Armed eighth-grader shot and killed by police

One day I was in a smoking hut at a hospital. There were two, very large 14-15 year old boys in there. Their friend was shot. And to quote the boys, "yeah he had his gun out, but he wasn't really gonna use it". "So he should not have been shot". A wise woman commented.. "You do not pull out a gun unless you plan on using it.."

If you brandish a weapon at a police officer, 15 years old or not, you'd better expect to catch a few bullets. I'm generally no fan of the police, but in this instance I don't feel that these officers did anything wrong.

reply to post by MrWendal

edit to add: Yes!! If my child brought a gun to school and pointed it at Police Officers and she was shot and killed as a result, my opinion would be the same. As a matter of fact, my opinion would be the same but considerably stronger because I KNOW my kid knows better and knows what the result of such an action would be.

That's all you had to say.

Originally posted by doobydoll

Couldn't they have disabled/disarmed him with a shot instead of killing him?

Care to explain exactly how they could have done that?

but a shot in the arm, shoulder or legs could ave stopped him without killing him.

You seem to get your information on guns from watching too many movies.

hint - guns and shootings in real life do NOT happen like in the movies!

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
The only common denominator is that it's a school like Columbine where the cops were so concerned with their own safety that the let more students die because they were afraid to move in.

typical comment by a police hater.

If they had not stopped this kid, and he shot someone you would have again just blamed the police for not stopping the kid shooting someone.

With you the police can just not do the right thing whatever they do!

I don't know what the police could have done differently, I think they did the right thing here. It's sad that the boy had to die, but now maybe another kid will learn if you point a gun at someone especially a police officer you are likely going to die!

Two officers fired three shots, hitting Gonzalez at least twice, police said.

edmonton.ctv.ca...

So in the end it was the Police that fired rounds in the school. 2 of them hitting the target and one going stray. The kid who started it all had a pellet gun.

People say it's quite justified killing the kid. But I have to agree to disagree. Why are there all these non-lethal alternatives if they aren't used?

Concussion grenades, Beanbag guns, Tazers and the like. If the Police are firing shots into a school hallway I have to assume that there was no immediate kids in the line of fire. Seems like they could have been more tactical with their resolution.

Also, it seems he was shot from the back of the head.

Less than two minutes later, someone yells over the radio "shots fired" and emergency crews are asked to respond. About two minutes later, someone asks where the boy was shot, prompting responses that he was shot in the chest and "from the back of the head."

edmonton.ctv.ca...
No one else thinks there might have been a better resolution available?

reply to post by boncho


Hypothetical:
The gun WAS real, the police throw a percussion grenade, the stunned kid fires indiscriminately into a crowd and someone dies.

Damned if you do – damned if you don’t.

Anybody wondering why the police didn't simply use their 'non-lethal' options, keep in mind that pepper spray, tazers and the like are used, effectively, as torture devices, to get non-compliant or trouble making inmates to comply.