SWAT team shoots "armed" 8th grader.

[brien]

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.

Your assumption concerning the kid are all happening BEFORE the cops show up, excepting for surrender. The cops options can all happen while the situation is unfolding. BIG DIFFERENCE.

I will deal with your last statement. What did the kid do to threaten anyone with deadly force after he was in the lavatory? He was alone.

And it is about what the officer's could have done before using the LAST option of deadly force.. Peaceful options are required before dealy force. They have a sworn duty and responsibility to protect ALL citizens, even the perp from himself. This means they were under the LEGAL OBLIGATION to use every means possible to diffuse the situation peaceably before using deadly force. They did not do this. This is why they were reckless in their actions and rushed to judgement before exhausting all other means of diffusing the situation BEFORE using deadly force.

[brien]

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.

Ish: They could have locked the lavatory door and obtained whatever they required to diffuse the situation. I could see if the kid exited the lvatory window, if it was open, could open, and was one. Then the whole scene changes. But while locked in a Lavatory where was he going and who was he threatening in there alone?

[brien]

Quote by: 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.

Kite: Officers have a sworn duty to protect all citizens, even the perp from himself before they use deadly force. Deadly force is only justified when the life of the officer is directly threatened by a perp. In this instance, the authorities were legally bound to exhaust all means of peaceful resolution before they created a situation where deadly force was used.

They clearly rushed to judgement here before they used all means to diffuse the situation peacefully. Officers are first obligated to save lives, not take them. This isn't Dodge City with Bat Masterson and Wyatt Erp. At least I hope it isn't. Not so sure anymore.

[thatoneguy00]

I would just like to say that the kid was in there alone with no where to go and as far as anyone knew at that point he was suicidal with a real gun, there is the obligation to protect the perp from himself. next an officer was under direct threat to be fired upon, cops aren't aloud to run. Once the kid decided to result to deadly force, so did the officer my hats off to the officer, and I feel sorry for him as well because he has to live with fact he shot a kid, and later found out that it wasnn't even a real gun.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: thatone ....and I feel sorry for him as well because he has to live with fact he shot a kid, and later found out that it wasnn't even a real gun.

Guilt is a good thing. Guilt forces us to change what we wouldnt change voluntarily by other experiences.
Who ordered him to storm in and kill the kid? Thats the more guilty one.

[Kite]

Quote by: brien Kite: Officers have a sworn duty to protect all citizens, even the perp from himself before they use deadly force. Deadly force is only justified when the life of the officer is directly threatened by a perp. In this instance, the authorities were legally bound to exhaust all means of peaceful resolution before they created a situation where deadly force was used. They clearly rushed to judgement here before they used all means to diffuse the situation peacefully. Officers are first obligated to save lives, not take them. This isn't Dodge City with Bat Masterson and Wyatt Erp. At least I hope it isn't. Not so sure anymore.

Unless I am misconstrewing the situation, I don't think the situation lasted long enough to allow other methods of subuding the kid to be considered. The way I understand it is that the kid pointed the pellet gun at the officer, and the officer instinctivly drew his sidearm and fired. The cop had no way of knowing it wasn't an actual gun being pointed at him, and I really can't blame him for not waiting to find out. The fact is that cops are trained to deal with criminals, not crazed children weilding something that may or may not be a real firearm. It is not as if the kid didn't know that a police officer would be called if he started waving around a pellet gun, it is common sense, and apparently this kid's version was out of date.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Guilt is a good thing. Guilt forces us to change what we wouldnt change voluntarily by other experiences. Who ordered him to storm in and kill the kid? Thats the more guilty one.

Shouldn't the question of whether anyone DID order him to go in and kill the kid be answered first?

Perhaps we should all step back and take a breath before this argument turns into another ridiculous Terri Schiavo farce. We still don't know the whole story and now we're talking about made up scenarios like they're real.

[thatoneguy00]

I guess what I don't understand is, try putting yourselves in the swat postion, ya know after cloumbine and all the other school shootings and now it is happening to you, I mean this world has gone crazy so what do you prepare yourself for? Thats right the worst, only because history repeats itself, and worst case scenario is always what you should be prepared for.My thoughts and prayers are with everyone involved, but I think it was handled justly!!

