Police Sniper Shoots Suicidal Teen After Parents Call 911

reply to post by tpsreporter

So let me get this straight, the kid had a firearm and was suicidal. When the Police confronted him, him not only aimed the pistol at the officer but pushed it out so it struck and smashed a window and the kid was shot and killed.

If that is the case, what is the problem here?
Suicidal or not, when you point a firearm at a cop you will more than likely be shot.

reply to post by macman


I thought the same thing upon first read, but after googling it and reading a few other sources, those facts seem to be questionable at best.

No other cop on the scene saw the gun protrude through the window, although it may have tapped the window. The direction the sniper bullet entered and left his body indicates he had his back to the negotiaters, and no way the gun was pointing at them. There were no cops outside the house where the gun may have been pointing, and the negotiators were positioned behind cover around the corner of the house.

Also, just before being shot, he was asking to speak to his father again by phone, but the negotiators refused to let him. Why? Why wouldn't you want a loved one on the phone with him? Especially since the father was having some limited success earlier on?

Also, the sniper admitted not knowing whether or not there were other people (hostages) in the house, and not being thoroughly briefed on the situation before firing.

Also, the sniper claimed he heard a "pop" and thought it was the gun firing, but no other cops heard the pop, and even if there was a pop, a trained sniper should know the difference between a .357 magnum, and just a random pop.

So far, even according to police interviewed by an investigator, it appears nobody was in danger, and the sniper fired prematurely.

Originally posted by marbles87
reply to post by tpsreporter

 

If you can take a 4,000lb vehicle and careen it down the highway at 65mph you are an adult. I love it when people call 14-18 "kids" they know what they are doing. Are you going to tell me when you were 16 you needed someone to hold your hand? This man knew what he was doing.

Oh well with that logic, then we should definitely allow 16 year olds to go to war, have jobs, vote, have sex, get married, run for office, have credit cards and drink booze.

If they are not allowed to do any of those things then clearly society doesn't think of them as "adults" nor as ready to make such decisions for themselves.

What you should be suggesting is that they not be allowed to drive cars, and i'd agree with you. They shouldn't be.

As for suggesting i would defend James Holmes........you just lost me, what does the Aurora shooting have to do with this story at all? I don't see the connection here, nor do i see how these stories are anywhere near similar. I also don't see how me saying a 16 year old is a kid is the same as saying someone with mental health issues is not guilty of their actions ect. Care to explain that connection?

reply to post by BASSPLYR


Anyone that knows me, knows I don't have not much love for the police in general. If the whole pointing the gun towards other people did happen, I see it as a justified shooting. A person desperate enough to threaten suicide, is probably desperate enough to shoot another. If someone points a gun towards me or my family/friend, they better pull the trigger fast, because I won't hesitate. I will have to read the rest of the thread now, who knows, maybe the pointing of the gun is just a coverup. If that did happen, then the kid prettymuch signed his own death warrant.

Hmmm..... The story says the sniper saw a threatening "gesture" by the teen. He admits, personally, he had no idea if there was another person in the home or not. (ASKING would have been far too much trouble for Super-Sniper, huh?). Medical evidence, according to the story, supports the fact the child was facing away from officers when he was murdered. I say murdered, because I don't care to use any OTHER term when the story clearly says the threat was IMPLIED...and not ACTUAL..and by that, a 16 year old child was shot to death.

That bastard wasn't using judgement. He was using the regulation book. He set a line in his mind and it didn't matter what or HOW that line was crossed, he was going to put the lead stuff on the soft stuff, so to speak, the moment the book said he was not going to be prosecuted for the shooting to follow. What a cold SOB with NO BUSINESS ever pinning on a badge again. Give the killer a set of inmate clothes and supply him a place to spend the next decade or two thinking about the shot that ..ahem....killed a kid to save him from killing himself.

Sheriff's are also elected positions....for all those folks who hate voting. They are LOCAL ELECTED positions. That community needs to make voting him OUT their mission in life until he's unemployed and ruined. He doesn't even allow for the IDEA his sniper might have been at fault. That Sheriff needs to be an EX-Sheriff if not serving time in his own jail!

Something else to add...

The teen was inside his home alone with no hostages. He had a 357 Magnum in his hand and was drinking and threatening to kill himself. He took a video of the events inside the home, including this conversation speaking to his father on the phone just minutes before he died.

This hit me a moment after I finished the above note and went back to look at the picture of the child. He looks like Harry Potter on a bad day, not Jessie James or some crazed gang banger. He looks just like half the camp I lived with at Occupy. Those people would have been FAR more likely to shoot themselves or ANYTHING but what they aimed at, if I'd ever handed one my gun.

