The one main question is NOT if the gun was real. The question is "Why the bullet in the BACK of the head?" The police were NOT behind him.

And how do you know there were no police officers behind him? How do you know when he was shot the first time he didnt spin as he fell to the ground?

Classic case of suicide by cop. Been there. These toys look real and there is no way any officer should have hesitated. Tragic, but totally justified. Location of the bullets are expected to vary. Once struck the body moves, a shot intended for center mass may not end up there.

sure, its the parents and the childs fault. BUT why was lethal force needed. hell police have been known to shoot armed criminals in the leg or arm to disarm them. a head shot? really? i'll say it again, 8th grader, headshot.

They could have brought him down with one or two shots. Did not need to kill him. What a tragedy. My sympathies to his family and friends and to the police who shot him. They will be second-guessing their reactions for the rest of their lives.

The parents are wonder why he was killed with such intense force when only one bullet should have brought him down.

As a parent, I teach my children right from wrong, and if one of my kids brings a gun to school, the only one to blame for his actions, is himself. Not the police.

Perhaps if his parents taught him the same lesson, he'd be here today. To be clear, when you threaten with guns, tragic things may happen. Pure and simple.

And to those that thought excessive force was unnecessary, if my innocent child were threatened by someone with a gun, I'd hope that the police would act the same way. Better to take out the perpetrator than have my child killed due to "just caution"

15 and in 8th grade?

and why multiple shots for a suspect who fired none?

How do you know the police were not behind him??? It isn't mentioned in the article where the police were standing in relation to the boy.

Diana, obviously , you were never in combat. With a M16, at close range ( less than 100 ft.), the impact of a bullet in the arm will spin your entire body. Two impacts will cause a 180 degree spin, at least, if not more. The head wound was due to the fact it was a second shot. The barrel will rise with each shot fired, unless adjusted. I doubt the officers involved have had more than minimal training with the weapon. Soldiers get hundreds of hours of training, and firing.

That the young man died is a shame. And the two officers will live the rest of their lives knowing the gun was not deadly, per se. They will second guess more than any of us.

They could have shot him in the leg or with beanbags--some way to immobilize him without killing him. Three against one, so how difficult could that have been?? If the police were trained worth a damn to neutralize a situation in the best manner possible for the greater good instead of only being trained to kill in every circumstance where a gun is present, we would probably have some answers by now as to why that young man behaved the way he did that day, which was apparently out of character for him. Now that he's dead, it's impossible to ask him or examine his mental state. Yeah, really brave move there by the police. So very impressive.

Diana-2844801 - What part of the story mentions where the police are standing in relation to the suspect? I missed that but apparently you know. Or maybe you were there? Don't make assumptions.

The level of stupidity by some of these comments is maddening. SeekingSanity - Police officers are trained to fire their weapons at the central mass, chest or abdomen. They don't aim for the head, arms or legs because you are more likely to miss. It's easy to say after the fact when you know for a fact that the gun is a pellet gun that they should have shot the gun out of his hand and taken him home to his parents and tucked him in and told him everything is ok...STFU! Seriously? What is the matter w/ you people. More then one officer fired and one officer fired twice. When a shoot order is given everyone who can comply complies w/ the order. Two officers were in position and one office fired twice. I only feel bad for the cops.

cdahl- it ended up not being a gun after all; it was a bb gun or pellet gun; a toy.

The boy was rightfully shot if the gun looked real, sorry. It is surely a tragedy, but not one brought on by the police. I'll wait to cement my opinion in this case to yield to a proper investigation, but seriously, since the beginning of forever, guns that look real, even if they are toys, get people killed.

Don't be putting that on the police. They did their job, from the sounds of this article.

15 yr old should be 10th and not 8th grade... The kid sealed his own fate by assaulting another student 4 no reason and brandishing a gun. He'll be forgotten before spring break...

Diana

Whenever a police officer pulls his weapon out, it is considered a fatal force. They cannot shoot to injure a person. Whenever they do pull their gun they are strictly advised to make it a killing shot. With the suspect being shot in the back of the head, it was considered protocol to use fatal force.

Not justified what-so-ever. Too many supposed peace officers out there thinking they are cowboys. This pre-emptive strike nonsense is complete BS, how about a pre-emptive strike on cowboy cops with itchy trigger fingers. Amazing how people in this country are so willing to sell their freedom/rights down the river in order to feel "safe", I've never been in trouble with the law, but I sure as hell don't feel safe around the gestapo, er, I mean our friendly neighborhood peace officers.

@ Tom.

It looked real. It's not like a Nerf gun. The purpose of the gun looking real is what? To make it look real. And a suggestion to those that are left alive today. Don't bring a gun to school and threaten people. Plain and simple, and a rule that is obvious to most of us.

If you do bring a gun to school, you could get shot. What is so difficult about that concept.

@ Rightly concerned. What was justified about a person bring a gun to school, punching someone in the face for no reason, pulling a real looking gun out, putting the school into lockdown, having 20 minutes before police shot him to lay down the gun, and still not laying down the weapon when police repeated asked him to.

Not saying he deserved it, but jeez, what do you think will happen if you or I did it?

The bullet in the back of the head could be easily explained. This is just probability though because after all, I wasn't there so take what I have to say in theory. You have to understand how the body reacts when it is hit by something like a bullet or a punch. There is always a reaction in terms of motion. If the the first shot that hit him was in the shoulder "which there was a shoulder wound and chest wound" it would be reasonable to conclude that the momentum of the force could have spun him around to the left. In addition the first reaction to trauma that the human body makes is to automatically turn away from the trauma. For instance, if you watch a real fight and see someone get punched in the face the first thing they do is turn their body to the side, use their hands to cover their face and usualy the body dips down slightly. This is called spinal reflex action and it is uncontrollable. I am going to theoretically say that most likely when the shot to the chest happened; the spinal reflex action took over and the boy probably turned his body to the left/right which could have exposed his head. If this is so and the officers continued to fire then it makes sense as to how the back of the head was wounded. No real conspiracy there.

Ebridge: Sweetheart, do you really not understand how a 15 year old can be an eight grader? Well, I'll explain it slowly. A child turns 14 in eighth grade. If they are academically or socially delayed, they might have to repeat an academic year. Some schools have what is called Transitional First (T-1). This is for children who are too advanced for kindergarten but not yet ready for first grade. A great deal is learned in those early years of academia. If you are behind at that point it could handicap you for the rest of your life. I had a few classmates who were a year older than me because they needed to repeat first or second grade. Second grade is considered a key year in academia.

This child obviously had some serious emotional and behavioral problems. It is very possible that he was held back a grade at some point. That would make him fifteen years old and in eighth grade.

The police were completely justified in what they did. They had an armed suspect who refused commands from the police to drop the weapon. If you look at the picture if the pellet gun he was holding, it would be impossible for an officer to determine that it was not the real thing from any distance. What happened is entirely the fault of this kid and his parents for not teaching him better than to bring a weapon into school. For those who question the police killing him instead of trying to wound him, I suggest you learn a little about police procedure. Police are taught that when they fire they shoot to kill, not to wound. Shooting to only wound a suspect gives him the opportunity to return fire and possibly kill or injure police officers or bystanders. That is why the police are trained to shoot at center mass. The shot that hit in the back of the head is a little concerning but could have happened when the body spun after being hit by another shot or could have been from an officer that was behind him that did not have the best aim. In any case, the officers did what they had to do to protect everyone in the building. Three shots fired by the two officers does not seem to be at all excessive to me. Had the officers not done this and another child been killed, everyone would be yelling why didn't the police take him down. I am sure that those officers did not want to shoot this kid, but when he refuse to drop the weapon he left them no choice. This actually sounds like a case of suicide by cop, so maybe this kid was not as happy go lucky as his parents want everyone to think.

I think the police did nothing wrong. Let's not forget how many situations in the past everyone wanted to know why MORE was not done to protect other students or teachers. We need to stop punishing those that serve and PROTECT us!

I shouldn't speculate but the shot in the shoulder/arm could have spun him around causing him to be at an angle that he wasn't when the first shot was fired. In a split second he could have gone from upright to spinning or bent over. I really doubt the headshot was the real intent. At least I hope not. If the head shot was first then everything I just said of course wouldn't apply. A shame either way. Fifteen in the eigth grade by the way isn't that uncommon anymore. A lot of parents start their kids late depending on their birthdays. He would still graduate at 19. Or maybe he was held back a year. It isn't fair for people to ask if he was mentally challenged/slow at this point. On the other hand something did cause him to take a pellet gun to school.

This is a difficult and sad situation. I feel for the parents and the cops. I would never want to be in this situation at all. I guess they will have to go to the video tape, if the school had a surveillance system.

So so sad :(

dab86 - my thoughts exactly!!!! People are so quick to blame police for doing their job. Obviously something happened to upset the young man. How else do you explain the fact that he punched another student in the face? I'm sure the parents are heartbroken and upset. But it's so easy for everyone to cry "he's such a good boy" when in reality he is most likely a very troubled boy. Where did he get the gun? The same place all the other illegal weapons are found - on the streets. This is sad and my heart goes out to the family for their loss. However, let's not blame the police for doing their job!!!!!

Yes lets let the police conduct a proper investigation of themselves.

There really is no argument for the kid whatsoever. He got what he had coming. Bean bags to the leg? really EK? And if that gun turned out to be real, would he not have shot back at the cops after being shot in the leg with a bean bag? It hurts, but it doesnt incapacitate. Cops warned the kid 3 times and he was noncompliant, therefore they had every right to procede using the necessary force. It is necessary protocol....not excess force

thats easy.. he had one to the shoulder and rib cage.. if he spun around they should have stopped firing... they werent behing him cause he had shots to the front and back and no to officers facing each other whether there was someone in between or not would fire in each others dirrection... there was 2 cops so the only way this could happen is each one shot him landing one to the ribs and one to the shoulder and then by the time he had been hit twice and had the time to spin completely around one of the officers made a head shot to the back of the head which is totally rediculous... sorry but something does not add up to me

Mike toth and Shark

You two are idiots. The kid punched another in the face, brought a pellet gun, a lethal weapon, and was not compliant with officers. The cops did what they had to in order to save not only their lives, but the lives around them. Good God I am completely disarayed on how completely senseless and stupid you too really are. Provide a better argument other than police brutality or at least try and explain that one.

Those of you who think the police were wrong. Don't call the police if you are ever faced with a person holding a gun in front of you. When you have to shot someone to save a life instinct takes over. It's sad that he's gone but don't blame the police. God will judge the officers, you don't have the right or knowledge to do so. How many school shooting do we need of innocent kids before you stop whining? When you double tap aM-16 trigger the first round was probably in the shoulder as the body starts to spin the second round hit the head. Second officer hit the rib cage. Been there seen that many years ago.

Noelle, I agree this is horrible. But what's with throwing the race card? Did you notice the police were also "hispanic"?

A child is dead, killed by police, shot in the back of the head. He obviously didn't fire on them and I do not believe the police story that they were essentially in fear for their lives and the lives of others.

I live in Texas.
The Officers were justified in their original intent to disarm the deceased. Having failed to so, and with the deceased failing/refusing to obey the orders of the Officers to lower/drop the weapon; the officers were bound BY LAW to use deadly force to deescalate the situation and to prevent any injury/harm to innocent bystanders as well as to possibly prevent ANY increase of victims.
The fact that the responding officers' weapon of choice was an assualt rifle (M16A2, 5.56mm/.223 caliber), which is the standard issue for LEOs, was deemed necessary for the situation.
The article did NOT post the distance proximity between the responding officers and the shooter, as it was felt unnecessary. No doubt, the 'after action report' posted as well.
To those whom felt that the actions of the responding officers smack of 'gestapo/police state' tactics, as well as 'overkill' have plainly shown their lack of experience in the military, and in a combat situation/training under combat conditions...OR...have NEVER been in a situation/predicament requiring the presence of Law Enforcement.
There have been MANY instances that a 'good,angelic child' goes 'off the radar' and becomes a living nightmare and endangering his friends and loved ones, in addition to posing a danger to others.

Bottomline...the officers' actions were clearly defined AND justified, considering the scenerio/situation encountered.

Definately a win. The cops acted according to police protocol in an active shooter situation. Unfortunately, the entire blame goes to the young man with the gun. Sorry for his family, but strong family values would have prevented this.

All of you people saying "they should have aimed for a leg to take him out" clearly know nothing about law enforcement. when a suspect is brandishing a firearm and aiming it at officers, you shoot for the body mass - the biggest, easiest target. A man who is shot in the leg can still shoot back at you and kill you. The officers' biggest priority is stopping the suspect's threat to others. The officers did the right thing.

All You Nay Sayers About The Police Actions,

Next time you are in a situation or close to one where someone pulls out a weapon don't call the police...

