SWAT team shoots suicidal Fla. student
- Thread starter HighVelocity
- Start date
- Status
THis is BS
I would sleep just fine, the cop did his job, this kid crossed the line. I work in Law Enforcement you point that sheet at me and I am puting one in your head. I would sleep just fine knowing I am going home to see my kids at the end of the shift and hope like hell I can teach them to do the right thing and never do something as stupid as this.
You second guess your dead, its not our job to weed out mental patients, we react to what scenario we are put in, and this sucks but he took the correct path. The kid, I dont know I would start with the parents.
Keith
I would sleep just fine, the cop did his job, this kid crossed the line. I work in Law Enforcement you point that sheet at me and I am puting one in your head. I would sleep just fine knowing I am going home to see my kids at the end of the shift and hope like hell I can teach them to do the right thing and never do something as stupid as this.
You second guess your dead, its not our job to weed out mental patients, we react to what scenario we are put in, and this sucks but he took the correct path. The kid, I dont know I would start with the parents.
Keith
Stand_Watie
Member
Good distinction. Real moms love and take care of their kids. Birth moms don't always.
bow1 said:
True, but kid was inside the bathroom. Scope to see if anyone else is inside besides the kid (using high tech devices, such as robot cameras) and then gas the whole thing, toss a bang and clear it.
This a friggin swat we're talking about.
But no, swat team went to peek inside and got a gun pointed at them... whooptie-doo what a surprise! The field commander of that swat team should be re-trained or replaced to be suited for this kind of duty.
joab
Member
Newspaper today says that the kid was shot when he exited the restroom.
How is tossing a device meant to confuse and disorient going to be effective on a kid that is confused and disoriented unless your plan is to hasten the kids decision to commit suicide. The only difference would be who fired the shot and what malfeasance cops were accused of.
How is tossing a device meant to confuse and disorient going to be effective on a kid that is confused and disoriented unless your plan is to hasten the kids decision to commit suicide. The only difference would be who fired the shot and what malfeasance cops were accused of.
The song is about a guy who killed himself instead of facing up to his crimes. How exactly does it not fit?
joab said:
This song is about the guy who was framed for things he didn't do. Instead of having those who framed him get away with it, he believed in his innocence so strongly that he publicly shot himself to make a statement that no one can rule an innocent man.
The bottom line is that the SWAT field commander should've handled the situation in a more efficient manner. This is not wild west.
joab
Member
Yeah and Toookie was innocent also.
There is no proof ever given that Dwyer was framed, perhaps singled out for prosecution but not framed
How does your training tell you to handle a situation such as this
Turtle Club
member
Would it make any differance to some of you if it were an adult? I see many post saying they should have handled it differently however I see no solutions on how it possibly could have been handled.
lest we forget:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=173625&highlight=pellet+gun
WICHITA, Kan. Dec 29, 2005 — A woman who died after a car crash had been shot in the heart minutes earlier with a pellet gun that her 14-year-old son received as a Christmas gift, police said.
even if the cop KNEW it was a pellet gun, its still a lethal weapon, and should be treated as such.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=173625&highlight=pellet+gun
WICHITA, Kan. Dec 29, 2005 — A woman who died after a car crash had been shot in the heart minutes earlier with a pellet gun that her 14-year-old son received as a Christmas gift, police said.
even if the cop KNEW it was a pellet gun, its still a lethal weapon, and should be treated as such.
WillBrayJr
Member
Airsoft guns are not lethal unless you point it at the wrong person like the kid who was just shot did. Airsoft guns can cause harm and should be treated with responsibility. American airguns however are potentially lethal because they fire metal and not plastic.
ka50 said;
ka50,
Please post your resume. When did you graduate your police basic class? Where was the academy at? How many years did you work patrol or other assignments before you were assigned to a tactical team? Where did you take your basic SWAT class and when? Was it a 5 day or 10 day course? How many hours a month does your team train (assuming it's not a full time unit)? How many call outs a year does your team do on the average? How many years did you serve on the team before you were given command? After you were given command, what courses and in-service training have you attended? Are you an NTOA member?
After you fill us in on your training and experience in these matters, please tell us what you would have done. You only get the resources that were available to the officers who handled the situation. So perhap you could call the agency involved and talk professional to professional with the on scene commander and get his take and perhaps a copy of their after action review and reports. Once you've done this homework, give us your solution to the problem.
Jeff
ka50,
Please post your resume. When did you graduate your police basic class? Where was the academy at? How many years did you work patrol or other assignments before you were assigned to a tactical team? Where did you take your basic SWAT class and when? Was it a 5 day or 10 day course? How many hours a month does your team train (assuming it's not a full time unit)? How many call outs a year does your team do on the average? How many years did you serve on the team before you were given command? After you were given command, what courses and in-service training have you attended? Are you an NTOA member?