[brien]

[quote=thatoneguy00]I would just like to say that the kid was in there alone with no where to go and as far as anyone knew at that point he was suicidal with a real gun, there is the obligation to protect the perp from himself.


Yep. So in this case it was the responsibility of the authorities to call in experts on suicide and negotiations. When or if that failed, then tear gas would have done the job very well. If the kid offs himself in the meantime, then at least the authorities have done everything they reasonably could have up until the point where he shoots himself. They are off the hook at that point.

There is no way around the lack of cogent judgement upon law enforcement here. The officers are obligated to do everything to reasonably protect the kid from himself. He wasn't a threat to anyone but himself at the point he cornered himself in the lavatory. Reason dictates that the people in charge would try every avenue of non violence before attacking to kill him. They failed to do this which is why they are responsible for his death.

If I was on the Grand Jury investigating this shooting, I would vote to indict the officers involved and seek to have them removed from the force.

[brien]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Shouldn't the question of whether anyone DID order him to go in and kill the kid be answered first? Perhaps we should all step back and take a breath before this argument turns into another ridiculous Terri Schiavo farce. We still don't know the whole story and now we're talking about made up scenarios like they're real.

This is a good point. However, the fact remains that "someone" made the decision to attack the kid and that person(s) should be held accountable.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: kite The cop had no way of knowing it wasn't an actual gun being pointed at him...

Maybe he didnt want to know it was a toy gun. I am sure there are ways of calling that kind of bluff, especially after doubt has been expressed by two witnesses.

Quote by: kite .... and I really can't blame him for not waiting to find out.

So you are saying the kid deserved to be executed even if the cops knew it was just a toy? Damn, are you a reptile or something? I hope you dont have children, you would just kill em when they act up.

Quote by: kite The fact is that cops are trained to deal with criminals, not crazed children weilding something that may or may not be a real firearm.

Maybe its time to at least think about it?

Quote by: Scribbler1 Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Guilt is a good thing. Guilt forces us to change what we wouldnt change voluntarily by other experiences. Who ordered him to storm in and kill the kid? Thats the more guilty one. Shouldn't the question of whether anyone DID order him to go in and kill the kid be answered first?

Ah, the lone gunman theory
We have a "suit" at the scene. But, maybe he just showed up after the fact for damage control.

With the help of Florida Department of Law Enforcement Special Agent Danny Banks, right, Seminole County Sheriff Don Eslinger, left, points to a pellet gun brandished by a student a Milwee Middle School..... link

Quote by: Scribbler Perhaps we should all step back and take a breath before this argument turns into another ridiculous Terri Schiavo farce. We still don't know the whole story and now we're talking about made up scenarios like they're real.

OK

[gr8fuldaniel]

There is no way around the lack of cogent judgement upon law enforcement here. The officers are obligated to do everything to reasonably protect the kid from himself. He wasn't a threat to anyone but himself at the point he cornered himself in the lavatory. Reason dictates that the people in charge would try every avenue of non violence before attacking to kill him. They failed to do this which is why they are responsible for his death.

I agree.

IMHO, This looks like shooting fish in a barrel, for sport.
The silennt treatment from "the force" is deafening. Is there no protest? Wonder why?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Just wanted to put a face on the kid.
Also, the story in Orlando Sentinel has more details than the Yahoo story.