You handle it yourselves, tell the perp to drop it three times, and hope they, do or pray it is a toy gun, remember even a high powered pellet gun has almost as much velocity as a .22 and may cause death or blindness... You take that chance...

I probably would have used a handgun and double tapped him twice in the chest and once in the head given the info we have so far...

Anyway it is a tragic loss for the family who will never understand...

To all of you who are concerned about the number or the location of shots, knock it off. Once deadly force is authorized, as it is any time anyone is pointing a weapon or what appears to be a weapon at a police officer, then deadly force is what is used. Period. End of arguement. We shoot until the target is neutralized. For you non cop people that means no longer a threat. Shooting in the leg, arm, shoulder are all TV and movie crap. A suspect shot in the leg can still fire back and kill you. A suspect shot once can still fire back and kill you. Stop being idiots and join the real world. It's a jungle out there and like it or not we are all in the middle of it.

or maybe the cops should of done nothing but stand there and wonder if the gun was real. Common sense would tell you to put the gun down if you are being told to do so by the police pointing guns at your head. Yea maybe they shouldnt of shot him so high, but maybe they were more worried about all the other innocent people in the SCHOOL rather than saving the kid with the gun. It may of been just a toy, but no one knew that at the time and I believe the cops did the right thing.

Chi-L, Controlled Chaos, Chuck Hofbauer, and retired marine

You all have common sense. Unfortunately, the same ammount of common sense does not exist for most people. To hell with those that think police brutality consists of lethaly disarming a non compliant person with a gun who could have easily killed anyone.

If someone is pointing a gun at me. Id bet the police do not get there in time. And I would definitely not be pulling out the cell phone. Touting I am calling the police.

Police will take out anyone who they feel is a threat. There is no more put a bullet in the leg and find out what exactly is going on. Nope, shoot to kill. BUT If it were one of their own....oh boy you better believe every thing and anything would have been done to get them to drop their weapon. Better get used the fact that we DO NOT live in a free country anymore. We are becoming a policed nation! Pretty damn sad that they felt threatened by a 15 year old with pellet gun. Give me a break, what a bunch of BS.

I agree with EK.....beanbag or dummy bullets would have subdued him and nobody would have gotten killed. Sadly, it's another case of the police using all available force whether it's called for or not. Yes, he had what looked like a handgun that shot real bullets. If deadly force had to be used, why not a lone sniper with a laser site and a shot to his arm, or if they had to, the chest.....why the BACK of his head?? That makes it look like they wanted to obliterate this boy from the face of the earth!! Any trained marksman will tell you that a head shot, especially one from behind, is not one that is taken to subdue a perp or is done in self-defense. That's a shot taken with the intent of punishing the target!

I don't know the kid, so I don't know if he was a bully or picked on or whatever, BUT I want to know why the hell we sell guns that look real when they are not. SERIOUSLY, WTF?!?!?

Why the shot in the back of the head? Well gee, someone brandishes a gun. Several police officers arrive. You think they'll all stand in the armed individual's line of fire?

Oh yeah let's shoot him in the knee right? That way, he's not dead so he can pump out two bullets into an officer's face.

Where did the common sense go?

This kid should have been injured, not killed.

He could have had a mental condition or was experiencing an absurd temper tantrum.

There are so many non-lethal methods of control that the police can use...from taser guns, stun guns, flash grenades, etc. At this kid's young age, everyone deserves a second chance. This teenager should not have been killed.

I agree with Gonzalez's parents...why?

Massive failure of law enforcement. This is a black day for them... nothing to be proud of regardless of all the rationalizations.

I do hope you are not suggesting these officers are proud of this. I also hope you are not suggesting they do not recognize this as a horrible, horrible event that they would much rather have avoided.

however it is not their failure. They had to act to protect themselves and the other students in the building.

You seem fixated on the idea that one of the rounds entered the back of the boy's head. It is easily possible that the force of one of the earlier shots caused his body to turn.

You DO NOT POINT A WEAPON AN ANYONE EVER UNLESS YOU INTEND TO USE IT, and if you do you shoot to kill ! It was the boys fault no doubt! Tragic yes but he was in the wrong and the police did the job they are trained to do. I hate cops personally, they lie and I have many other reasons, But regardless had I been there as an officer I would have acted the same and took him down. When you shoot anyone you shoot to kill. My concealed weapons permit class taught us all the same. You never ever draw a weapon unless you intend to use it. That gun looks as real as can be. I would have shot him too had I been there as I have a concealed weapon permit and had he pointed that gun at me I would have drawn my weapon and shot as well. I'm using my rights to protect myself and family and maybe others and would have definetly feared for my own life. He pulled the weapon, it was his fault, fake or not. Especially at school!! Come on people. The police regardless where the kid was shot did the job and thank you officers for protecting us. The cops acted properly! He was told to drop the weapon and did not, his choice. He chose wrong. Learn from this people. I support the police 100%

There sure are some ignorant people on this board...

Firstly, cops don't walk around with M16s slung over their shoulder- they are a secondary weapon. The grabbed them when the report was someone with a weapon walking around the school. At that point, they didn't have very much information- such as if the person was wearing body armor, had other weaponry at his disposal, etc. They grabbed what was needed with the information they had available.

Secondly, the shot in the shoulder would have easily spun the kid, no questions asked (and if you still question, shut the @!$%# up because you don't know @!$%#...) One officer shot twice- no idea how long between the shots, but it wasn't long, and the weapon was lifted from the first recoil... Take an M16/M4 to a range and pop off two shots in rapid succession- the second WILL be higher than the first, if not higher and to your left/right (usually firing side.)

Third- riot/crowd control tactics and equipment are left for non lethally armed encounters. That's like asking why they didn't bring a knife to a gun fight...

Finally- if you've never served in a law enforcement or military function AND have hands on experience with these types of situations and weaponry, you REALLY need to shut the @!$%# up.

These comments are unreal. Absolutely unreal. This is my last post, I can't read this stuff anymore.

ashton2091 - Because the order was given to bring down the confirmed armed suspect and multiple officers were in position to do so. It wasn't one copy shooting him 12 times, reloading and shooting him 12 more. It was two cops shooting him three times.

icetrout - Read the story, the kid never even fired the pellet gun. Tell me something, if you are driving down the street and you see a sign that says bridge out ahead (someone holding a gun) are you going to ignore that sign and continuing driving until you drive off the road (someone holding gun shooting you) or are you can to stop and find another way around (police shooting suspect instead of suspect shooting police)? I hope me explaining my parable in parenthesis helps you understand my point, judging your comment though, it probably doesn't.

EK-2529948 - Police are not trained to kill. They are trained to protect, they need to be able to protect the public at large and themselves. A part of that training involves the use of firearms. Because a small percentage of the population tend to do very stupid and dangerous things, some police officers are trained in SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics). SWAT officers are more adapt to confronting a dangerous/armed suspect. According to this article, based on the weapons used by the police I'm lead to believe this is a SWAT team (or some variation) that shot the armed suspect. In training, police are taught to aim center mass (chest) and not to go for the kill shot (head) or a disarming shot (arm/hand) as you are more likely to miss (aim small miss small). The number one goal is to disarm the suspect peacefully, always, but that doesn't mean it's the number one goal of the suspect. Remember, police are trained to protect the public at large and themselves. When the suspect becomes threatening to the police, they must protect themselves. When concerning the use of bean bags, pepper spray or a taser. Those might not be available to the police to start and second, you confront an unruly or violent person who is swinging a baseball bat w/ those. You don't go to a gun fight w/ a bean bag.

Rightly Concerned - What is preemptive about this situation. Cowboys go in guns blazing shooting everything up. According to the story a student punched a boy in the face and pulled out a hand gun that did have written on the side of it in bright orange letters - NOT A REAL GUN! The police were called who responded quickly enough to be able to spot the suspect, radio that they spotted the suspect and according to the story, two minutes after spotting the suspect they fired three controlled shots, killing the suspect. Doesn't sound like cowboys, sounds like trained police officers following procedure. You should change your handle from Rightly Concerned to Wrongly Informed.

schoolyard - Does this police department have dogs? Dogs are very expansive and not all departments can afford them. Also, not all dogs are used capturing suspects. Especially in Texas border towns, police dogs are used for detecting drugs. What if the kid was a good enough shot to get both dogs? Then what do you do, send four dogs? What if he barricades himself in a classroom and starts shooting students instead of dogs? Be serious, you cannot logically think it's a better idea to send two dogs to protect 500 students from an alleged armed suspect.

Mike Toth - Where do I even begin w/ you? I assume your comment is made to stir controversy as nobody can be that ignorant. Anybody you can make a statement Mike, back it up w/ more than empty profanity. Police only have the power to Protect and Serve. At this point after reading this story I believe the police acted admirably and fulfilled their sworn duties.

Walker, every idiot who dies like this has a mental condition. That's no reason to let them go on a rampage or excuse them murdering people. I'm tired of folks like you hugging and cuddling the people that would bring pain and death to others. As for this kid? He waved around a real looking weapon, and could have killed others with it. They read the situation, either put him down, or explain why they tried to "shoot his arm out" or whatnot, leaving him able to use the gun with the other hand and shoot someone else.

Personally, I say the loss of this young man is simply removing chlorine from the gene pool. Hate me all you want from it, but if you're this stupid, you deserve to be dropped. We don't need another Virginia Tech or Columbine because cops have to tiptoe around this absurdity.

JackTX, so it would have been OK had the lethal shot hit the teen in the FRONT of the head? Seriously?

Why were the police going for the teen's HEAD at all? If multiple officers cannot wound and disable with a shot to the shoulder of the arm holding the pellet gun or real gun of the solo teen, something is wrong.

Officers are trained to stop a threat. Look at all the school shootings in recent years. Columbine High School!!! This kid had a gun. It is sad it happened and the kid died. Two officers only fired three shots. Obviously not excessive considering the situation!! I dont care what the movies show, officers dont shoot a leg or arm to stop a situation. Officers dont get to know ahead of time if the gun is real or a "toy".

The officers didn't go to work wanting to shoot a kid that day. No officer wants to kill anyone. They go to work and try to pay their bills every day. When a dangerous situation happens and everyone else gets to run from the situation, the officers have to run in and deal with it.

They did the right thing and now they have to live with killing a young boy. Just because they were right, doesn't make it easy for them. Pray for the boys family but also pray for the officers. I know I will!!!

While I agree that if a situation calls for weapons to be fired they must be aimed to kill, not wound, an officer is never allowed to fire their weapon to wound, you only shoot if you are shooting to kill. However, in this situation was there really a reason to fire at all? The teen was in a hallway that he could have been contained in, it sounds more to me like these particular officers were of the mindset that they had issued orders which were not being followed and they were going to seize control of the situation right then and there. I have seen far too many videos of officers issuing commands to people they are trying to arrest and it is clear that some of them have a 'authority complex' and get very angry when they give orders that are not followed. The officer who yelled 'take him out' FOR NOT FOLLOWING HIS ORDERS, is the reason this teen is dead. I think that officer at least should be removed from his job at the very least, this is not the mindset that we need to have among our law enforcement officers. The teen was shot because he didn't comply with the orders of the 'authority' who was issuing it and he had a gun, but the real reason for shooting him was he refused to 'comply' with the order of someone who probably should never had been wearing a badge anyway.

I'm willing to bet some of the death threats came from a couple of the anti-cop zealots on these forums.

To all the people who asked why not just shoot to disable I will say that it is extremely hard to disable someone so that they cannot still use a gun and kill someone else. That's the beauty and curse of guns: they allow an 18-year old mother defend herself and her child against larger men threatening her and her child and they allow a puny child to kill even when wounded.

pellet guns can be lethal......i have one that shoots at 1000 feet per second muzzle velocity ..... hit through the eye you are dead......through the chest cavity into the heart you are dead.....this is the average muzzle velocity of a .22 rimfire the # 1 choice of weapons used by hit men.....a whole lot of people are killed each year by .22s......police brutality ???? i guess so since there is no way to make this into a (racists) thing since the officers were Hispanic.....the cops did their job......which really sucks cause i'm sure they are not feeling good about it.....here is a fact......a 15 year old with a gun can kill you just as fast as a 25 year old with a gun.....15 year old kids kill every day......a 15 year old who brings a very real looking pelletgun copy of a glock automatic pistol which holds plenty of rounds.....and refuses to lay down this weapon when ordered.......gets what he deserves....... tragic as this is......the cops are not at fault he is......at 15 he is old enough to know the difference.....if he was such a great kid.......WHY did he not put down the weapon? thats all he had to do ......period...his parents need to ask themselves if they did not give it to him WHERE DID HE GET THE PISTOL? they will sue to try and make money off of this........that is the most disgusting part....

OK, I realize the kid had what may have appeared to be a weapon. I don't go the gun range and practice every month, but I can guarantee you that I could have shot and wounded the kid or even shot over his head and got him to drop the weapon. Why the need to double-tap a KID, even if you think he has an actual weapon?