After you fill us in on your training and experience in these matters, please tell us what you would have done. You only get the resources that were available to the officers who handled the situation. So perhap you could call the agency involved and talk professional to professional with the on scene commander and get his take and perhaps a copy of their after action review and reports. Once you've done this homework, give us your solution to the problem.
Jeff
Its funny to me how LEOs are allowed to carry firearms because of their 'extensive firearms training' but you hear cases like this all the time. Everytime I watch cops and a firearm is involved the LEO usually says something about the firearm which is completely un-true. The other day I was at the gunshop and a plain clothes officer walked in (badge on belt) and asked a rediculous question. I forget exactly what the question was but it was one of those 'I'm trying to sound like I know what I'm talking about' questions. I was stading right there and the clerk happen to notice I had overheard it and looked at me and winked... it was funny.
Now, of course, I'm not saying officers should sit there and try to find a make and caliber of a weapon before they decide its dangerous. The kid probably took the little orange thing of the end (if it even had one) and so it probably did look very real. However it seems in this case they had lots of time to talk with the kid and see the gun. (especially when he pointed it at his own head)
I guess my point is this... Most serious gun owners, or any father of a kid with a toy gun, would most likely see what was going on and quickly ease the situation.
A woman with a 14 year old kid on christmas is COMPLETELY different then a trained full grown physically fit LEO. Most people in this condition would shrug off an airgun shot to the heart. ( I know from experience LOL)
I wasn't there. I don't know. Its a shame for the officer because now he knows he shot a kid with a pellet gun. I don't think there were any other kids around at the time of the shooting becuase the school had been evacuated. The LEO was probably nervous as a lost puppy (as I would be) and he feared for his life. I'm not saying what he did was wrong at all... but I'm sure he does.
Edit: Bottom line, kid was a bad egg. Even if the situation was handled in a way where nobody got hurt, the kid would probably end up doing something similar again and again until he died.
Also, I re-read the articles and it further re-inforces my belief that there was not an immediate threat to other students. The kid was cornered in an evacuated bathroom at the moment of the shooting. I'm sure all the teachers took the kids far away and the ones in the bathroom were probably escorted by LEOs to the other students. Public school bathrooms are usually lined with tile or some other type of hard waterproof material. Even if the kids gun was real I doubt a 9mm (or any pistol caliber) would really endager any other students. The "use of deadly force" by the SWAT team (I'd think) would be more of a danger. It's a tough call all the way around. I wasn't there and I've never had any LEO training so this is all just my uneducated opinion. One that I think most people with a little common sense would agree with given this vauge information.
-Dev
Now, of course, I'm not saying officers should sit there and try to find a make and caliber of a weapon before they decide its dangerous. The kid probably took the little orange thing of the end (if it even had one) and so it probably did look very real. However it seems in this case they had lots of time to talk with the kid and see the gun. (especially when he pointed it at his own head)
I guess my point is this... Most serious gun owners, or any father of a kid with a toy gun, would most likely see what was going on and quickly ease the situation.
A woman with a 14 year old kid on christmas is COMPLETELY different then a trained full grown physically fit LEO. Most people in this condition would shrug off an airgun shot to the heart. ( I know from experience LOL)
I wasn't there. I don't know. Its a shame for the officer because now he knows he shot a kid with a pellet gun. I don't think there were any other kids around at the time of the shooting becuase the school had been evacuated. The LEO was probably nervous as a lost puppy (as I would be) and he feared for his life. I'm not saying what he did was wrong at all... but I'm sure he does.
Edit: Bottom line, kid was a bad egg. Even if the situation was handled in a way where nobody got hurt, the kid would probably end up doing something similar again and again until he died.
Also, I re-read the articles and it further re-inforces my belief that there was not an immediate threat to other students. The kid was cornered in an evacuated bathroom at the moment of the shooting. I'm sure all the teachers took the kids far away and the ones in the bathroom were probably escorted by LEOs to the other students. Public school bathrooms are usually lined with tile or some other type of hard waterproof material. Even if the kids gun was real I doubt a 9mm (or any pistol caliber) would really endager any other students. The "use of deadly force" by the SWAT team (I'd think) would be more of a danger. It's a tough call all the way around. I wasn't there and I've never had any LEO training so this is all just my uneducated opinion. One that I think most people with a little common sense would agree with given this vauge information.