Christopher Penley <snip> The midmorning incident plunged the Longwood-area school into chaos, as frightened and weeping students gathered outside, awaiting anxious parents or school buses to take them home. While investigators were trying to figure out what prompted the boy's actions, classmates said a dispute over a girl might have led to the tragedy. Chris told a student at breakfast in the cafeteria that he was going to beat up another boy and then was spotted carrying a gun in his backpack, according to the Sheriff's Office. Several minutes later in a classroom, Chris told a student "to tell the teacher 'I have a gun,' " said seventh-grader Dei-end Dilworth. Chris then lifted his shirt to show the handle of the handgun protruding from his waistband, she said. "He pulled it out, and he cocked it." As another student yelled, "He cocked it, he cocked it," the teacher asked Chris if he had a gun and he replied, "Yeah, I have it right here," Dei-end said. "She [teacher] went to the phone." Chris got up and turned out the classroom lights, Dei-end said. "He told everybody to sit down." But the students were already fleeing the classroom, she said. Most raced out the front door, though Dei-end and another student took refuge in a teacher's planning room. Seminole County Sheriff Don Eslinger said Chris struggled briefly with a student before running from the room. For the next 40 minutes, deputy Matt Parker, a school resource officer, and other officers chased Chris throughout the campus. At one point, Chris pointed his gun at his neck and said, "I'm going to shoot myself or I'm going to die some other way," Eslinger said. The boy took off again as more officers -- including SWAT deputies -- arrived and a lockdown was ordered. Dei-end said a teacher ushered her into a classroom with five or six students, and they huddled together. Chris raced into a bathroom and was confronted by Lt. Mike Weippert of the SWAT team. "They pleaded with him to drop what appeared to be a 9 mm Beretta handgun," Eslinger said. <Page 2> Chris then aimed the gun at Weippert, who was between the boy and two occupied classrooms. The deputy fired once. Weippert, a 20-year veteran of the agency with more than 16 years on the SWAT team, was placed on restricted duty, a routine procedure when a deputy is involved in a shooting. The incident is under investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Eslinger would not say where the bullet hit Chris, but he said Weippert thought the boy was holding a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun. "It was a terrible situation." more...

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel I agree. IMHO, This looks like shooting fish in a barrel, for sport. The silennt treatment from "the force" is deafening. Is there no protest? Wonder why?

At the very least is appears to be a grave mistake upon behalf of those in charge, and at the worst, your analogy.

I will revert back to Mark Twain: "Fewer things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example."

[gr8fuldaniel]

Heres an Update from the same paper (yesterday). They are saying they got the info too late about it being a toy gun. They were in a big hurry to murder the kid. They are very busy you know. Cant let 1 kid tie up the swat team with a bunch of chit-chat, right?

For more info check the Orlando Sentinel Criminal Justice Blog:
Debate flows freely on Chris Penley shooting

[Apeman81]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Maybe he didnt want to know it was a toy gun

If this does not provide an adequate example of why responding to gr8fuldaniel on this topic will be futile, I cannot imagine what else might serve.

This is not an ad hominem attack. He has demonstrated an intractable position throughout this thread.

But this assertion that the officer desired to shoot the young man simply goes beyond the pale.

[brien]

Quote by: Apeman81 If this does not provide an adequate example of why responding to gr8fuldaniel on this topic will be futile, I cannot imagine what else might serve. This is not an ad hominem attack. He has demonstrated an intractable position throughout this thread. But this assertion that the officer desired to shoot the young man simply goes beyond the pale.

Look. We don't know if the officer was keen to shoot the kid or not. You can argue that all day long. The point is, and I don't know how to make it any clearer, the CO authorized a move that was clearly premature for the situation. No one had anything to lose by waiting except the kid. If he killed himself, the blood would not have been on the hands of the state. But as it panned out, the state rushed to judgement, and his blood is on their hands now. The state had nothing to lose by waiting to reslove this in a peaceful manner.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: brien Look. We don't know if the officer was keen to shoot the kid or not. You can argue that all day long. The point is, and I don't know how to make it any clearer, the CO authorized a move that was clearly premature for the situation. No one had anything to lose by waiting except the kid. If he killed himself, the blood would not have been on the hands of the state. But as it panned out, the state rushed to judgement, and his blood is on their hands now. The state had nothing to lose by waiting to reslove this in a peaceful manner.

If you don't know it, then don't snidely assert it.

“Clearly premature”? How so.

Was the child acting alone or in concert with another?

Did the boy have any other deadly remote devices at his disposal?

Did the boy have access to a window through which he could have shot others?

