retorts that you seek, and when you get them, you abdicate your role in the debate by calling them "nonsense".

If you are simply out of ideas, then say so, but don't cut and run by calling what others write from their life experience nonsense.

Perhaps you should re evaluate your position here. It seems like nonsense to me.

[lsbskins1]

Brien-

If there is a fact that directly contradicts a position taken by Ape, it has to be "nonsensical and histerical", because nothing rational can contradict his world view. There is a term for this. It is cognitive dissonance. It is the shell fanatics retreat into when faced with evidence of their own errors in judgement. They can not tollerate the conflict created in their own souls when they are forced to admit that their ideals are in someway in contradiction with what they should, under normal circumstances, view as right or normal. It is amusing to witness from this side.

[brien]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Brien- If there is a fact that directly contradicts a position taken by Ape, it has to be "nonsensical and histerical", because nothing rational can contradict his world view. There is a term for this. It is cognitive dissonance. It is the shell fanatics retreat into when faced with evidence of their own errors in judgement. They can not tollerate the conflict created in their own souls when they are forced to admit that their ideals are in someway in contradiction with what they should, under normal circumstances, view as right or normal. It is amusing to witness from this side.

I am familiar with cognitive dissonance. It is a term I haven't heard since I took Personality when I was a Psyche major back in my sophmore year in college. You hit the proverbial nail on the head.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: brien The only "nonsensical" and "hysterical" statement I see here, is your writing that you are abdicating your role in the debate. I don't call a person, who in his life experience, faced a situation with police in a similar manner as this boy, nonsense. I don't call someone who has battled back from alcoholism to sobriety, nonsense. What I do call nonsense is running out of ideas that continue to be answered by intelligent retorts that you seek, and when you get them, you abdicate your role in the debate by calling them "nonsense". If you are simply out of ideas, then say so, but don't cut and run by calling what others write from their life experience nonsense. Perhaps you should re evaluate your position here. It seems like nonsense to me.

What other weapon did the kid have with him? After Columbine, is it unreasonable to believe that this child may have had any devices at his disposal?

How long does one wait? Did the bathroom have a window, from which he could fire?

If the police had waited, and a remote detonation of bullet fired from the boy had killed someone, people would be screaming "what were they waiting for?"

The gratuitous assertion that the armed child presented no danger is simple that, gratuitous. What danger’s he may have presented could not have been known at the time.

As for calling anyone “nonsense”, I have not done so. I referred to a person’s comments as being such. Hardly the same thing.

A similar situation with police? Was this person to whom you refer charged with protecting the public from an armed danger? Or the person with the gun that required police action to suppress the danger he presented? It’s easy to empathize with just one side.

It’s not about being out of ideas, but his inability to address other ideas. Histrionic posts do not engender further discussion.

[Apeman81]

Your logic works like this;

The officers could have waited.

The officers could have talked to witnesses.

The officers could have locked the door.

The officers could have used tear gas.

The flaw of you logic is this;

The officers could have waited.
The kid could have, a) Not brought the gun to school, b) not threatened anyone with the weapon, c) surrendered to police immediately.

The officers could have talked to witnesses.
The kid could have, a) Not brought the gun to school, b) not threatened anyone with the weapon, c) surrendered to police immediately.

The officers could have locked the door.
The kid could have, a) Not brought the gun to school, b) not threatened anyone with the weapon, c) surrendered to police immediately.

The officers could have used tear gas.
The kid could have, a) Not brought the gun to school, b) not threatened anyone with the weapon, c) surrendered to police immediately.

The boy with the weapon presented the danger in this instance. It was his choice and his action that precipitated the confrontation. At no time did this weapon-bearing child do anything to diffuse or end the immediate danger he presented.

Faced with a danger to the public they are sworn to protect, the police chose to quell the danger they were not responsible for creating. To have waited could have resulted in the death of an officer or a civilian. They only person harmed in this instance was the person upon all responsibility lies.

It’s not what the officer’s COULD have done, it is what the kid DID.