Most of the cops I know are on a power trip and when they're not trying to bully and intimidate people, they're cruising the parking lot at the local high school trying to pick up teenage girls. @!$%#s.

And in addition to what greg-3804559 said above, not only are officers trained to shoot to kill, not wound, they are also taught to shoot the Center Of Mass (i.e. the Abdomen), not the arm or leg.

The arm and leg are too small of targets to be hit reliably, but the Abdomen is a large target that is hard to miss, that also causes a disabling (if not mortal) wound.

Trying to shoot an arm or leg is preposterous.

The gun looked real. H3ll for all we know the kid may have thought it was. Do you people realize that you can actually buy a pink gun or a lime green one?

The truth of the matter is, when things like this happen, the police generally do not know what is going on.

The first problem is that these situations unfold very quickly and catch nearly everyone involved completely off guard. When someone calls 911, often the caller is either shocked or panicked and the quality of the information relayed tends to be rather poor. Dispatchers are trained to help sort out what details they can and they do a great job, but when the call comes in, it really is a 'cold start' for them and they've got to draw a lot of conclusions based on information that may be scant or inaccurate.

While the details dispatch relays to the officers en route can be useful, an experienced officer knows not to rely on it, because they've learned in their training and seen in prior service calls how what they were told was happening wasn't at all what they found upon arrival. Ultimately, they've got to determine what's happening based on what they see and hear at the scene.

In a case like this, they probably did not know who the alleged gunman was. It is possible a caller may have disclosed his name, but that could be mistaken identity, just mistaken, period, or most likely a name the officers aren't familiar with and can't associate with a face unless they've dealt with the individual a few times before. The story indicates they did have a physical description, but it would not, by itself, guarantee that it was a teenage student and not a younger male adult who entered the school to commit a crime. They went in prepared for a worst case scenario, taking in their patrol rifles.

As far as using less than lethal munitions to incapacitate the young man goes, the only way I see that as a wise course of action would have been if there were more than two responding officers. Bean bags, rubber buckshot, and other such things are generally fired from a dedicated 12 gauge shotgun, usually equipped with an orange stock and forearm and stored in the trunk of the patrol car, unlike the riot shotgun (typically loaded with lead buckshot) and/or patrol rifle (usually an AR-15 type autoloader) which are generally kept close at hand in a rack between or above the front seats. When time is of the essence, an officer isn't too likely to retrieve the less-than-lethal shotgun if they're a first responder unless it's clearly called for. That's seldom the case when they first arrive not knowing for sure what exactly is going on!

Tasers and chemical irritant sprays are similar in that they may or may not work, but if the situation appears to be extremely volatile and people could die any second, those levels of the force paradigm are skipped right over and the firearms are resorted to.

The police do not 'shoot to kill'. They shoot to stop, if at all, and while it is entirely likely the offender may die from the injuries, that is incidental to the real purpose of lethal force, which is to stop a violent criminal assault with a deadly weapon RIGHT NOW. Police in the civilized world enforce the law by issuing citations and taking suspects into custody. They do not summarily execute offenders on the spot.

Three shots from two officers is not unreasonable. One officer probably fired a 'double tap', either accidentally under stress or possibly because their prior training may have focused on it, depending on how long they've been an officer and where else they may have worked or trained before. At some times and in some places, especially where the issue sidearm was a 9mm pistol, double taps were standard procedure for a while due to a perception that the 9mm pistol and cartridge were proving less than reliably effective, especially against violent suspects who were under the influence. Sometimes the .223/5.56mm rifle is less than immediately effective, depending on the circumstances and what ammunition is being used and a double tap could be in accordance with that department's policy.

AR-15 type rifles have long been notorious for being difficult to aim precisely at very close ranges. This has been largely remedied in newer versions not incorporating the sights into high metal bases, but can still be an issue. The point of aim and the actual point of impact could be quite different and it is possible that department has not trained extensively using the patrol rifle at very close ranges where the service pistol would generally be used instead. The wound to the back of the head could quite possibly be an exit wound, as the small, light .22 bullet an AR-15 type rifle fires travels at very high speed and tends to tumble and ricochet when it strikes bone.

The most intense part of the incident would have been over very quickly, and it is unlikely all the facts could have been determined in time for an alternative strategy to be employed. If the officers were facing what looked like a hoodlum with a large caliber pistol, that's what they would have had to react to, even if looks were deceiving. It is most regrettable the incident took place at all.

Actions have consequences. Plain and simple. Life is not a movie. In the real world, if your actions lead you to point your gun (real or fake) at police that have given you multiple warnings to drop your weapon, then your consequence is that police will more than likely be authorized to use deadly force to neutralize you, you will be shot and chances are, that will have been the last action you will have made in life. Being a minor doesn't exempt you from the law. There are consequences for poor decisions. I like to believe that by the time someone is 15, they should have a clear understanding of positive actions, negative actions and the pos/neg consequences either can have. 15 y/o is too young to die but on the same token, at 15 y/o, he should have known better. Who's to say this isn't the way he wanted this to turn out? Suicide by cop is something that has happened, happens, and will happen.

We'll never know.

While this is a tragic ending to this boys life, the police were just following training and doing their jobs. The number of people here that are angry with the police is maddening. Don't blame the police. They are not at fault for doing what they are trained to do in situations like this. If this gun had turned out to be real and other lives had been lost, then everyone would be up in arms over the police not doing enough to protect the other victims. In each scenario, the police are made out to be the bad guy ONLY because this was a 15 y/o kid. So I ask you people bashing the police: If this had been "47 y/o Joe the Transient", would you still be up in arms? Or would you singing praises to the police for "taking that lunatic out and protecting our children"?

And as for you "they are trained to shoot to stop not shoot to kill" individuals: both my parents are retired police officers and I have asked then both multiple times about scenarios like this. They are not trained to shoot to stop. When it's a choice between their life and the life of innocent individuals vs. the life of someone pointing a gun at them, the split second decision that they come to does not involve a warning shot or a wound to the hand, it involves deadly force. Life is not a movie.

This is to @ashton and all the other armchair ballistics and police experts. Placed shots to the hand, leg or otherwise are something done in those stupid ass movies you guys call reality. And how many police depts ride around with beanbag guns? If you get a call of "gunman in school", you go in expecting that. The kid refused to drop the weapon. When shots are fired, bodies do move, I doubt it was a placed shot that hit him in the back of the head. And Brownsville? Hello! Mexican narco traffic hotspot, border slayings going on, and the kid was a big for his age Mexican kid. The cops did their job. End of story.

Definitely not a good ending for anyone involved. It does sound like the kid knew what he was doing. Unfortunately he decided not to put the gun down. When you are in fear of losing your life or even seeing someone else die, you have to do what needs to be done. I'm sorry for the family and I'm sorry for the officers that were put in that position.

Asinine. This isn't a movie people. Cops can't shoot guns out of peoples hands. They're not snipers either. They don't have sniper rifles and plenty of time to wait for just the right shot. If you have a crazy person waving a gun at you, you point and shoot at the place you're most likely to hit. It's not a precise thing. If you're shooting, you're shooting to kill...if you just wound them, so much the better...but that isn't what you're expecting. If any of you idiots had even been to a range and tried to shoot at a target even 10 feet away you'd know how hard it is to hit exactly what you want to hit. Then try doing it quickly while someone is pointing a gun at you. How many people in America today don't know that if you point something that looks like a gun at a cop, you're likely to get shot?

This "child" had already physically assaulted another student that period. Then the "child" brandished a very realistic-looking weapon in a school full of innocent children. The police gave this "child" multiple opportunities to drop the weapon and resolve the situation peacefully. The "child" refused to follow orders.

The perpetrator was at fault. Period.

The parents need to re-evaluate their parenting skills.

The police are the heroes for saving a schoolfull of innocent children from what could have been a catastrophy.

I can't believe people actually question why police didn't shoot him in the leg or whatever. First, police are trained to shoot at the center of mass (chest). Second, if they had decided to shoot him in the leg, they wouldn't be preventing him from shooting back at them. Since they didn't know it was just a pellet gun, they would be giving the suspect a chance to fire back at them. They must assume the kid is armed with a real gun unless it is plastic and says "Super Soaker" on the side.

I'm actually amazed more shots weren't fired at the kid. Usually in a stressful situation like these cops were in, people have a tendency to shoot off every round in their firearm. The fact that they only shot 3 times means they did a good job of restraining themselves.

About that bullet to the back of the head, how many people have seen that famous video of a cop and a suspect only feet apart firing at each other? It is a dash cam video. Does anybody remember that the cop and the suspect both unloaded their weapons and neither of them were hit even though they stood maybe 5 feet apart? When bullets fly, without extensive training, people tend to shoot wildly, and a shot to the head or a complete miss isn't something unexpected. The kid likely spun after a first shot and the 2nd shot hit him in the back of the head. Or, one officer shot from behind him and the other from the front.

No matter how you put it, the officers acted within reason. The biggest question people should be asking is what happened to make this kid decide to do what he did that day. He punched the one kid to draw the attention of authority figures. He must have expect that punching one kid then brandishing a weapon would result in cops being summoned. So this kid knew cops would be involved. To me, this situation sounds like either a suicide by cop, or the kid had some sort of mental break that caused him to act this way. People said he was a good kid, so it seems something wasn't right with him that day.

God rest his soul, and I pray the cops find peace with this situation. They will be scared for life because of it, but they did the right thing with what information they had. Unfortunately nothing will ever satisfy their wondering if there was any way they could have figured out that the gun was just a pellet gun instead of a firearm like they suspected. The dead kid is now responsible for so much pain and suffering of hundreds of people. What a tragic waste of a life.

So true Jack TX, As bad as I feel for the parents of the boy, those officers are hurting as well. Imagine being a policeman and having that call coming over the radio? All they must have thought was Columbine or Northern Illinois University,etc. What galls me is people think a pellet gun is not a gun. It most certainly is a gun and not a toy! The boy had a .177 cal BB hand gun that they say shoots pellets. So it's an upgrade from a BB pistol. The pellets are much different than a BB, more of a bullet,some with pointed heads that can kill you. In Illinois a 1000 fps pellet rifle requires a FOID card. This event was really tragic all the way around.

Just wanted to add for the people who keep calling the gun a toy, its not a toy, its a gun thats designed to look and feel just like the original handgun, you have to be 18 to buy it, it uses a c02 cartridge and shoots a lead pellet at probably about 500 feet per second. fyi

Darrell B.,

You Sir, are a OUT and OUT LIAR... Someone with some hair on their BUTT would have already complained about officers doing such a thing... Believe me that would be stopped 'DAMN QUICK'!

very sad story. But this is exactly the reason public schools to not allow any type of similated weapons on campus. As on the street, a play gun looks exactly like a real one and no person can be expected to risk their lives to determine whether or not the gun someone is holding is real or not.

I am a teacher in the public schools. Schools do not allow students to bring toys to school. Especially toy guns, knives, etc.... We do not know if they are real and cannot police toys. In my building we have had police remove Kindergarteners from the building for bringing play guns and play knives to school. We cannot risk another Columbine. The rules must be followed in public. Especially at school.

The students, teachers, administrators at this school did not know that this was a toy gun. Pellet guns and BB guns and toy guns all look like the real thing. We cannot risk ourselves or the students in our charge trying to figure out if a gun is a simple pellet/bb or toy gun. Every gun is real. So don't let your kids have access to their pellet guns to keep them from being taken to school and misunderstood. The outcome for this 8th grader is the tragic reason.

Noelle-588175Restored

a Hispanic child is dead.

First of all, what difference does his being Hispanic make? Absolutely none.

Second, stop calling him a "child"... this young man was old enough to know the consequences of his actions.

He brought it all on himself....and as far as the police being threatened; this isn't Mexico or some backwater South American country where armed gangs rule the streets

...at least not yet, anyway

The officers did everything they could to peacefully end this.

The gun the 15 year old looked real, he refused to drop it when ordered to, the police were responsible

to protect everyone at the school as well as themselves, deadly force was necessary in this case.

Do you expect those officers to take a bullet and then let the survivers shot him? You people that are putting these officers down are nuts untill your walking in their shoes.

Dab86;

You can't be that stupid. Police are going to stand at opposite ends of a hallway and shoot toward each other? Seriously, that's what your going with? And IF there was a cop behind him, Why not Taz the kid? It would have stopped the confrontation without taking a 15 year old's life. Why do cops always have to resort to deathly force first?

I going to wait for the coroners explanation for a bullet to the BACK of the head. It should prove interesting reading. I think this was handled badly, as usual, by the police. I think they are far to quick to pull the trigger. I think they need more training as trained observers, which they supposed to be.