-Dev
Last edited:
joab
Member
The school had not been evacuated and other kids were nearby
You also need to read the articles provided
You also need to read the articles provided
WillBrayJr
Member
DevLcL said:
The kid was mentally ill and that doesn't make him "a bad egg". Students knew he was bullied, his parents more than likely knew he was bullied, and I'm sure that the school knew it too and yet nothing was done to help him.
The kid is at fault for taking an airgun to school and pointing it at LE. This all could have been avoided if adults stopped the bullying and got the kid mental health treatment. The end result with this case is neglect and stupidity.
45Broomhandle
Member
WHOA, MR. INTERLOCUTOR
As the in-between-guy of a discussion on this forum I suppose it's your right, maybe even expected duty, to chastise we posters' for SOME of our comments. However, I thought you were a bit rough on ka50 just because he EXPRESSED AN OPINION that many other readers agreed with. I'm sure you did not mean to infere that all who hold that opinion shouldn't open their mouths without first becoming an LEO. Or did you?
I'm in the teleservices business and daily hear opinions from every stratum of our world's population - at least those with access to a phone. Have you ever criticized YOUR phone service? Should I then suggest that you please not opine on the subject until you've spent over 10 years in the business, including endless hours of training from all the major phone companies and credit card companies?
I've really enjoyed, learned from, and appreciated the THR forums, but if I thought that at any time my opinions expressed herein might be attacked so vociferously publicly, holding me up to ridicule in front of a rather large audience, I would certainly avoid any further contact.
The above is my opinion. Like several other posters, I agree with ka50. Am I in trouble with you, or THR???
The above emblems are also my opinion. I certainly hope they are acceptable.
As the in-between-guy of a discussion on this forum I suppose it's your right, maybe even expected duty, to chastise we posters' for SOME of our comments. However, I thought you were a bit rough on ka50 just because he EXPRESSED AN OPINION that many other readers agreed with. I'm sure you did not mean to infere that all who hold that opinion shouldn't open their mouths without first becoming an LEO. Or did you?
I'm in the teleservices business and daily hear opinions from every stratum of our world's population - at least those with access to a phone. Have you ever criticized YOUR phone service? Should I then suggest that you please not opine on the subject until you've spent over 10 years in the business, including endless hours of training from all the major phone companies and credit card companies?
I've really enjoyed, learned from, and appreciated the THR forums, but if I thought that at any time my opinions expressed herein might be attacked so vociferously publicly, holding me up to ridicule in front of a rather large audience, I would certainly avoid any further contact.
The above is my opinion. Like several other posters, I agree with ka50. Am I in trouble with you, or THR???
The above emblems are also my opinion. I certainly hope they are acceptable.
PILMAN
Member
Some airsoft guns look extremely realistic
Those are mine. The m4 is full metal with a real aimpoint attached to it, The Tec-9 has a steel barrel and polymer grip, the tec-9 is ABS plastic however you can add a steel slide (which I plan to do) even has full HK logos and of course the silver Desert Eagle which the orange tip is still on it.
Those are mine. The m4 is full metal with a real aimpoint attached to it, The Tec-9 has a steel barrel and polymer grip, the tec-9 is ABS plastic however you can add a steel slide (which I plan to do) even has full HK logos and of course the silver Desert Eagle which the orange tip is still on it.
45Broomhandle,
I wasn't the least bit hard on ka50. If ka50 wants to suggest that commander on the scene should have taken a different course of action, then he (or any other member for that matter) should be prepared to tell us what experience he has that made him form that opinion and be able to offer an alternate course of action.
How else are we to judge if he's right or just blowing smoke. Anyone can sit at his keyboard an hide his identity behind a screen name and type anything he/she wants to. To make the suggestion that another course of action should have been taken, based soley on the meager, unreliable and incompete information in a news article is just venting. Other members who have felt that the shooting was wrong have suggested alternatives and other members are discussing why those alternatives, may or may not work. That's civil discussion which is what we try to have here at THR. These threads usually go on for 100+ posts and they usually end up with the membership divided into two camps, the discussion loses any semblance of civility and the thread is closed, maybe with one or more members banned because they lost their temper.
In an earlier post, ka50 said this:
Does anyone know if the SWAT team in question had access to these devices? Robot cameras are very expensive, just because you saw one on Texas SWAT last week doesn't mean every agency in the country has one. If they didn't have one, where was the closest one? Did they even have a mutual aid agreement with the agency that owned it to use it if they needed it? If they did in fact have a mutual aid agreement with the agency that owned one, what would it's response time have been?
As for the suggestion of using gas, does anyone know what kind of gas the team in question had available? Was it aerosol or incendiary? What was the ventilation system in the building like? How long would it have taken to evacuate the school?