[Jack]

How does an officer load a weapon before he strarts his shift? 1 rubber, 2 lead, another rubber and the rest lead?

Rubber bullets can't be fired from a normal sidearm. They are fired from a weapon that resembles a shotgun with a shorter barrel. That's why earlier I wondered what weapons the police had available to them. Not every patrol car carries those specialty type weapons. If no officer was present with gas, stun grenades or a non-lethal firearm, then the officers were left with no practical alternative other than lethal force.

[thatoneguy00]

Very well put apeshit, I am sorry I mean apeman I totally agree if anybody can read what he wrote and stilll fault the officer for doing his job, then there is something wrong I was almost starting to question my opinion on this fact but not no more. THanks to apeman I am staunch on the fact they difused that situation. Now but let me change subject just a little bit. what if this would have happened in new orleans. The way we have seen their officers react there probably wwould have been fortry cops shooting at this kid. so now this officer isn't so bad is he?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Isherwood Rubber bullets can't be fired from a normal sidearm. They are fired from a weapon that resembles a shotgun with a shorter barrel. That's why earlier I wondered what weapons the police had available to them. Not every patrol car carries those specialty type weapons. If no officer was present with gas, stun grenades or a non-lethal firearm, then the officers were left with no practical alternative other than lethal force.

My impression has always been that SWAT has damn near EVERYTHING available to them. They are supposed to be the police department's version of the Navy Seals, are they not?
The SWAT team was on the scene I thought.

[Osborn F Enready]

And I would also bet they are armed with tasers, as are many uniformed officers now. I wouldn't want to use a Taser against a gun, but I certainly would use a bean bag gun or rubber bullets, especially knowing it was a school kid.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Apeman81 Your logic works like this; The officers could have waited. The officers could have talked to witnesses. The officers could have locked the door. The officers could have used tear gas. The flaw of you logic is this; The officers could have waited. The kid could have, a) Not brought the gun to school, b) not threatened anyone with the weapon, c) surrendered to police immediately. The officers could have talked to witnesses. The kid could have, a) Not brought the gun to school, b) not threatened anyone with the weapon, c) surrendered to police immediately. The officers could have locked the door. The kid could have, a) Not brought the gun to school, b) not threatened anyone with the weapon, c) surrendered to police immediately. The officers could have used tear gas. The kid could have, a) Not brought the gun to school, b) not threatened anyone with the weapon, c) surrendered to police immediately. The boy with the weapon presented the danger in this instance. It was his choice and his action that precipitated the confrontation. At no time did this weapon-bearing child do anything to diffuse or end the immediate danger he presented. Faced with a danger to the public they are sworn to protect, the police chose to quell the danger they were not responsible for creating. To have waited could have resulted in the death of an officer or a civilian. They only person harmed in this instance was the person upon all responsibility lies. It’s not what the officer’s COULD have done, it is what the kid DID.

This post is better representative of the facts if you exchange the word TOY in each instance where you used "weapon" and "gun". After all is said and done, it was a toy. We know that now. And anyone who values life wouldnt want to see this happen again. Some people, like Apeman, I BET, would justify this end to all future similar conflicts. The kid had it coming, right Ape?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel This post is better representative of the facts if you exchange the word TOY in each instance where you used "weapon" and "gun". After all is said and done, it was a toy. We know that now. And anyone who values life wouldnt want to see this happen again. Some people, like Apeman, I BET, would justify this end to all future similar conflicts. The kid had it coming, right Ape?

I'm not taking a side here, but the real bottom line here is if the officer KNEW it was a toy. This was the impetus behind laws banning real-looking toys, when a couple of kids WERE killed by cops because the toys looked real. Again, we weren't there so we may never know for sure what went on there. But I will say one thing, there is no way in hell I'm going to believe what either side's lawyers say about it.

But it must be taken into consideration that the kid apparently WANTED the toy to look real. IMO, he HAD to realize this might have happened and, again without taking sides, no matter what happens the boy must assume some of the blame for this. Perhaps a lot MORE than "some." You just can't eliminate that from the equation.