Retired Marine:

Explain reasonably, the shot to the BACK of the head, then. Or are you going with Dab86 that there were police behind him. If there was a cop or cops behind him, why not Taz him. Wouldn't have ended the standoff, with out ending a life. I have several relatives in law enforcement. One is a Command Major on a large city police dept. His take is something about this isn't right. The back of head thing, troubles him. This isn't combat marine, the rules of engagement are different. With their Kevlar vest's, they can negotiate a bit more without too much risk. I would suspect they responded in body armor since it was a school. So their risk was minimal. Too fast to pull the trigger.

Pellet guns by DEA law are sold with an orange identifier to distinguish it from a real firearm. This is usually in the form of an orange plastic tip at the end of the barrel or the end of the barrel is painted orange. Obviously this distinguisher was altered to make the pellet gun appear real. The kid is at fault unless someone else altered it. I know most kids take off the orange tip or paint it black so that it looks real. It has been an issue in my neighborhood and some parents have actually been charged for allowing their children to own altered pellet guns.

I have lived in a crime ridden area where cops were just as bad as criminals and they tried to confiscate all weapons during and after Hurricane Katrina. So I do understand the people that think the cops are corrupt. every situation is different however and needs to be dealt with accordingly.
As far as excessive force, has anyone tried to stop someone from committing a crime while on drugs. A 9mm or a pistol doesn't work. Don't know if that is the case here but you do what needs to be done to get the job done. It is truly a shame that this had to happen.

Olias: " a child goofing off?" Goofing Off!!! Are you fcuking KIDDING ME!! Goofing off! He punched a kid in the head! He drew a firearm that looked real! He threatened people with it! The police gave him multiple chances to drop it! He refused! He pointed the gun at cops!

Goofing off! Get a fcuking clue! He got what he deserved.

Nicodemus: Not every town or city police departments have tasers. If a kid pulls this kind of asinine stunt in my small, picturesque, New England suburb - he's gonna get shot.

Lizzie: When I graduated I was 17. I was born in dec. So being that I was smart for my age when I was 5 and also good looking the school accepted me, but told my mother that I could have problems later on because I would be a year younger than most of the students I would be in class with. Back in those days there weren't any T-1 and T-2 classes like now. But because I was a decent size for my age and like I mentioned before smart and good looking they took me in. I think my mother just wanted me out of her hair and I don't think she was smart enough to keep my interests at home at that age. Where I got my bingos at, I'm not sure, but they were there alrighty. Well when I graduated there were some students in my class that were old enough to drink already, yes sir reese, 21 and in 12th grade. They would go to the local bars at lunch time and toss a few cold ones down the ole neck. Well being I was so smart and they weren't, they picked on me and made me let them copy off my tests so they could finally graduate. Yesiree, they were stupid like a bag of rocks back then and still today too. Well I ended up graduating and going into the wrong line of work for how smart and good looking I was, because I needed to get out of the house. My parents weren't very bright and they beat the crap out of me for being so smart and good looking, unlike them themselves, being dummies and not all that good looking either. My brother got in on the beating part too, because he wasn't very bright or good looking either and so I had to get out of there and I spent my days working and trying to get enough money to buy a house. I finally did and now I'm alive and well and still somewhat smart, but still good looking. My parents finally died and my brother moved away to another state and married some women that wasn't very smart or good looking, just like my brother and I don't talk to them at all anymore. I wish I would of made some different decisions in my life and it would of been a little different for me financially but, its ok, I gamble now to make up for the money I need and I'm doing fine. The bottom line here is that parents need to take a sincere interest in their children along with the teachers and try to get the kids to acheive the most from life. It goes by really fast and you can't change what happens because of the decisions you make. You have to live with them the rest of your life. This story is a very tragic one and I hate to see any child not making the most of their lives because the parents aren't interested in them and the teachers blow them off, thinking that its not worth the effort. I just wish this could of been handled differntly.

After all, the odds of you being killed by a cop is many times higher than a cop being killed by a citizen.

Now there's an uninformed statement if I ever heard one. Care to provide a source for that "statistic", Ryan?

also, if they have M16 or any other assault rifle, they obviously have other equipment which can be used in a non lethal fashion.

Why is that so obvious? Non-lethal means of apprehending suspects have only been in focus for about ten years. The issuance of more effective firearms has been a focus for twenty. Here's a tip: don't bring a knife to a gun fight, or more specifically, don't bring a bean bag to a gun fight.

they are trained to take lethal and non lethal shots so everyone saying they cant please shut the @!$%# up.

Have you visited their range? Or did you write this department's training manual? A wounded suspect is as dangerous if not even moreso than prior to being shot. You can say so many things after the fact, but you weren't there. The officers had a duty to protect the public from a suspect brandishing a gun. When this weapon was pointed in their direction, the directive becomes kill or be killed. You don't compromise the personal safety of a man with a gun who is legally authorized to shoot you when you do.

as for that part though, who the @!$%# are you to make a comment about it saying that it was for no reason. the article says it because the kid isnt alive to say why he clocked the kid.

As a reasonable person I can assure you, there is absolutely no reason to do this. Whatever the issue, whether he hit on his girl, beat up his friend, threatened him in the hallway.. doesn't matter. There is no justifiable reason to bring a gun into school.

i dont wanna hear that conspiracy @!$%# like im lying, i live in NY and all thats here are dirty cops, seen the @!$%# myself so be realistic here folks, if you werent there you shouldnt act as though you know every@!$%#ing thing about it.

Take your own advice, son.

The orange caps on the muzzle is for TOY cap guns that 'pop' or shoot rubber balls. BB/Pellet GUNS (that fire metal projectiles) don't have them- because even though most people would consider them 'toys', they aren't.

FYI, when you taze someone, it causes muscle contractions. Bad idea when they have a pistol trained at someone- the chances of them contracting and firing rounds are quite high.

Ryan in Texas (only because you're the last person to post that I see so far...)

clearly the kid was shot in the back of the head. Even in the old west, that was clear proof that it cannot be self defense.

Bring the suspension- because you are a @!$%#ing idiot. Allow me to explain (not like the 20+ explanations before this have helped...) When you are hit in the shoulder with a 5.56 from an assault rifle, you WILL spin.

When you fire consecutive shots from an assault rifle, the SECOND shot WILL be higher than the first unless you pause and readjust your sight picture- which wasn't really in their mission at the time (mission being to end the situation.)

Shot in the back of the head is NOT surprising at all - especially when the shot didn't originate from behind the kid. He was hit in the shoulder, the velocity causing him to spin... Second shot took him in the chest, third shot (second from the officer that fired twice) was high and hit him in the head.

When it's a choice between their life and the life of innocent individuals vs. the life of someone pointing a gun at them, the split second decision that they come to does not involve a warning shot or a wound to the hand, it involves deadly force. Life is not a movie.

What is meant by 'shooting to stop' versus 'shooting to kill' is that reasonable force is used to resolve the crisis at hand.

1. If drawing a weapon, or even just placing a hand on a holstered weapon, makes the offender decide to stop what they're about to do, the situation will be resolved as soon as the offender is in custody and no further force is likely to be warranted.

2. If a bullet impact to the solar plexus (the nerve bundle below the sternum, a.k.a. 'center of mass') or anywhere else disables the offender and prevents them from continuing their course of action, they've been stopped and can be taken into custody.

3. If a bullet impact didn't faze them or they keep attempting to maim or kill someone else despite being wounded, they have not been stopped and more shots are justified.

4. If one or more bullets fired have killed the offender ('shot dead'), he has been stopped.

If you shoot to kill, that means you have decided that the offender must die and that you'll keep shooting him until he is no longer alive, regardless whether he surrenders, submits, or is incapacitated.

Now, it's called lethal force because a reasonable person would expect that shooting somebody with a firearm is likely to cause their death. Legally, you are not allowed to shoot someone with the intent of injuring them in an instance where killing them would not be considered a justifiable homicide. In short, if the situation calls for shooting them at all, you are justified in killing them. But, if it is found that you proceeded to kill them after it was clear they no longer posed a deadly threat themselves, you could very well be liable for murder. One has to think when employing lethal force and be continuously evaluating whether it remains appropriate for the situation, which may be rapidly changing.

Justifiable homicide, legally, still isn't 'right' or 'okay'. What is really happening is that the state chooses not to prosecute for homicide given the circumstances and what the apparent intent of the person who fired the fatal shots was. This is why officers are trained to stop and not kill. A resulting death is treated legally sort of like an accident...it happened, it could be foreseen that it was a likely outcome, but it was not the intent of the person who killed to commit murder but to preserve the life and health of themselves or an innocent third party.

It's still ugly business that no one should ever want to be part of it they can help it.

Ryan in Texas - What? Your logic doesn't even make sense. It's like you just whipped and typed out what you saw on the toilet paper.

"The statistics don't lie. So let's not try to justify this killing by saying the police were in fear of their lives - by that logic, it would be OK for suspects to shoot the police when there is a standoff, after all - they are in fear for THEIR lives and statistically have a case that it is several times more likely."

The above statement has to be by far the dumbest thing I've ever read in any forum on any website. Wow you are stupid Ryan. The police shoot suspects in a standoff because the suspect is threatening them w/ a weapon. Police do not randomly pull a guy on someone and shoot them for no reason (in 99.99% of the cases). Wow you are stupid.

By the way, former Police Sergeant Drew Peterson of Bolingbrook, IL is sitting in jail in Joliet, IL awaiting trial for murdering his wife, Kathleen Savio. Scott Peterson is the guy that killed his wife in CA and is not a police officer. You have zero credibility, moron!

For all of you morons out there. It depends when you were born what grade you are in at a certain age. With a late birthday a 14 yr old would be in 8th grade at this time of year. So maybe he failed a grade, but the real question is why do you care how old. You dont kill a 15 yr old for pointing a gun. He obviously did not fire it or they would have known that the gun was fake. A head shot? This stinks of pork with trigger happy fingers. If this was your child you would not be saying it was the kids fault.

2 police officers fired 3 shots on a boy that punched another student in the face before the confrontation and brandished what looked like a lethal firearm in the middle of a school hallway towards police officers and potentially other innocent students... sounds like they did EXACTLY what they are trained to do... for those of you out there asking "why in the back of the head?" think about it for a moment. bullets from these guns would easily turn someone his size around when shot in the shoulder, which happened. then he fell a little due to his legs giving out and the third shot hits him in the head instead of the chest, not to mention recoil of the gun... case solved! thank you officers for being in a high pressure situation, making a quick educated decision, and coming to the right conclusion for the situation. anyonein your shoes would have done the same thing, regardless of what they say on this message board... also, maybe it was a stray shot. anyone think of that? you're aiming a gun at a small kid with a gun, you're nerves would be acting up.

They released the 911 calls and the Police audio of the communications.....school personnel can be head saying, "He is willing to die" and there are at least 10 Police commands to" drop the weapon", "put the gun on the ground".....then one says " Take him out"... 3 shots in quick succession and an immediate call for medical personnel to come in.....

Also yesterday:

"6 cops shot, 1 dead serving search warrant in Utah "

"Nearby witnesses said they heard three quick pops followed by a two to three minute pause, then lots of gunfire."

"Vanderstappen said she went back inside, and minutes later heard yelling coming from the backyard. She said she walked onto the back porch to see officers addressing a person hiding in a nearby shed.

"There's cops telling him to 'put your hands up, put your hands up," she said."

http://www.news-journalonline.com/breakingnews/2012/01/6-cops-shot-1-dead-serving-search-warrant-in-utah.html

Wounded, he surrendered....and even though he had shot 6 of them....the Police took him into custody.....they didn't turn him into Swiss Cheese.....Even though they probably wanted to.

My point is that once the commands of the Police were followed by the "person with the gun" the shooting stopped. The kid in Texas did not comply.

There was an incident in Cincinnati about 10 years ago where a young man was shot while running away from police. He was unarmed. The excuse for using deadly force in that case was that the boy looked like he could have been going for a gun, when in fact he was just trying to pull up his baggy pants whilst running away. The cop who fired the shot was acquitted of manslaughter and the whole city rioted.

Now, the only defense I can give for Jaime Gonzalez is maybe he didn't know or understand that if you waive a gun around and threaten to use it you are asking for suicide by cop. Either way, that is exactly what you get. So if one young man gets shot over making a motion to his waist you can bet your ass that a teen holding what looked like a real gun will most definitely require deadly force.

Why not shoot him in the leg or arm you ask?

Because considering all of the school shootings over the last 20 years, a cop is really not in the position to act as a sniper. They don't have time to negotiate AND setup a precise shot. You are not working with an AR-15 rifle with a scope here. They have handguns, and only one chance to bring the suspect down. If they miss their mark or shoot an area that doesn't keep the suspect from firing back at them then someone will potentially get killed. Which is why deadly force or "shoot to kill" is a general policy with gunmen. Police don't f*%# around, so a good rule of thumb is don't waive a gun around in front of cops, real or fake.