As for deploying a distration device, what was the condition of the bathroom where the boy was? Were there possible hazards from secondary missiles? How big was the bathroom? Any chance that they could have permanently damaged the boy's hearing? What if they only had the Def Tec 25 and there was a danger the body of the device could hit the boy in such a confined space?
If you don't know the answers to questions like that then you shouldn't make imflammatory comments like this:
I see nothing wrong with being challenged to present your bona fides when you make statements like that.
I am in no way, shape or form suggesting that you have to have experience to have an opinion. I do think that we are entitled to know from what knowledge and experience base that opinion is drawn from.
I would fully expect you to ask me exactly what I knew about the telecommunications business were I to opine that the chief engineer at my local phone company should be replaced, based on a newspaper article.
Jeff
I wasn't the least bit hard on ka50. If ka50 wants to suggest that commander on the scene should have taken a different course of action, then he (or any other member for that matter) should be prepared to tell us what experience he has that made him form that opinion and be able to offer an alternate course of action.
How else are we to judge if he's right or just blowing smoke. Anyone can sit at his keyboard an hide his identity behind a screen name and type anything he/she wants to. To make the suggestion that another course of action should have been taken, based soley on the meager, unreliable and incompete information in a news article is just venting. Other members who have felt that the shooting was wrong have suggested alternatives and other members are discussing why those alternatives, may or may not work. That's civil discussion which is what we try to have here at THR. These threads usually go on for 100+ posts and they usually end up with the membership divided into two camps, the discussion loses any semblance of civility and the thread is closed, maybe with one or more members banned because they lost their temper.
In an earlier post, ka50 said this:
Does anyone know if the SWAT team in question had access to these devices? Robot cameras are very expensive, just because you saw one on Texas SWAT last week doesn't mean every agency in the country has one. If they didn't have one, where was the closest one? Did they even have a mutual aid agreement with the agency that owned it to use it if they needed it? If they did in fact have a mutual aid agreement with the agency that owned one, what would it's response time have been?
As for the suggestion of using gas, does anyone know what kind of gas the team in question had available? Was it aerosol or incendiary? What was the ventilation system in the building like? How long would it have taken to evacuate the school?
As for deploying a distration device, what was the condition of the bathroom where the boy was? Were there possible hazards from secondary missiles? How big was the bathroom? Any chance that they could have permanently damaged the boy's hearing? What if they only had the Def Tec 25 and there was a danger the body of the device could hit the boy in such a confined space?
If you don't know the answers to questions like that then you shouldn't make imflammatory comments like this:
I see nothing wrong with being challenged to present your bona fides when you make statements like that.
I am in no way, shape or form suggesting that you have to have experience to have an opinion. I do think that we are entitled to know from what knowledge and experience base that opinion is drawn from.
I would fully expect you to ask me exactly what I knew about the telecommunications business were I to opine that the chief engineer at my local phone company should be replaced, based on a newspaper article.
Jeff
TrapdoorBilly
Member
45Broomhandle said:
IOW, one of those creeps that always calls at dinner time.
Would you like some cheese with your whine?
Jeff White said:
It's called common sense. Robot cameras are just remote control platform with a camera attached. Can't be more than a couple of grand. If they didn't have this, then again, this is a fault of swat team management and commanding staff. Incompetence still shines through, whichever way you put it. To evacuate school takes about 7-10 minutes. Banging the kid with a flashbang is still much better than putting a bullet through his brain. I'm pretty sure tear gas would be enough, though. And claims that SWAT team has no tear gas is like saying that police officer is on duty naked. It then becomes not a SWAT team, but "we stand around with big guns scratching our asses" team.
The bottom line the kid is dead and the supposedly elite police unit did not accomplish it's mission to dissolve the situation, instead it used deadliest force in their arsenal. Any questions?
ka50 - near as I can tell from the articles, the LEO team was outside the restroom when the kid exited, and pointed his gun at one of the officers. They hadn't gone in after him.
I wonder what the buzz around here would be if somebody had tossed a flashbang into the restroom and the kid died from the explosion, or a heart attack or something. Would we be back to screaming for bean bag guns?
How about if there were another kid in the restroom that they didn't know about?
We can evacuate the school in 3-7 minutes. The boy who had pointed the trigger at the cop could have pulled the triger in 3-7 milliseconds. Add just a couple milliseconds more, and it could have been somebody elses child that the gun was pointed at. Think quickly. That's all the boy and the situation allowed the officer.
I hope the cop can sleep at night - this was not a position I would ever wish anyone to find themselves in. Just as I was on page one of this thread, I'm still convinced the LEO did what he was trained to do and what he had to do. We do not pay these guys to stand there and play target.