So... a .357 magnum. I have one myself, sitting in my bedroom nightstand. There is something about the .357 magnum a COP would know but a kid like that likely wouldn't. Two things..actually..but it's the first I'd want answered. Was that gun loaded and was the top, next chamber loaded? He looks naive enough in the pictures to make it a valid question. What is special about the .357 and most large frame wheel guns (revolvers) is that you can SEE if it's loaded, if it's pointed at you. You can very clearly, for many feet AWAY...see if it's loaded..and the bullet down the barrel IS NOT the one to look at. The chamber next in line to turn is the one that will fire next. Did the sniper even look to determine..did he even care?

The other thing about those is....unlike an automatic and a non-hammer type especially (Think Glock),,it takes force and energy to fire a .357. A good number of lbs on the trigger....so was the kid taking up slack to fire? You *WOULD SEE THAT* if he could see the kid clear enough to justify shooting him through a barrier. Alot of questions...and I'll bet money they all come back with the wrong answers..or no answer at all.

I know what your talking about wrabbit. But from the angle the sniper was at. Which i don't know what it was. It may have been possible that he couldn't see directly at the face of the gun to and tell if the thing was loaded. You're right you can clearly see when a revolver is loaded if your looking atit head on. A fact that pisses me off about so many movies with the action hero shooting a revolver, faking a recoil, and having no bullets in it. THink Beverly hills cop. Tango and Cash etc....I also get pissed when I see actors holding the gun the wrong way, and pretending like they know what they are doing. So I get what your saying about not knowing if the revolver was loaded or not.

I'm saying it's very possible that from the angle the sniper was at he couldn't see down the length of the revolver head on. You are right too. The sniper could have seen the kid take up slack on the trigger, or staging it somehow and took the shot. We just won't know. I do know that SWAT snipers have some pretty good discipline. I don't think his finger slipped wen he pulled the trigger. He was either told by a superior who didn't know what was going on to shoot. Or he saw a good reason to shoot and took the shot for everyone else's safety.

Being a long gun guy myself I can tell you that if you are looking, even with a pretty nice scope into the shadows or into a house through a window from far away where the house is darker than the outside, that you won't be getting a whole lot of detail as to what you are seeing. Not to the degree where you will be able to see if the revolver is loaded. Especially if the guy is behind glass thats reflecting the outside light back outside towards the sniper making things even more difficult to see.

reply to post by darkhorserider

If she wanted to act like a mother, the time was right there face to face with her baby, not on a talk show in the aftermath.

I think you have made the most pertinent point of all. As a father of two boys, if I was in the same situation as the Mother, I would have not called police or done anything else until I made sure the gun was out of his hands!

I am highly confident that my sons would not shoot me and I would have taken the gun from them or died trying. I would rather risk my life to take the gun away than to watch him kill himself or end up another casualty of police protocol.

Parents are too wrapped-up in parenting in the ways they see on TV or read in crappy magazines! Love them....teach them...and for God sake be there for them when they need you the most!

A little foreword, first. Cops are ingrained with a hatred for the 2nd amendment (all amendments actually), as part of the screening process. Weapons are seen as 'competition'. If you are in possession of a firearm, chances are you are in polar opposition to them, ideologically, and are not going to help them bring down the Constitution.

The parents who made the call are at fault, since they aren't up on things. Calling trained killers to defuse a gun situation has it's time and place. A suicidal teen isn't one of them, unless they were trying to lessen the chances of the kid's survival.

Last year they unloaded twice at an aspie who held a butter knife. First in the leg, and since the aspie kept moving, the next one was in the head. Again, the parents called cops. What did they expect? Officer friendly?

reply to post by BASSPLYR

You make good points. In fairness to those points, I had considered everything the article was giving for information before declaring my opinion that this cop sniped a kid in a way I'd call outright negligent homicide at best. First, was this..

Yarbrough set up across the street in a neighbor's yard, which he estimated to be 65 yards from his target. The sniper scope, focused on the front door, helped him to see clearly as if he was holding a gun from just five feet away.

Just above that, it's stated he'd walked by the mother about 15 minutes before the shot. Now, as a long gun man, as you state, you know if your just walking past people to set up, your still a while in minutes from being set, lined up and ready to do something meaningful. I'm getting the impression he basically just laid eyes on the kid when he engaged and killed him.

I also was caught by the reaction of the parents to whatever rifle he was carrying. They have a high power handgun in their own home, so they aren't virgins to firearms and likely to be staggered by simply seeing a Model 70 with a nice scope on it. It sounds to me like he had himself a proper long range sniper rifle. I know we're getting into guessing here...but I assume you shoot seriously by what you've said. You've no doubt looked through Zeiss or other similar HIGH quality optics. I had a set of field artillery binocs here for awhile, military issue and I was amazed...I could literally see into shadows with them. Amazing what high quality coated optics allows for.

Next though..we have two nuggets from the story I just can't make peace with in thinking this was remotely justified.

"We have not been able to find any justification whatsoever for that Cherokee County Sheriff sniper to shoot Andrew Messina. Zero," said attorney Chuck Pekor.

Pekor is a former federal prosecutor and a former cop who has been scouring through the case to uncover evidence that Andrew Messina didn't need to die.