I am a little concerned over the shot to the back of the head. I think if he turned to run after shots 1 & 2 then they should have stopped there. Also, why were paramedics called to the scene only AFTER shots were fired. If there is a gunman on site then they should have been proactive. What if multiple students and teachers were shot??? The police should at least be taking responsibility for those mistakes. If medical help had already been on hand and only shots to the shoulder and ribs had been fired then that boy would have had better chances of surviving.

JackTX, so it would have been OK had the lethal shot hit the teen in the FRONT of the head? Seriously?

Why were the police going for the teen's HEAD at all? If multiple officers cannot wound and disable with a shot to the shoulder of the arm holding the pellet gun or real gun of the solo teen, something is wrong.

What makes you think they shot him there intentionally? This wasn't the shooting range. It wasn't a controlled environment. The difference between this kid's shoulder and the base of his head was probably about 6-8 inches to begin with, and if he was spinning or falling, it would be very easy to see how a well placed shot could end up hitting him in a different place than the officer intended.

I don't understand the mentality where people who did not even witness an event are so sure they know who was right and who was wrong in the heat of the moment.

Lolly, thats how they do it down in texas. I agree with you, they handled the whole situation unprofessionally. I believe that Rich Perry needs to enact a new law on how to handle these kinds of situations, if they do happen to occur again in the future. I'd be glad to go there to train the officers they have right now, if Perry gives me the ok. But Rich Perry is a republican and like Dubya they shoot first then ask questions later and I just don't have the time right now to go there and fight the state of texas on the proper way of dealing with these type of situations. My condolences go out to the family along with his classmates and teachers and friends. Peace be with you.

His fault he was shot in the back of the head? Interesting analysis. "Interesting" is code for idiotic.

It was his fault he was shot at all. He did not comply with repeated demands to lay down his weapon-- and it is a weapon.

Consider this:

A pellet gun fires a .177 caliber projectile at speeds anywhere from 300 - 1000+ fps. The model in the picture appears to be an Umarex SA177, which has a listed fps of 350. As a frame of reference, most hunting bows have an FPS of around 300 (note: the arrow, being a larger projectile than a pellet, retains more mass energy at impact though). A .177 caliber projectile firing at 350 fps still has more than enough velocity to break skin and penetrate organs, though most likely would not be capable of penetrating bone. Is it a weapon? Absolutely. Is it a lethal weapon? Potentially. Now, to my mind, a potentially lethal weapon should be treated by law enforcement as a lethal weapon, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Also, look at that thing. It clearly resembles a "real" handgun in all dimensions. The police were absolutely right to treat it as a threat.

Anyone here who thinks a pellet gun is not lethal, I have a test for you. Take a pellet gun of your choice. Aim it directly at the jugular vein in your neck. Pull the trigger.

What do we know?

15 year old had gun and refused to lower it/drop it.

Several armed police, my guess also wearing body armour

Boy is clearly at a disadvantage.

Police anounce than initiate fatal shooting.

I thought SWAT stood for special weapons and tactics. What was the tactic? "Us three stand here and if he doesn't drop the gun shoot". That's not a tactic that's a plan to kill and nothing else. You couldn't grab a fire hose, a tazzer, stun grenade, smoke of some sort, or how about someone just come up behind him while he was having the sh(t scarred out him with three cops pointing bigger guns than his at him. Unfortunately, guns in schools is not something new, but you would think for the sake of all the other innocent students/faculty, police would have a more reasonable tactic or any tactic at all.

Spider - sure, it's easy. About 100 police officers are killed a year in the line of duty. Well over 1000 citizens are killed by police a year.

Just check the FBI statistics.

That's 10-1 odds that the cop kills the citizen, and not the other way around.

So if you want to use "I was in fear for my life" as a defense, then the citizen would be about 10 times more correct than the police.

I'm not advocating kiling police - just pointing out that in any one on one police vs. citizen situtation, the real fear of being killed is clearly on the citizen's side.

It's just not valid for Police to use the "I was in fear of my life" idea, because clearly the other guy is also in fear of their life - and I doubt anyone would use that for a justification if someone shot a cop.

Perhaps that's just being picky about the concept, but that doesn't make it false logic.

.

As for the police apologists, he was shot in the back of the head. No self defense on that one. If a regular citizen shoots someone stealing their car in the back of the head, you get scrutinized. Shoot them in the front, and you can easily claim self defense.

Remember, despite what the police enforce, they are subject to the same laws as everyone else. If he was down or going down and they shot him in the back of the head, then it can no longer be called self defense. They don't get to execute people.

It works the same with every citizen. You can't shoot the criminal a couple of times and then put one in the back of their head.

Or you might find yourself in jail even though you were defending yourself or your property. Even in Texas.

Obviously, we are all speculating - as there are no facts yet on how he was shot in the back.

How is a kid 15 and in 8th grade? Late birthday or held back or both. My neice turned 17 and then started 12th grade while my son started 11th grade and then turned 17.

Lolly1192 - There is a chance the paramedics were outside or down a block from the school for safety. So when they called for paramedics, they were just calling them inside... saying it was safe to enter. At least that is what I'm assuming.

When a police officer tells you to put a gun down (toy or real) you should do it. If you don't, you will be shot. I don't know if he understood English or not, but I would assume they had someone on the force who spoke Spanish telling him to put the gun down too. I'm sorry, but too many kids today don't have respect for authority figures of any type... police, teachers, bus drivers, parents, etc.

EK.....Shoot him in the legs and his hands are still free to shoot and kill you or somebody else. Think about it. This isn't a Hollywood movie.

The sad truth is that once he raises the weapon,nearly every officer opens up. If 6 officers are around him,that's going to be at least 12 shots. I am not sure about the policy,but I would think an officer fires at least 2 rounds. Playing with guns in this manner,whether real or not,isn't smart to begin with.

On the other hand,what if only 1 officer fires 2 bullets and strikes him. He's down,but maybe even more pissed off. He starts shooting a gun,real or not,at anyone who may be around. A teacher or another student gets hit and is either paralyzed,comatose,but not dead. Now,their family has to deal with the questions,how,why them.

It's a gray area which will never have clear definitions because situations and actions are unique.

Did anyone considered that the news might be wrong? The investigation will determine what happened.

This was not a marine combat zone with enemy assailants. This was a solo fifteen year old MINOR with a pellet gun in the Valley. Where is the sense of context? (I do not own or endorse pellet guns, BTW.) This was a shot in the BACK of the head. The BACK of the head. I am all for self defense. (I would definitely defend myself if threatened with imminent harm.) But something does NOT add up here for self-defense.

I have been concerned about the escalating violence on BOTH ends of the perp-police equation for several years. I seem to recall an article that ran a couple of months back in "Politico", with a comment written by a retired policeman who'd been 30 years on the force. The retired policeman was decrying the change for the worse in the paradigm of law enforcement. The retired policeman stated that the reason there are SO many more problems now is that the paradigm has changed. In earlier, better, times the paradigm had been linear (ie, a certain point A - to B- to C LOGIC in officer decisionmaking on the scene) and now under the "new (and DEvolved) dumbed-down paradigm" of law enforcement, it is not linear but circular. In other words, everything a citizen might do is a "spoke" on the wheel that could lead back to the central notion, authentic or counterfeit, of "crime, logic be damned." This sounds remarkably like, "If all you have is a hammer, everything must be a nail." What a horror. Where has common sense and humanity gone? Where has discernment gone? Is there no recognition that what might be wise for an Iraq marine is NOT wise in the Valley with a minor? Heaven help us.

This lose-lose situation occurred in Texas. The questions I have are: 1) Several have written here that "officers are trained to shoot to KILL, not wound/disable." Is this REALLY the SOP? (If so, it is time to revisit and revise that statute - why are Americans so quick to buy-in to such a cheapening of human life? Why kill when you could end the danger with a wound or disable? Too many TV Law and Order shows and ghoulish films to desensitize? America was once a culture of LIFE. Why this rush to confirm and condemn our nation as a culture of DEATH, with all the trigger-happy murders and abortion mills? If a country ever needed a moral compass it would seem to be the US of A.) 2) Since this occurred in Texas, what is the state statutory citation that would justify this murder of a minor, or in other words, where does it actually STATE that lethal force (to the back of the head) is justified in the murder of a minor who never fired a shot? 3) If center of mass (abdomen) is the training, how is the state coroner going to explain away a head shot, to the BACK of the head?

What I actually sense here are not bad cops but fearful, PC-overburdened and trigger-challenged police. When police are so afraid of the populace (of real hardcore criminals) that they must make the leap to see criminality in a 15 year old schoolkid with a pellet gun (ie, NOT a real hardcore criminal), probably on the hysterical, errant input of a PC challenged "educator" (oh, Lord) that is a problem. When police are so saturated and ruled by the over-media-exposure of Columbine and all the other state-sponsored propaganda (for gun control, which I oppose, BTW, as we should all have the right of true self-defense) that they have lost their ability to discern, that is a problem.

Americans, it is time to put PRAYER back in the school and GOD back in the public square. That will solve so MANY of the discipline and lost-youth problems of today. All the nonsense has poisoned America's schools for at least 50 years is simply not working. Wake up and deal with it.

Americans, it is time to require public officials to actually use their brains, with some common sense and discernment in their actions, not this "shoot first, make excuses later" mentality that is destroying America. We need a rule of law and we need order, obviously. But what we do not need is the insider-outsider mindset that is destroying America, with one set of rules for the insiders and their servants, and another set of rules for everyone else. Somehow I do not think a PRIVATE citizen who had shot a teen with a pellet gun in the BACK of the head on PRIVATE property, (even with 30 kids having a birthday party at the time on the property at the time), would be getting all the apologists and free passes that these PUBLIC people shooting a teen with a pellet gun in the BACK of the head on PUBLIC property, are getting a free pass for. Think about it.

Really, think about it.

Madworld- are you illiterate or just plain lazy? Your question has been answered 20+ times already!

Shot #1 hit target, impact force causes target to spin, legs to buckle.

Shot #2 aimed at the exact same place from the exact same direction will strike a different area of the target. Thus- target spun around and shot #2 hit the back of the head.

Herp. Derp. It's called Physics. Google it. It's a thing.

Or just try reading the thread of comments that have explained this FACT over and over before asking asinine questions.

Yes, it matters that the young man was Hispanic. The officers would know full well that they are less likely to be criticized--and that does influence their decision. Secondly, this is why we have given the police Tasers. If the boy had shot no one, and they were not being drugstore cowboys and advancing on him in such a way that they were putting themselves in danger, then they could easily have shot him with the Taser.

The child would fall quickly, they could disarm him, and everyone would be safe.

The teachers had time to call the police, the police had time to arrive, in that time the child had shot precisely NO ONE. This means that the child is not an imminent threat and they have time to talk to him. Had this been a more prestigious school with children who were not Hispanic, they would have waited. Why? Because the child might have a lawyer or doctor for a parent, and the police would have had more concern about backlash.

They knew the student's basic age because of the grade level--this is not rocket science. If the child were going to shoot, he'd have done it long before the police showed up. The goal of the school officials was to have the police calm the boy down and take him into custody, not execute him. The person who is second guessing right now is the teacher or principal who could have just tackled him--I am fairly certain that at least one cared about the boy and wishes that s/he'd taken action.

The take-away from this is that schools are better off with their own security force that is armed with non-lethal weapons as well as lethal ones, who are better able to handle children of that age. The police, particularly in Texas, often look for reasons to shoot people just as the DAs look for ways to execute them--whether or not they are guilty (and the DAs often know that the person isn't likely to be guilty, as they hide exculpatory evidence). Not all police officers are nice people.

Had shots been fired, I wouldn't have a single problem with the actions of the police. With no shots fired, they are the ones to blame for rushing the situation and placing themselves in danger--any school has multiple halls and corners to easily hide around. They sound like badly trained, drugstore cowboys, who deserve nothing but contempt.

They will also nearly certainly get completely off--and may well get pats on the back for being "heroes." This really makes one hope that there is an afterlife and that they will ultimately get the punishment they so richly deserve--there will be nothing done in this one, probably not even retraining. But, no, I have no concerns for their psyches. Anyone who would shoot a child that age who has shot at no one isn't likely to have a conscience. I have no real belief that we need to be concerned for them.

All you guys stating that if they did not kill this kid he would have shot the officers, if it was a real gun. That is bull. This is a kid we are talking about here, not a trained soldier. When you get shot it doesn't happen like it does on TV. You go into shock almost immediately depending on where the bullet hits if it is not fatal, there may be an adrenalin rush but you are not going to turn into Rambo and be able to be coherently in control enough at that age to fire a gun after trauma like that. And again I state this was a kid, getting hit by a bean bag at age 15 is more then enough to bring down most kids that age as it is going to hurt like hell, maybe even break a few bones if it hits just the right spot. If they hit him with three to four of those we would not be having this conversation right now.