-
I wonder what the buzz around here would be if somebody had tossed a flashbang into the restroom and the kid died from the explosion, or a heart attack or something. Would we be back to screaming for bean bag guns?
How about if there were another kid in the restroom that they didn't know about?
Even more to the point - the LEO didn't need to simply see if it was a real gun. He had to try and see if it was a real gun in a real force situation while he also needed to worry about innocent lives (his included).
We can evacuate the school in 3-7 minutes. The boy who had pointed the trigger at the cop could have pulled the triger in 3-7 milliseconds. Add just a couple milliseconds more, and it could have been somebody elses child that the gun was pointed at. Think quickly. That's all the boy and the situation allowed the officer.
I hope the cop can sleep at night - this was not a position I would ever wish anyone to find themselves in. Just as I was on page one of this thread, I'm still convinced the LEO did what he was trained to do and what he had to do. We do not pay these guys to stand there and play target.
-
TrapdoorBilly
Member
ka50 said:
Seems like they dissolved the situation to me.
I'm on ka50's side of this issue; it's a legitimate question to raise.
A person who carries a firearm, and uses it to extinguish a human life, had better get used to having others second-guess their actions. That applies to LEOs, soldiers, and the rest of us who are neither.
As for having some amount of minimum credentials necessary to raise the question, I don't buy the argument. This is a discussion forum and we discuss. Nothing we conclude here will affect the officer who did the shoot. In the "real world", the officer's actions will be reviewed by his superiors (who, presumably, are qualified) and those informed judgments are the ones that will affect the officer's career.
I've no doubt that it was a "good shoot." But
we need to learn, as a society, how to deal with kids who need help, not a bullet. There just aren't any easy answers.
K
A person who carries a firearm, and uses it to extinguish a human life, had better get used to having others second-guess their actions. That applies to LEOs, soldiers, and the rest of us who are neither.
As for having some amount of minimum credentials necessary to raise the question, I don't buy the argument. This is a discussion forum and we discuss. Nothing we conclude here will affect the officer who did the shoot. In the "real world", the officer's actions will be reviewed by his superiors (who, presumably, are qualified) and those informed judgments are the ones that will affect the officer's career.
I've no doubt that it was a "good shoot." But
we need to learn, as a society, how to deal with kids who need help, not a bullet. There just aren't any easy answers.K
Such a sad situation.
I really wish that these kids would quit doing stupid stuff. :banghead:
I know that there are just some inherently bad kids out there.
But with the jumped increase in teen violence, I can't help but to wonder if the parents are a part of the kid's life, or they just let the kid do whatever that they want to. That includes watching crap on TV that would be best not viewed by teens. (Or anyone else for that matter.) Kids are very impressionable especially in their teen years. I just wish that more of them had stable environments to grow up in. I really think that it would help.
I really do not see the situation getting any better any time soon though.
I really wish that these kids would quit doing stupid stuff. :banghead:
I know that there are just some inherently bad kids out there.
But with the jumped increase in teen violence, I can't help but to wonder if the parents are a part of the kid's life, or they just let the kid do whatever that they want to. That includes watching crap on TV that would be best not viewed by teens. (Or anyone else for that matter.) Kids are very impressionable especially in their teen years. I just wish that more of them had stable environments to grow up in. I really think that it would help.
I really do not see the situation getting any better any time soon though.
one of the real-criticisms about Columbine was, the police waited a long time before going in. During that time, several kids died of their wounds.
It's easy to sit behind a computer, and say, the LEO's should have waited.. but you have the luxury of hindsight.
And the end of the day, the responsibility lies with the young adult who brought a realistic firearm to school.
It's easy to sit behind a computer, and say, the LEO's should have waited.. but you have the luxury of hindsight.
And the end of the day, the responsibility lies with the young adult who brought a realistic firearm to school.
Sounds like a good shoot to me, albeit a very sad situation for all involved.
As for some of our younger posters, you need to learn the difference between an 'airsoft' gun and a pellet gun -- they are not the same thing. Some 'real' pellet guns can throw a .22 or .25 caliber lead slug at more than 1,000 fps -- lethal as hell, particulary at short distances.
And oh yeah, I am never going to criticize George Bush again, 'cus I have never been President.
As for some of our younger posters, you need to learn the difference between an 'airsoft' gun and a pellet gun -- they are not the same thing. Some 'real' pellet guns can throw a .22 or .25 caliber lead slug at more than 1,000 fps -- lethal as hell, particulary at short distances.
And oh yeah, I am never going to criticize George Bush again, 'cus I have never been President.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked