Metacom, I doubt that the officer who shot him had the time to consider anything the father told him. These guys are trained to deal with deadly threats. Point a replica of a gun at them and they’re going to react with force. Besides, what if the kid had managed to obtain a real gun? It’s happened before. Why should we risk the life of a police officer?
Pretty fucking easy thing to say when you’re not the one getting shot. :rolleyes:
Then either their training is bad or a SWAT team isn’t the right group to deal with issues such as this.
As I’ve said numerous times previously, I acknowledge that risk and think the officer should have taken it.
To save the life of a boy.
Yup. Fortunately, I don’t think it has any bearing on my argument. I think a willingness to risk ones life more then the average citizen should be an accepted part of a police officer’s job.
I’m watching a newspiece on it right now. The kid didn’t just point the gun at the SWAT team. First, the SWAT team chased him into a corner, then they’re saying the kid pointed the gun at them. Which was stupid of course.
But the question being asked at the moment is, once you chased him into a corner and he couldn’t hurt anyone, why force the situation?
Also, dad was on the scene and trying to tell everyone the kid didn’t have access to guns, but did have a pellet gun painted black. Dad wasn’t allowed to communicate with SWAT. Why not?
Seems like increasingly what I’m hearing in the news is our SWAT teams and federal air marshals are trained “if you’ve got a shot, take it.”
Once you’ve chased someone into a corner and they aren’t in a position to hurt anyone but themselves, whatever happened to just hanging back and talking to them? Waiting for more info?
Nope, if we can take a shot, we take it.
What were they thinking? “We’ve got the kid cornered. He can’t hurt anyone but himself. We can’t let him hurt himself! Shoot him! Bam, bam, bam! There, now he can’t hurt himself.”
The prospect of a 15 on 1 gangbang doesn’t appeal to me, so I’m not going to post in this thread anymore. Maybe a GD thread on the militarization of the police, levels of acceptable risk, and the appropriateness of SWAT teams would be a better place to discuss it. I would like to state that I do sympathize with the officer: I think the police handled this poorly, but it was a tragic situation for all involved, and I have no doubt this will weigh heavily on the officers involved and the boys family for the rest of their lives.
Fake guns can make a similar sound as a real gun. Until it hits something and leaves a hole, you still have no way of knowing that there is an actual bullet or just a paintball coming out of it. So by shooting back immediately, it is still not established that he had a fake or real gun, and whether or not deadly force would have"justified" in your view.
It’s amazingly easy to quarterback on Monday mornings, isn’t it?
I might actually agree with this had the boy they were risking their lives for was the victim in the exchange. Why should a cop risk his/her life for the suspect of the crimes? If we have an expectation that cops should risk their lives to save the suspects’ lives, then we will end up with a lot more cop killings than we already have.
Did we learn nothing from Columbine? They were suicidal. As suicidal teens, they didn’t care who they took out with them.
Are you fucking kidding me? Law enforcement should not respond with deadly force when presented with the same? Are you playing devil’s advocate?
What the fuck is *that *supposed to mean?
That’s all well and good but why doesn’t this same treatment apply to a private citizen’s use of deadly force? If I used deadly force to shoot a home invader (who carried a phony gun) would I be treated in the same manner as the police?
Yes, I always hear the usual reasons “they are trained law enforcement professionals, etc” whereas I am not. Sure, but aren’t I in the same jeopardy as a police officer? Perhaps more so because I seldom wear a kevlar vest. (never actually).
Wolf_meister you’re allowed to defend yourself if you feel your life is in danger. The district attorney in your region will make a preliminary decision about whether or not he thought you were justified in that, and if he doesn’t then you would face charges. I would wager 99.95% of DAs in the United States would not choose to prosecute a home owner who shot someone in a face-to-face engagement when the home invader was pointing an ultra-realistic weapon at the home owner.
Okay, but kill a guy’s son, and naturally he is enraged.
This is a tragedy all around. Pitting the parents is wholly inappropriate.
Daniel
Huh? What makes you think you’d be treated differently? There would be an investigation in either case, and if the events were as you describe them, you’d be cleared in most states that I know of (assuming, of course, you own the gun legally).
Yeah, I tend to agree. There might be an ambulance chasing lawyer to Pit in there somewhere, but the parents are grieving over the loss of their son. I wouldn’t Pit them unless they started shooting at the cops in revenge…
This would be Metacom-speak for “I’m wrong and rather than just admit it I’ll exit with a few platitudes.” Classy.
As far as I know, you would. I do not recall ever hearing of a person being charged with a crime (beyond possession of an unregistered weapon) when that person was actually attacked in the home with a realistic looking fake gun.
There have been some murder charges lodged against homeowners who shot fleeing suspects, but I do not recall any case where an aggressor was shot and the homeowner was charged.
Gangbang? OH NOES!!!
Peace, jerkoff.
Nice commentary at this police officer’s blog.
This is clearly a case of suicide by cop. Always sad.
Handguns are designed to kill people. That’s their only real function. The fact that replicas are sold as toys says something sad about our society – but that’s another pit thread.
In an act of supreme cowardice Metacom has opted out of this thread, however I do have to take some exception to his comments.
First, I’ve seen no conclusive evidence that the deputy who shot Chris Penley had been told it was a fake gun (actually, by the way, a pellet gun isn’t a fake gun.) And in fact a news article I’ve just read stated that the deputy did not know that until after the incident.
Also to address one question posed in this thread, the shooting happened at a middle school, and that means it is unlikely the father would have been able to get on the scene before all of this went down.
Also, even if the SWAT team had been told by “two independent sources” that the gun was a pellet gun, why should they believe that when their lives are at risk? And let’s not forget it was not only their lives, but the lives of other students at the school
Even if those two sources knew for a fact that Penley had a pellet gun, that doesn’t change the fact he easily could have acquired a real gun.
It’s also quite irrelevant that Penley was suicidal, and was known to be. I’m guessing the police should operate under the assumption that suicidal people are never a danger to others? How long ago was it that father murdered his two kids and then himself?
It’s also extremely doubtful that someone in the position of a SWAT officer, in the span of 40 minutes or so in which this whole situation was resolved was able to study a psychological profile of Chris Penley.
Once the SWAT team member was in the position of having a gun pointed at him, he was perfectly in the right to shoot and kill the person pointing the gun at him. The idea that SWAT team member should “wait” until after one shot is fired, when we’re talking about an engagement at incredibly close range inside a building is insane.
If there was a way we could get the legal waivers required, I wonder if Metacom would be willing to let me shoot him at a few feet range with a gun as long as he was equipped with a bullet proof vest? Of course there’s no guarantee that vest would stop the bullet nor any guarantee I’d aim for the torso, Metacom (or anyone) would be suicidal or simply mad to agree to such a thing.
Is it actually a sound position that a police officer should do JUST that, just to “make sure” that the gun is real? I think not.
The one concession I will make is about the handling in general (once the officer was in the situation of having a gun pointed at him, his actions are above reproach) of the situation. But that’s only dependent on information we don’t yet have.
I’ve heard two different things. One says that Penley was “cornered in a bathroom” the other says that the SWAT officer had “positioned himself between Penley and an occupied classroom.” I’m guessing the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, but I would guess they would be.
I do agree that, if the SWAT team knew Penley was in the bathroom, they shouldn’t have stormed in after him. They should have secured the exits to the bathroom and waited for a negotiator, if Penley tried to storm out of the bathroom guns blazing then they should have shot him.
We don’t know that this is what happened, though. The storyline I’ve read said Penley pulled the gun in class, a classmate wrestled him for it (unsuccessfully.) Penley briefly took the classmate hostage and instructed him to go into a closet. At that point I’ve heard the entire school went on lock-down, it probably was not evacuated because no one knew where Penley was, and without police present teachers and administrators would not be wise to have students shuffling out of the school and possibly exposing themselves to fire. Once the SWAT team got there, I doubt the school was immediately evacuated. The SWAT team would want to start escorting people out, but they’d also want to be searching for the gunman because until he was apprehended in some manner it would be a grave risk to have students outside of locked classrooms. The news stories I’ve read leave me with the impression that Penley was caught in the bathroom while the SWAT team was “sweeping” the school in attempts to find him (that’s what happens during school shootings, they did it at Columbine too I believe.) If that’s what happened, I can’t fault the police at all. If you’re exploring every nook and cranny, you look into a bathroom and suddenly you have a GUN pulled on you, the only rational action is to immediately open fire.
I find it amazing how many newspaper articles I’ve read in the hour or so since I learned about this case.
Anyways, here is the official Sheriff’s Department report on what happened:
From what I read it seems that when Penley ran into the bathroom the police did not storm in but rather took positions outside, and that he was fired on when he aimed his weapon at a SWAT team member who had “taken position outside” which seems to suggest Penley was either emerging or had emerged from the bathroom when all of this went down.
I’m not sure what more anyone could want from the police at that moment, I’m sure no one honestly disagrees that they should have taken up position outside a bathroom (which was near still-occupied classrooms) when a suspected gunman was inside. And when Christ Penley decided to come out of the restroom (or even just point his gun out of the restroom) and point a gun at people, I don’t see how they could be doing their job if they allowed him to shoot up the school before taking action.
Wow, a thread where I totally agree with Martin Hyde and fully disagree with Metacom. Never thought that would happen.
I am, however, unsurprised to find that I agree with Left Hand of Dorkness. These people just lost a child, in a pretty horrible and terrifying fashion. Trying to find someone they can hold responsible for what happened is a natural and understandable reaction to this sort of tragedy. Pitting them is pretty poor form.
That kind of pinpoint accuaracy with a handgun in a pressure situation is very, very, very rare.
It already is.
There is a great deal of difference between being willing to risk your life for the public and being willing to get shot. The first requires bravery. The second requires stupidity.