Cops are too trigger happy these days. Verbal warnings are not enough to justify use of lethal force on a kid, the law is wrong and should be compartmentalized just like punishments are for juveniles. I feel for the family and hope that none of you stating the police are justified ever find yourself in a similar position as this family.

Although I fully expect more of this now that the NDAA is in effect.

Geowil....But the police didn't KNOW it wasn't a real gun. Did you see the picture of the gun? Sure LOOKED real. Would YOU have wanted to play the odds? No doubt if you were in the cops position, you'd have done exactly as they did. Either that or you have a death wish.

beanathone: Some of the officers were Hispanic also...so that has nothing to do with WHY they shot him.

Thoroughly agree with Oldman, as a combat vet have seen numerous times what the impact of an M-16 round will do, in point of fact, the lighter weight the body in question the more the round will do to twist the body. So a round in the shoulder could very easily explain the second round hitting the young man in the back of the head. More surprised in point of fact if they were using M-16's that he only was hit 3 times. Even on Semi-automatic the recoil will frequently send 2 or more rounds down range.

This is very tragic for the young man's family and the school and all the young people involved. Even for the officers involved. Because they never know when a weapon that they see is relatively innocous or very lethal, and it also doesn't alter the fact that even though it was a pellet gun it does have some penetrating power. That weapon can kill if fired at close enough range or it hits a very unprotected part of the body, ie the neck.

The tragedy is that people will try to make a martyr out of the young man, he is not a martyr, but he should be mourned greatly for a life so tragically lost. Also mourn the other students, the ones who lost a close friend, the one who possibly caused the altercation. Many folks will have a lot to live with for their actions on that day including the parents who will always wonder if they could have done something to change the outcome.

You dont kill a 15 yr old for pointing a gun.

Yes, you absolutely, positively do. I have no idea why this is even a question.

It's not the fact that he "pointed a gun," it is the fact that he pointed a gun at trained police officers after disobeying commands to release the firearm. What do you think they were going to do, just let him shoot them, hoping it wasn't real?

Beanathome- quick little lesson for you and all the rest of the armchair ballistics experts on here:

Do you know what a Tazer does? It sends tens of thousands of volts of electricity through you. That causes EVERY muscle in your body to tense up. Including the muscles in your TRIGGER FINGER.

If someone is pointing a gun at you, or at an innocent bystander, and you Tazer that person... that gun will fire! Someone will get shot. Maybe a cop. Maybe an innocent child.

This young man broke the law. Plain and simple. He had already physically assaulted another student that period. He brandished a firearm in a school full of innocent children. He ignored REPEATED orders to drop the weapon. Then he got his dumb ass shot.

HE is at fault. No one else.

Jack Texas ...

I am suggesting they're all too trigger happy and all too quick to rationalize a lack of real "police" work. I understand a member of the public reacting, as suggested by the commentator who said they would not be pulling out their cell phone if a gun was pointed at them but we are talking about people who have been trained to protect the public. If it was as easy as shooting a suspect everytime then anyone trained to fire a weapon could do this job. I am concerned we have way too many who will shoot first and not care what the answers to the questions are.

I agree with the parents. A shot to the head and ribcage? A little excessive don't you think? Yeah the cops got training, they had to shoot the kid, blah blah blah. It doesn't matter. The kid is still dead and his family lost him. I'll admit there is something wrong in this story. If there wasn't a cop behind him how did he get shot in the back of the head and if there was a cop how did he avoid the bullets. But those cops could have saved him. If they were at close enough range to take him down like that then they should have been able to dentify the wepon. Yeah it looks like a real one but it isn't. Yeah he broke the law BUT he could have been saved. I'm not implying that its the cops didn't want to but he could have been saved. Anyone who thinks differently is intitled to their own opinion or their stupid. Choose one and not the other.

You protagonists of this killing of a 15 year old act as if this is an isolated incident but it is just one of so many we can't keep track! Like a 5 year old shot by police because he had a toy gun, and dozens incidents of cops tasering little kids.... how about pepper sray in the faces of students protesting tuition rates at UC Davis?.... it's ridiculous!

I truly don't understand why people think that police officers are supposed to do anything other than what they are trained to do. In a situation like this, when they have already issued orders to the suspect to drop the weapon and the kid instead lifts the weapon at them, it is obvious that the suspect will be shot to death. They don't teach police to shoot anyone in the arms or legs and in fact if they did so, it ups the likelyhood that they are going to be threatened with a lawsuit. Just like the police adviser said while perusing the case, this is more than likely a justified shooting. Stop expecting cops to be superheroes. They are men and woman like us that have the job of trying to protect the public at large. They didn't sign up with the expectation that they had to allow people to shoot them before they were allowed to defend themselves and many of them have wives and husbands and kids that they want to return to each day, just like everyone else. Stop hating on the police and read more about who they are and what they are actually trained to do before commenting.

1 - Very, very angry 15 year old kids don't think rationally. Yes, even yours sometimes.

2 - This was not Columbine. If the kid wanted to use the gun he wouldn't have hit the other kid with his fist.

3 - The kid was isolated and despite not "obeying orders" (see #1 above) didn't represent a significant threat. He was obviously contained and there were plenty of people to "take him out" if he actually took threatening action.

4 - What kind of person shoots a 15 year old kid in the head without trying for a non-lethal resolution?

5 - Why force the issue without trying to give the disturbed kid some time to think?

To the "the kid had it coming" crowd, I hope your child is given more consideration WHEN they have their moment of irrational anger and lash out. Doesn't anyone remember what it's like to be an angry child?

Sojourner- No, I don't remember what it's like to be so angry that I bring a loaded gun to school, assult a classmate, then have a standoff with the police in which I ignore repeated orders to stand down and insted get my dumb ass shot.

I don't remember that because my parents taught me respect. My parents taught me responsibility. My parents taught me not to bring guns to school and threaten people's lives.

The police DID TRY for a non-lethal resolution. They ordered the young man REPEATEDLY to drop the weapon. He refused. He aimed a gun at the cops. They were forced, by the young man himself, to resolve the issue with the only tools at their disposal.

But... if you, or anyone else, on this thread think you "know better" than the cops who were actually there, then I suggest you go take the Civil Service Exam, enroll in a police academy, and go put your life on the line serving the public as a police officer.

Show them how it's done.

There is no right answer or position to take in this situation. Teenage kids, whacked out on there hormones do unpredictable, stupid and all too often deadly things. Cops do what they do. Would a scenario where the student shot and killed one of the cops before being arrested, feel any better? It's senseless s--t all the way around, but as humans, frequent stupid acts seem to be part of our DNA.

JKiff, not an asinine question. Simply emphatically expressing MY point of view (certainly at least as valid as YOURS) that there seems to be something wrong with a bullet to the BACK of the head. And no, you do not need to retype your point again. One got it the first time. One simply disagrees with you and others echoing that point of view and that's OK. (BTW, speaking with two police friends and three DOJ friends today and most of them, too, think that something "does not add up" about the narrative account to this needless tragedy. Guess the police and DOJ folks are just asinine, too, because they don't agree with you? )(Not.)

No one is saying it was a smart move for a fifteen year old to bring anything resembling a gun to school. Of course it was not a good move and it was a lethally bad choice. What we are saying is that it was seemingly poor police work, showing questionable training, skills and judgment for two ADULT and armed with REAL GUNS policemen (probably with full flack jackets on, since this was a call to a school) to open fire and striking in the HEAD (front or back) a MINOR "armed" only with a pellet gun.

And if robotically "shoot to kill" - not use any discernment or human judgment to disable and take into custody - is really the police standard (and it must be, since so many have written that in their posts), wow this country really is much, much farther down the highway to hell than imagined. Especially when you are talking about a fifteen year old minor (one who in the photo published widely today shows not a single menacing feature or anything resembling a permanent hardened expression; this was not some punk; it was a kid in school band who attended Mass). The official storyline yesterday tried hard to paint a bully. The counter-story today references a kid who bought candy for poor kids. Sounds like a real hardened criminal - NOT.

Surely all understand that this was a tragedy, not fodder for "blaming the victim's parents" (so offensive) or mindless, kneejerk comments that say more about the poster than this dead teen. And for those of us who would go further and add that the incident raises real and valid questions about the quality and methods of the educator(s) and police who may or may not have been so brainwashed and in fear from the media overexposure (politically motivated) from Columbine that they rushed to bad judgment (and their REAL guns) in this incident, that is our right, too. No need for sarcasm in an attempt to attack those of us who hold a different point of view that you do. You think the police performed properly here, fine and that is your right. Others of us disagree.

Beanathome,

tazers are not applicable to dropping a suspect with a weapon since it causes the muscles to contract involuntarily. This would cause the suspect to fire the weapon after being zapped.

Aggie,

Yes I know it looked like a real gun, however a non-lethal shot would have been just as easy to accomplish to bring him down. The triple tap and fatal shooting was not necessary. They could have shot him in the arm he was using to hold the gun, or the hand. Either would have been enough to diffuse the situation. I realize they would have had to reposition for a hand shot, but they obviously had the ability for a shoulder/arm shot as that was one of the reported wounds inflicted on the body.

Point is lethal force should never be used on a minor unless it is a last resort, verbal warnings are not a point of last resort. The cops came unprepared (mentally and physically) and did not have the right gear with them to properly defuse the situation without killing the kid.

Most cops also wear bullet proof vests to scenes where weapons are involved. I again hearken back to this kids age, I doubt he would have the vindictiveness to shoot for the head, nor the stomach, if it were a real gun so while there would be some risk to the officers the risk would be lessened overall.

We could go on with this forever really, and many likely will until the next big thing happens, but this tragedy was totally preventable with better decision making and prediction by the cops.

I would also like to amend my "rambo" statement to non-drugged up suspects. Those on LSD or meth probably will shrug off the pain or not feel it at all if they are hallucinating.

Why shoot the kid in the back pf the head needs to be looked in to. If he was holding a pellet gun, why didn't the officers tell him to drop the gun, and I am sure he would have because it wasn't a real gun to begin with. Shoot the kid in the arm, leg, but in the back of the head for me means they wanted this kid dead.

As for the pic of the gun. Police officers and departments are known for forging photos and documents. We don't even know for a fact that that was the gun the kid was holding. The gun the kid was holding could have been green for all we know.

Texans are know for not liking blacks, Hispanic, or people from another race other than white. I have met many people in CA that were from Texas, and they fled the state due to the hate and bigotry bred there.

RIP little one. Hopefully this officer will get life in prison for murdering this kid in cold blood. There was zero reason for this officer to shoot this kid in the back of the head.

Mods- why can't we have a feature that we can report people for being stupid?

Arieus- They DID tell him to drop the gun... NUMEROUS times. Not to mention that you know nothing of how ballistics and firearms work, it is quite possible for the kid to have been shot in the back of the head from an officer in front of him... Not like that matters, because the coroner's report states that it wasn't a gunshot wound in the back of his head, it was an injury from where his head bounced off the floor when he fell.

The kid was hispanic Arieus- but guess what? So were the officers. So much for your racism claim.

Hopefully this officer will get life in prison for

He was doing his job, and he didn't murder anyone in cold blood. You're just unable to read, or whatever your problem is, you should probably look for help outside of Newsvine...

The mods are busy working on a feature to delete @!$%#s like you.

What's the matter, you don't like that I opine that those who choose to comment without either reading or knowing what they are talking about are stupid?

If the shoe fits, wear it.

And the truth will prove everyone wrong! Of course it doesn't come from MSNBC - http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-14/news/31060028_1_realistic-looking-pellet-gun-officers-glock-handgun

Poor Jamie Gonzalez was NOT shot in the back of the head like his grieving parents claimed. He was only shot twice, in the chest and the abdomen. The report also stated that the police did indeed fire a warning shot over the suspects head into glass to get him to drop the gun. Jamie Gonzalez also might have fired on the police, as that's not confirmed nor denied in the article but is mentioned. Finally, the police made a decision as another child's life was in danger as he was corned by the suspect.

Well done indeed by the police officers involved. True hero's. Shame on MSNBC for not reporting on this and shame for all of you who inserted their nasty opinions on this topic trying to burn these police officers at the stake.

I was wondering the same thin.. a 15 year old in 8th grade? To the parents.. I don't know about your parenting skills, but when I was a child, my parents knew everything I was into (or about to get into) long before I did it. To me, if you are a parent, and that child may have any kind of a history.... then you should be up in their business.

To the police... I think you acted appropriately, and if I had a child in that school.. I would be saddend over the death, but thankful that the police did what was right here.