The guy doing the digging is experienced from being on the police side of the equation as well as the court room prosecutor side. ..and finally.. on top of the Medical evidence apparently proving the kid wasn't even facing the right way when shot...there is the question of just who, exactly, he possibly could have been threatening?

The standoff had gone on a little more than an hour when Andrew Messina was killed. The sheriff justified the fatal shot, saying the teen threatened his officers.

Andrew Messina was inside the house holding the gun, and hit the top pane of glass with the gun. Negotiators were standing outside the house behind a wall around the corner from the door.

Now that hurts... My sarcasm is at the cops, not you, but I'd have to point out..even this couldn't make the shot the Sniper seems to think he was killing a child to prevent.



You make good points and make sense. The cops and the situation, on real close reading of a lengthy and almost rambling (in spots) article, don't seem to have much logic to this at all. The gun there represents the only threat I think the kid posed.....to himself. Killing him to save him.. Ouch.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Rabbit, those are the points that got me to change my thoughts on it. I keep hearing the words from an old Reba McEntire song.

"The judge said guilty in a make believe trial
Slapped the sherrif on the back with a smile and said
Suppers waiting at home and I got to get to it"

Was there something more pressing this sniper had to get too? He walked in, past the family, set up, killed the kid, and walked out, all in 20 minutes. The entire standoff was only 1 hour. I've seen standoffs here in my town last 24 hours and longer, and everyone still survive, and a couple of those have included hostages and known criminals. This was a kid, inside a house, that was only a danger to himself.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


That is some good digging there. Sounding more and more like yet another police coverup. This is what I get for giving the benefit of the doubt to the police

Damn it......

Old news here in GA.From the mother's 911 call, it sounds as if he was threatening to shoot not only himselfl: woodstock.patch.com...-9794478

Tragic all around.

reply to post by MDDoxs


/facepalm

Nightmare come true alert: The head world zionist plans to park a trained killer on each and every block, in his assigned hub, Chicago. That should work well for his gun confiscation segment of takeover, don't you think?

It's called 'cop a block'. More tomorrow, after the media buds roll out the plan (channel 7 WLS in Chicago).

No one will be safe from Constitutional violations. All going to plan, folks, BLACK or WHITE.

Bloomberg's going to LOVE it.

reply to post by tpsreporter


Im at a loss for words on this one... Why would a sniper be delployed without a briefing / knowing the basics going into the situation?

reply to post by tpsreporter


Why in the world do people trust cops with things like this? What did she actually expect to happen? One jolly good natured cop would come, sit her kid down, have a heart to heart, he'd drop the gun, hug the cop and all go about their lives?

No, that doesn't happen.

They bring a SWAT team and execute your son.

Originally posted by tpsreporter

Originally posted by marbles87
reply to post by tpsreporter

 

If you can take a 4,000lb vehicle and careen it down the highway at 65mph you are an adult. I love it when people call 14-18 "kids" they know what they are doing. Are you going to tell me when you were 16 you needed someone to hold your hand? This man knew what he was doing.

Oh well with that logic, then we should definitely allow 16 year olds to go to war, have jobs, vote, have sex, get married, run for office, have credit cards and drink booze.

If they are not allowed to do any of those things then clearly society doesn't think of them as "adults" nor as ready to make such decisions for themselves.

What you should be suggesting is that they not be allowed to drive cars, and i'd agree with you. They shouldn't be.

As for suggesting i would defend James Holmes........you just lost me, what does the Aurora shooting have to do with this story at all? I don't see the connection here, nor do i see how these stories are anywhere near similar. I also don't see how me saying a 16 year old is a kid is the same as saying someone with mental health issues is not guilty of their actions ect. Care to explain that connection?

So you are telling me that 16 year olds are not having kids, doing drugs, going to war... anymore, having jobs.. and all the other things you mentioned. Just because it might not be legal for you to do those things your body will tell you different.. it's your body telling you that you are now an adult. Now weather or not you are a smart adult is left up the individual.

and the leap I was making is that no matter what happens there will always be someone to question the mentality of another, like those crying for james holmes because he might be a little off. I think they call them bleeding hearts where no death is ever justified ever. Like you calling the young man a kid. In your eyes he might be a kid. When I was 16 I had a car, job, my own bills (cell phone and what not) and i knew i was an adult. would you still kill me a kid if I was functioning on the same plane as you when I was 16. granted I was no rocket scientist but an adult that could think for himself and deal with his own consequences. That's your take. Now did I go around being dumb with my new found title nope. Maybe the kid was on the same maturity plane but just made poor adult decisions.

This has happened time and time again, and we hear the same old line "we followed policy".

Well, here's a newsflash! Killing the suicidal maniac is a policy that needs to be changed.

Don't you have a strategy for dealing with type of situation besides escalating violence?

Yet another example of how the government and its thugs can never admit when they make a mistake.
2.