[Charon]

Even in the military (US), if you are given an "illegal" order, you don't have to carry it out. You may have to prove that it was illegal, but you do have the option.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Charon Even in the military (US), if you are given an "illegal" order, you don't have to carry it out. You may have to prove that it was illegal, but you do have the option.

And when was the last time you knew for a fact THAT happened in the military?

[Chris]

Quote by: Apeman81 Your logic works like this; The officers could have waited. The officers could have talked to witnesses. The officers could have locked the door. The officers could have used tear gas. The flaw of you logic is this; The officers could have waited. The kid could have, a) Not brought the gun to school, b) not threatened anyone with the weapon, c) surrendered to police immediately. The officers could have talked to witnesses. The kid could have, a) Not brought the gun to school, b) not threatened anyone with the weapon, c) surrendered to police immediately. The officers could have locked the door. The kid could have, a) Not brought the gun to school, b) not threatened anyone with the weapon, c) surrendered to police immediately. The officers could have used tear gas. The kid could have, a) Not brought the gun to school, b) not threatened anyone with the weapon, c) surrendered to police immediately. The boy with the weapon presented the danger in this instance. It was his choice and his action that precipitated the confrontation. At no time did this weapon-bearing child do anything to diffuse or end the immediate danger he presented. Faced with a danger to the public they are sworn to protect, the police chose to quell the danger they were not responsible for creating. To have waited could have resulted in the death of an officer or a civilian. They only person harmed in this instance was the person upon all responsibility lies. It’s not what the officer’s COULD have done, it is what the kid DID.

this is crazy.

in a swat type situation they don't go storming into a room/house that someone is held up in until after they have tried to negotiate, and use all other means. I was watching the TV show "Dallas Swat" on A & E and they had some guy held up in a hotel room. The guy was armed and by himself! People in the hotel had been evacuated and then they still negotiated with him for 4 HOURS to save HIS life. Then eventually they broke a window, fired tear gas & waited.... this is all still to save this guy's life. Then they broke the door down using shields and armor etc. They might have been armed with beanbags. The guy shot himself.

I think it was this episode:

http://www.aetv.com/listings/episode...isodeid=111943

[Kite]

In these types of situations officers are supposed to use their best judgement. The kid was pointing what looked like a real 9mm at him, so his best judgement was to shoot the kid before he shot him or someone else. I think that the officer did the right thing.

[brien]

Quote by: Apeman81 What other weapon did the kid have with him? After Columbine, is it unreasonable to believe that this child may have had any devices at his disposal? How long does one wait? Did the bathroom have a window, from which he could fire? If the police had waited, and a remote detonation of bullet fired from the boy had killed someone, people would be screaming "what were they waiting for?" The gratuitous assertion that the armed child presented no danger is simple that, gratuitous. What danger’s he may have presented could not have been known at the time. As for calling anyone “nonsense”, I have not done so. I referred to a person’s comments as being such. Hardly the same thing. A similar situation with police? Was this person to whom you refer charged with protecting the public from an armed danger? Or the person with the gun that required police action to suppress the danger he presented? It’s easy to empathize with just one side. It’s not about being out of ideas, but his inability to address other ideas. Histrionic posts do not engender further discussion.

I'll handle your statements as they appear.

1) The authorites could have waited as long as it took for him to become exhausted. Even if there was a window, they could have fired tear gas through it after the area was secured. After the area was secured, who was he going to "fire" at anyway?

2) You second statement requires further explanation as I ask again, who is he going to fire at from the window, if there was one?

3) No one made any gratuitous assumptions as evidenced by his termination. I ask again, who is he threatening by being locked in a lavatory with no way to escape?

4) I didn't say you called anyone "nonsense". I wrote that you called Dan's statement(s) "nonsensical". I stand by my statement with regard to your writing.

5) You will have to ask Dan about his similar situation. Not me. You should have asked him initially.

6) I am not willing to get between you and Dan. I can only speak from my observations. You need to carry on your debate with him with this, not me.