I don't believe this was justified at all. Shooting the child so he would be unable to wield the gun, sure, but a head shot? A shot in the head is extremely fatal, and same with the chest. There should have been no intention of killing the young man, but instead an attempt to unarm him. This is just ridiculous and I cannot believe people are standing up for them. Even when there was the assumption that the gun was real I thought this was ridiculous.

I thought that as well when the first report came out. 15 is normally 9th-10th grade, not 8th. Then there was a second student in 8th grade that was reported as one who went to hide. That's already more 15 yr olds than I'd expect in 8th grade...

As for the rest, he was obviously distraught about something (a girl, bad grades, drugs, etc) that caused him to come in and physically assault a fellow student, then pull a BB gun that looked real and start threatening people and police.

Condolences to all, but I would consider this justified as well given the circumstances portrayed, regardless of the age.

For those that think they should have gone "non-lethal" or not shot him in the chest/head. Really? That would mean getting "danger close" within about 20 feet to effectively taser him or get an accurate shot on his arm or leg. Don't let the movies fool you about taking a leg or arm shot (which are often just as deadly by the way because of the main arteries running to them), in real life center mass is where you are trained to shoot, as it's the easiest/biggest target to hit.

The back of the head shot was likely unintentional as a head shot, just a second shot from a rifle that caught him as he twisted around from the first two shots. Likely the whole event of 3 shots and twisting failing happened within 2 seconds... all to protect the other lives portrayed as being threatened by the kid. If the kid had had a real gun and killed 3 others before the cops tasered him, you would be complaining of why they didn't shoot and kill him when they could have...

Police are trained to shoot to kill when using their guns. Pepper spray or a taser could also not have been used as they would have to be too close to what appeared to be non compliant suspect with a gun. Perhaps a shotgun with bean bags might have been possible but non of us were there and cannot say for sure. Police can be reprimanded for trying to "shoot the gun out of his hand" in a non lethal manner. They are not trained to use deadly force in a non lethal manner.

I can assure you all there is more to the story. Police officers are trained in tactics. One of the tactics is to not shoot at a subject if another police officer is in the path of fire. ie if there are 2 cops in front of the boy and 1 behind the boy they would not shoot twice hitting him in the shoulder and chest and have the other shoot at the head as the officers would be in the line of fire from eachother. This tactic is taught to police officers so incase they miss the target or the bullet continues on after hittin the target the officers are not hit. This doesn't leave much room for the shot to the back of the head as it is almost certain the boy was turned away when the shot to the head hit him. Police officers are also now days equipped with tazers, which in this described scenario is the weapon to use as a tazer if will not put another officer into the crossfire.

Taylor, that isn't how it is done. The police are not trained to delicately disarm someone standing with a gun. They are trained to take them out. That is not the time to try to reason or anything else. This kid was told repeatedly to drop the gun and he did not. Unfortunately he would not so he ended up paying with his life for his decision. So far no one has thought of "suicide by cop" but it may well be a possibility.

Taylor, you are incredibly ignorant. Police are trained to shoot to kill, not shoot to disarm. In retrospect, yes the police were not in any real danger because the weapon was a pellet gun but this was not known to them at the time. Say the gun was real, the police tried to shoot the suspect's arm to make him drop the weapon but they miss and the kid fires and kills a police officer and then they kill the kid. Is that a better situation to you? Anyways, in my opinion this is probably a case of suicide by cop.

This 15 yr old obviously wasnt a Good kid, if he had the intention to punch a kid randomly in the nose, then point a pellet gun to a police, and refusing to cooperate when faced with a real gun. You will always hear the victim was a good person, you never hear the bad parts when someone is killed, personally idc his fault.

As for the head shot, the kid probably spun around while the first shots were being fired and that's why he got one in the back of the head. Or maybe one law officer was positioned behind him and he shot the kid in the head in order to kill him quickly before he could shoot.

Police are trained to shoot a person in the body -- not the HEAD. Especially not the BACK of the head. While those cops may have been "justified" in shooting the boy, that one shot to the back of the boy's head is, to me, one gigantic red flag that someone is trying to sweep something under a rug somewhere.

Taylor - If you were there, you could have taken the gun away from him. We need people like you in the police department

Police are not trained to aim for disarming shots; they are trained to aim for the largest target area, which is the torso. The use of assault rifles is most likely the culprit of the reported headshot due to significant recoil. If you follow the path of the wounds, it was ribcage, shoulder and head.

It's a shame this happened and I wish the outcome was different, but IF the gun was real and IF the police went for disarming shots and missed, then they'd be the ones injured or dead.

Does no one remember all of the other school shootings? Teenagers killing teenagers? The police did their jobs. If we come down on them for this, we can only ask "When is the next Columbine massacre going to happen?" So then what will those of you who say the police were wrong say? Will you say "The police didn't do their job"? Come on people! Yes it was tragic but what if the gun HAD been real and they didn't shoot him? For those who say the police were wrong, remember your words you say now when the next school killing happens......

I thought that police weren't suppose to fire there weapons unless fired upon or does that not pertain to minorites and they deal with white kids in a different manor!!! This is to make you open your eyes and see things like we do!!!

@Bobby Leavell,

First of all NO....cops are NOT trained to wait until fired upon. How stupid to think so. Secondly, you're attempt to throw down the race card is WAY of base and shows us who the real racist is...YOU!

@ "Taylor-1886145" you would also be the first to compalin if the cops had not shot/killed the suspect if he went on a shooting spree killing others. Needless to say this is a very tough situation to be in and it is very easy to say what should have been done "AFTER" the fact. If you were put in the same situation I wonder if you might think differently.

This is a situation that could have easily been avoid had 1. the boy just not brought the pellet gun to school and/or 2. listen to the cops orders and drop the gun. No, he decided to escletate the issue resulting in him being shot. As for the shot to the back of the head, I do agree this is odd but without all of the facts presented we should not speculate.

Sounds like this kid may not have understood the concept of consequences for actions.

Taylor, whenever there is a gun involved, cops have to be cautious. It was the kids fault becuase he didn't put it down. All he had to do was drop it and he would have went home to his mother and father, but because he refused to listen, they will never see their boy again. Its a sad, sad thing, but the cops were in the right with this one. Its just like Brian said, if the gun had been real (and these days its always possible) and they had tried to simply disarm him, it could have cost everyone in that situation their lives if it had failed. At 15, the kid should have understood that his life was on the line. He should have known to listen and I am sure he did. Suicide by cop DOES seem like the case, but there are too many unknowns to be sure...

Mean Girl

"Why was a 15 year old in 8th grade? Did he have mental health issues?" really meangirl??? you've not ever know of or heard of a child being held back a year (could be two here)? WHY would he have "mental health issues" cuz of this? anyway, sad situation for this family. my sympathies to them, and may He help them through this tragedy.

For those wondering why a 15 year old is in the 8th grade: Cut off date to start k in many districts is September 1. So if a child's birthdate is after the 1st of September, then they start after they turn 5. This is what it would look like by grade and age(age at start of school year/age at ending of school year): K(5/6), 1st(6/7), 2nd(7/8), 3rd(8/9), 4th(9/10), 5th(10/11), 6th(11/12), 7th(12/13), 8th(13/14). If the child was held back a year, then add another year of age. A little thought makes this easy to understand.

So you are going to stand 6-7 feet directly in front of a subject with (what you believe) is a loaded gun to fire a tazer into his chest. Give me a break. These cops (and apparently everyone else) thought the gun was real. The kid was told numerous times to drop it and he didn't. The myth of "shooting the gun out of his hand" comes from people who have never fired a gun (much less been in a life threatening situation) who have been watching too many movies. He had obviously modified the gun to look real (they all come with orange tips now to identify them as toys) so he knew what he was doing. And yes, racism exists, but look at the names of everyone involved. These were ALL Hispanic individuals, so don't pull out the race card. The police did what they had to do to protect the other children, and themselves. It's not an accident (he knew what he was doing) but it is a tragedy that it happened.

Tho cops were in the right not only was kid mentaly challenged but if some one points a gun at some bodie else than they are takeing there own lifes at risk. on the polices side the rifle they were useing were small calliber (5.56-64mm) so when shooting an leg or arm the bullet could mushroom and roll up or down the bone causeing masive flesh and vien wounds but shooting some one in the back of the head was dumb not only could the bullit have shatered on his head causeing shrapnell but it ment they either shot towards each other or shot him as he ran but over all the police stopped a threat and did there duty.

I do feel sorry for the family, but the bottom line is, obey the police , you live! It's pretty simple. You aim a gun, they shoot. Try to hit them with a car they, they shoot. As a retired FF, I have been on many scenes with police. People are Aholes and very stupid. The police have a tough job. Give them a break.

How many people here have actually been in a confrontation with a gun? The police did not have to be behind him for the shot to be in the back of the head. It all depends on what happend at the time, he could have moved or turned that caused one of the bullets to have hit him in the head. It doesn't mean that someone shot him after he was killed, and it doesn't mean that someone shot him execution style, it could have been a matter of circumstance. It was a tragic event, but his actions were extreme and violent and I believe the actions taken are justified.

From what I read, the police were more than justified. This kid screwed up and lost his life. My heart goes out to the Gonzalez family for their loss, as well as the officers and their families.

@Taylor, you seem to think that the cops can review and weight every possible outcome before making the decision to pull the trigger. The gun was thought to be real, the boy was not obeying commands. These officers made a very difficult decision to protect themselves and the other people in the school. There is no winging a suspect in a situation like this, its shoot to kill. I also doubt the officers were aiming at his head. They were aiming for the high percentage shot, most likely they were aiming for his chest (center mass).

@snoman, a stun gun??? They were using rifles because they were out of pistol range. You really think they are going to approach this kid while he is displaying a weapon??? Come on....

The police would be blamed by some in this situation regardless. If the police had hesitated and tried to surround him, take the weapon or whatever and he got a shot off that harmed someone, the police would have been blamed for not taking more aggressive action. Now some are blaming them for being too aggressive. The bottom line is that a student should not have a weapon at school and since he did he put himself at risk. As sad as it is for a young life to be lost, it was his fault. He could have chosen not to have the gun in his hand or he could have chosen to lay it down at any point.

A 15 year old can be in 8th grade simply for the fact that his/her birthday falls at certain cutoff point for the school start up date. Even so, some parents choose to hold their children back one year in the beginning if they believe they aren't ready to start school. Students are 15 in the 9th grade, normally, that is not a big difference, so why nitpick, nitpickers?????

In regards to the shot to the back of the head. If the subject's body was facing the officer but head, and gun were turned 90 degrees to the right or left (pointing the weapon at somebody else) , this could explain why there is a shot to the back to this kids head. The officers would only have to be at two angles, NOT IN EACH OTHERS LINE OF FIRE, to accomplish this... Not to mention officers use 9mm rounds that don't always have the knockdown power of our higher caliber rounds, hollow point or not. If the subject was hit but didn't go down, or if he spun on the initial shot this could also have been created. This individual met all the criteria for any officer to use deadly force. 1. Capability - he walked into the school with a weapon (yes pellet guns are still weapons). 2. Opportunity - he was around numerous people that were potential targets, intended or not. 3. Intent - he waved the darn thing around! the cops weren't going to ask him "excuse me kid can i just check to see if that is a real gun, don't want to get pounded by these internet bloggers who would love to do my job for me." And stick boy up there. what do you think the cavemen used to kill? Big Sticks. Force is determined by what the subject comes to the table with... Bad tactics is an officer that tries to stun a subject with a stun gun when the subject has a lethal weapon. My condolences to this messed up kids parents though, it is tragic.

People who come on here saying that the police should have shot the gun out of his hand should spend a little less time watching TV shows or movies, since that's really the only place you see that happen. I visited the NYPD Museum once, and they have a video simulator that visitors can use that illustrates situations similar to this one. The officer in charge of the simulator was asked that very question by one of the visitors: Why can't I just shoot the gun out of the perp's hand? The answer was very simple: the likelihood of missing is incredibly high, especially given that the hand with the gun in it won't be stationary. Same deal about shooting at an arm or a leg. And, of course, the last thing you want to do when dealing with an armed suspect is miss a shot. Police are trained to shoot at the largest area of the body, which is the torso, and that is what these officers did. I'd wager the back-of-the-head shot was caused by the student being turned around by the prior torso shots, as has been stated by earlier posters. A sad end for this kid's family, but the actions of the police involved were totally justified.

Tayloy -" I don't believe this was justified at all."... "Even when there was the assumption that the gun was real I thought this was ridiculous."

Now that we know it wasn't a real gun your feeling have changed, from ridiculous to unjustified. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that changes the assumption at the time of the shooting. I respect and understand why you feel this way, I think it was justified, especially with the shooting at schools over the past decade. Yes, now we know the situation could have come out differently, but at the time the best thing to do was protect everyone from someone that looked to be brandishing a handgun in a school.