What was on the other side of the wall of the room the kid was in? Could he have fired blindly into a classroom?

Why, when confronted by an armed officer did the child choose to aim his weapon at the officer?

The only thing that is clear is if this kid had not brought a weapon to school, had not brandished the weapon, had not pointed the weapon at the office, he would be alive today.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: brien And it is about what the officer's could have done before using the LAST option of deadly force.. Peaceful options are required before dealy force. They have a sworn duty and responsibility to protect ALL citizens, even the perp from himself. This means they were under the LEGAL OBLIGATION to use every means possible to diffuse the situation peaceably before using deadly force. They did not do this. This is why they were reckless in their actions and rushed to judgement before exhausting all other means of diffusing the situation BEFORE using deadly force.

Just one correct, police have NO obligation to protect ANY citizen.

http://flyservers.registerfly.com/me...rotection.html

The courts have ruled on the subject in such a way it can clearly be interpreted (although I don't think it's been explicitly stated in any cases) that a police officer can watch a person be murdered and be under no obligation to protect that person from murder.

Probably belongs in another thread, but, there it is.

Keith

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Apeman81 Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Maybe he didnt want to know it was a toy gun If this does not provide an adequate example of why responding to gr8fuldaniel on this topic will be futile, I cannot imagine what else might serve. This is not an ad hominem attack. He has demonstrated an intractable position throughout this thread. But this assertion that the officer desired to shoot the young man simply goes beyond the pale.

Goes beyond the pale? Are not genocides a reality in this world? How do they start? With injustices overlooked, accepted. Look how the citizenry applauds the murders of people outside our border. How long before the murders within our borders will be called atrocities? Look how often it is too late, once it has begun.
Genocide Watch

8 Stages of Genocide

Should we just ignore the signs? Wait until the streets run red with blood. Wait until it takes an outside force to rescue Americans. If it can happen anywhere it can happen here. I am not saying it WILL. Only that it could. We have to watch those who we grant power to. Have they abused this power in other forms and fashions?

Genocide is a process that develops in eight stages that are predictable but not inexorable. At each stage, preventive measures can stop it. The later stages must be preceded by the earlier stages, though earlier stages continue to operate throughout the process. The eight stages of genocide are: Classification Symbolization Dehumanization Organization Polarization Preparation Extermination Denial

I suspect they could be sending out feelers. How well did people adjust to the Flight Marshalls who killed the guy in the jetway on Christmas eve? Claiming he had a bomb. That was in Florida too. They passed a law in FL that makes it legal to kill somebody if they "looked " at you threateningly. In this country the most likely candidates for Classification are going to be the natural enemies of those currently in power. Two major Classifications will be singled out for disposal. A) The blacks (the ones who are not "house negroes") For evidence pointing to these, see Katrina and Disenfranchisement and B) the Political opposites, the dissenters.

It will be easiest to single these out as terrorists or at least unpatriotic when they start to protest being singled out.

Why Genocide?

wikipedia Overpopulation is not a function of the number or density of the individuals, but rather the number of individuals compared to the resources they need to survive. In other words, it is a ratio: population over resources. If a given environment has a population of 10, but there is food and drinking water enough for only 9 people, then that environment is overpopulated, while if the population is 100 individuals but there are food and water enough for 200, then it is not overpopulated, but it is underpopulated <snip> The world's human population is currently growing by more than 75 million people per year.

This will naturally be carried out by those with control of resources. The night does not come all at once. Even so, we will be eased into "The Agenda" in degrees.

Or we may witness a large scale Suicide by Proxy, when our government arrogantly attacks other nations who are no threat , neither have they ever killed a single American. This could provide the desired results. Likewise a pandemic. Or, tell me; If we are willing to sabotage Mexico with clandestine plantings of....

Kissinger, Eugenics And Depopulation ....spermicidal corn developed by a U.S. company is now being tested in Mexico. Males who unknowingly eat the corn produce non-viable sperm and are unable to reproduce.

Why should we trust them to be the "moral highgrounders" they advertise themselves to be? I highly recommend that last article.