I would like to add that when you are screaming orders at someone do not expect an instant response. (The article says they gave the boy time to respond, its just a common mistake not to.) Just remember your pumped up and time is moving pretty fast for you, the person you are screaming at is going to have to process your commands and respond. Its been my experiance that a person will not even understand your command until repeated them at least twice. Then they have to go decide if they are going to respond to your command. It actually feel like they are taking forever, from the otherside it feels really quick. I know this adds to the risk but if you are in a job that puts your life at risk then you should be ready to accept this.

Who cares why he was 15 and in the 8th grade. The point is not that he was in the 8th grade. It's that he was 15 years old and the police shot him dead on the spot. They could have shot him in the arm or leg. Like any kid would had he been shot in a limb he would have dropped the "weapon" and everything would have been fine. No one knows why he did it, speculations are just rumors. No one will ever know why he brung a pellet gun to school. But everyone who is involved will always remeber that the life of a 15 year old kid ended because some police officers had itchy trigger fingers.

Wow, some people dont really know how hard it is being in law enforcement. 1) There is nothing unjustified about this shooting. The shot to the head is either a lucky shot, or a good marksman. No where does it say he was shot in the back of the head. Lucky only 3 shots were fired, he could have looked like swiss cheese. 2) Police shoot center mass, meaning the chest, or head. You stop the threat. 3) Think of it like this, police shoot kid in arm, parents sue. 4) Police have families also and need to go home safe. One final thought, stop making everything about race. Who is to say it wasnt a Hispanic officer or 2 that shot him??? I say good job officers and my prayers are with you.

His mom said he would never hurt anyone. But: "Shortly before the confrontation, Jaime walked into a classroom and punched a student in the nose for no apparent reason". DUH.

It's on the news all the time, kids taking guns to school. Don't take a gun to school! People are right, he could have put the gun down at any point. It did not have to end like that. He chose to end it like that.

If someone points a gun at me, I'm not going to try to wound them. Try to hit a finger, a hand or leg, nope, going for the largest part of the body. He's going down before he gets a chance to shoot at me. If the gun looks real then the threat is real.

Bobby Leavell,

Police may fire first! In Viet-Nam they told us wait until we were fired upon... Of course we did!

Angel Jayy,

Itchy Trigger Fingers! You are a Complete Moron! Officers do not shoot to wound, the round may penetrate the thin body part and hit someone else, causing injury or death... Officers do not fire warning shots, because what goes up, must come down and may cause injury or death to innocent bystanders...

I am a retired police officer that was injued in the line of duty by a seemingly harmless person. Age, size nor location can yeild to the decision that an officer has to make when faced with the circumstances of an armed suspect. Anyone with ample time may sit back and judge the split second decision that an officer has to make. But remember this, your child may have been a student in that school and the officer could have, as many in this dicussion have suggested, attempt to disarm the suspect. The suspect in turn could have killed the officers and the killed a number students in the school. Then the people in this forum would be shouting from the rooftops, "Why didn't the police take him out???" You cant have it both ways! Get a clue people! The officers are there to protect you and your loved ones from harm. This suspect presented a clear threat and when instructed to discard his weapon, he refused and lethal force is most certainly justified. Also, officers are taught when in training, to shoot center mass of the target, until the target is no longer a threat.

The Quacked One,

Hence your name! I don't know where you get your info from but you are very incorrect... Officers are trained with the handgun to take head shots... You need to do more research!

You give the TV show COPS as a reference! C'MON, REALLY! They go through alot of video and get the most outlandish video to keep the people interested... There are alot of COPS out there that talk in a normal voice or some times loud or commanding voice to let people know they are incharge without becoming screaming meanings...

Pull your head out of the sand and do some real research!

@Some Lame Name Here, exicution shot would be on knees, legs crossed, hands tied behind back, blind folded, head tilted forward, shot at point blank range, in the back of the head.

Jaime’s distraught parents demanded to know why police took lethal action against their son.

THE reason because you where a bad parent and that put him at risk for being dumb

15 and in the 8th grade means he flunked a couple of times. Not that unusual. He obviously wasn't the brightest kid if he "engaged the police" using a pellet gun.

I don't see what the problem is here. You threaten people with a gun, real or not, and refuse to drop it when ordered by police, you get shot. Pretty simple concept. This kid gambled and crapped out.

Something many of you may not know is that a pellet gun is not a toy the pellets can leave the barrel at 450 feet per second. I had one we used for varmint control on the farm. I would not have liked to get hit with a field point at any distance less than 200 feet. They will penetrate skin. You are asking a police officer to identify that gun as a pellet gun in a hurry I couldn't and I've owned them. Why did the parents not teach gun saftey before they let him have it?

Police kill many citizens.

When they point a gun at a citizen, the person with the greatest likelyhood of dying is the citizen, not the cop.

After all, the odds of you being killed by a cop is many times higher than a cop being killed by a citizen.

The statistics don't lie. So let's not try to justify this killing by saying the police were in fear of their lives - by that logic, it would be OK for suspects to shoot the police when there is a standoff, after all - they are in fear for THEIR lives and statistically have a case that it is several times more likely.

That may be one man's opinion, but clearly the kid was shot in the back of the head. Even in the old west, that was clear proof that it cannot be self defense.

And they see nothing wrong with shooting a minor in the back of the head?

It's time to police the police. They cannot be trusted to police themselves. After all, one of their big Slogans is "Loyalty". And who are they loyal to? Not the city or state, but to each other. Police detective Scott Peterson's now murdered wife called the police 17 times for domestic vilolence. 17 times his buddies on the force looked the other way when they came out to the house.

Shooting someone in the back is clearly not a defensive behavior. If someone is breaking into your car and you shoot them, it makes a big difference if you shoot them in the back or the front.

The pellet gun looked real, so I don't fault them for taking action. But shooting him in the back of the head crosses all sorts of lines.

lonereb: I read in the article that they don't know how he got the gun (a pellet gun is still a "gun") as they did not get if for him and would not have approved his having it.

Thank the Founding Fathers for putting in the second amendment. Made Darwin Award winners like this kid so much easier to terminate.

Ryan, Your kidding right? You can't be that dumb. Policemen and women are taught to shoot to kill. They do not live by the laws of the west you learned from watching television.

If someone ever breaks into your home feel free to wait until they are facing you with their weapon pointed at you so that they can more easily kill you BEFORE you act in defense of yourself or children.

Yeah the 15 year old 8th grader brought this on himself. It was completely his fault, but I think the officers who shot him need to get their eyes checked. There are a number of obvious differences between a pellet gun and a true handgun. They claim he was pointing it at them and if so, they should have noticed how the hole at the end of the barrel was to small for a bullet, not to mention how small it would be relative to the outer diameter of the gun's end. On that note, there should be greater distinguishing marks on pellet and bb guns to make it clear they are not lethal weapons, like how cap-guns have orange plastic plugs at the end of the barrel. The manufacturers know the kids want to buy the most realistic pellet gun and they serve it right up, knowing the potential hazards of doing so.

The kid is dead because he would not obey an order. The parents are crying but maybe they should have raised him to obey authority figures. The police did what they had to do and the parents are the reason they had to shoot. This is happening more and more because the government and goody two shoes have taken our right to raise our kids our way. Instead we have to raise them according to some bleeding heart do gooder.

To all of you whining about it being a BB gun, was a BB gun used in every other school shooting in recent history? Was a BB gun used at Columbine, Virginia Tech and every other school? NO, a real gun was used and the police had to assume this one was real as well. Look at the picture and see if it looks real. Next time a school is lock-down because a kid has been reported with a gun on campus, I nominate each of you to walk up to him and "inspect" it to confirm it's real. That would be Darwinism at its best when it turns out to be real. In addition, each of you should have your 911 service permanently disconnected since the police are soooooooo bad.

There was something wrong with the boy 15 and still in the 8th grade did not know him but either he didn't want to learn or was retarted in some way==too bad========no one made any statements weather he was an illegal or not.

The people threatening the cops aren't any brighter than the dead kid with the gun..

Sorry cop-supporters, of which I USUALLY am, i don't agree with this one! 15 year old troubled kids are still KIDS. Saying that a child should have done exactly what you or I would have is unfair. Kids get scared and confused and they don't usually grasp the seriousness of a situation. I think this was EXTREME force and unnecessary. There were other kids in the hallway where he was shot, this kid was probably scared, embarrassed, confused and trying to be a "tough" kid to his peers. I just don't feel a shot to the kid's head was warranted in any way. Inexcusable.

Brian and Barnacle Bob: I agree with your comments, however, the police are not trained to shoot to kill, they are trained to "stop the threat" when lethal force is necessary. Anb yes, that often results in the death of the aggressor There is a difference though, in "shoot to kill" and "shoot to stop the threat". I am a 30 year veteran in law enforcement and spent 8 years on the SWAT team. I feel sorry for the youth's parents and for the officer's that had to shoot him. But this is how it is in real life, this is not a TV show.

This is so sad for me to read an article like this. I wished they would of called me to defuse this situation. The only thing, I live in PA, but I would of been willing to go there to do it. Fly me in by chopper and get me to a window that I can see the kid, if I have a good enough shot at the kids pistol I take it and its over with right there. Naturally theres cops inside the school, but they don't do anything until I tell them too. Then If I can get a shot at the kids gun I get dropped off on the roof of the school I take a rope and tie it off and then tie myself off on the other end, I jump out, off the roof and come crashing in through a window and I pull the rope off me and I go into a roll and come up standing, looking out for the kid, if he's there he's going to be alarmed and I rush him and disarm him and its over with right there. Then if he's not there, I have to go looking for him, just like the cops do on tv, hiding in doorways and behind corners anywhere I can. Once I spot the kid I throw something at him to distract him, I like to use an opened can of pepsi and I come out running at him and I go into a roll and hopefully I'm close enough to the kid where I can kick the gun out of his hand and its over with right there. Then if I'm not close enough to him I take and I have to use my gun which would be a very low calibur .22, with the lowest possible shot in it, so I don't cause severe damage to the kid if I miss and hit him where I'm not aiming. I go into a position where I know I'm comfortable taking the shot and I fire at his gun and I'd be aiming at the gun barrel. I fire and hit the gun barrel his holding and I attack him and get him on the ground with his arms behind his back and cuff him, before he even knows what happened and take him to the police station and its over with right there. See its a shame that police aren't trained to do these kind of things that I do and thus you end up with these kind of endings when they try to handle the situation. I just hope that police officers request my kind of training now, after this incident and then they qualify to handle these kind of situations, no matter where they may be. Yes, I know its not easy to do what I do, but if someone applies themself and wants to make the difference, its possible. My condolences go out to the family and his classmates and teachers. Peace be with you.

C holmes.......first of all the cops are not trained to shoot in the leg. They are taught to shoot center mass. There is no such thing as a non lethal shot with a firearm.

To all the people questioning the shot to the back of the head, I doubt the two officers were simply standing side by side in front of him. And for those of you who are talking about justifiable use of deadly force, it is generally acceptable to use deadly force to defend another person. So the examples about home invasions and carjacking leave out the third person. If a person is in your home and threatening your child or spouse with a weapon, they don't have to be facing you for deadly force to be justified. If this kid pointed his weapon at an officer, anyone who witnessed it and believed the officer's life was in danger would have been justified using deadly force, no matter what part of the kid's body was facing them. My guess is the second officer was to the side or behind and aimed for center mass, and shot high, as I doubt the kid was standing perfectly still.

As to the argument they should have known it was a pellet gun, it looked like a handgun, and the kid acted as if it was a handgun. I'm a handgun owner, and looking at the photo, I don't see anything that obviously indicates it's not a handgun. It looks just like a Glock, google it and look at photos of Glock handguns. If he'd threatened me with it, I would have believed it was real. It's not like he was holding a wallet or a cell phone in his hand and threatend the officer with a ring-tone.

The simple fact seems to be that the kid wanted people to think he had a gun. It worked.

Although I question their shot to the head, no one should be calling in threats to the police. I guarantee those same officers are rethinking their actions and dealing with the outcome themselves.

I have read through many of the commits on here. Lets look at a couple of things people have missed. #1 He was the drum major of the band, sorry no mental health issues.

#2 At no place does it say at what angle the bullet that hit his head entered. If the first shot hit his shoulder and the second in his rib area, more then likely, he was spinning and falling down when the third bullet hit him which by that point in time, his head was in the area his chest was 1 second before.

#3 His parents said that they had no idea where he got the pellet gun because they wouldn't have given him one evan as a gift.

As others have pointed out, we do not know what set him off, so all we can do as outside observers is speculate as to what happened.

Just so tragic. But let's not dump on cops for no reason - not for this. This is what happens when anyone, a kid or an adult, brandishes and then aims what looks like a weapon at the police. This isn't the first, nor will it be the last time such a tragedy occurs. Don't wave guns at cops - not unless you want to get shot. An eighth grader is certainly old enough, and perfectly capable of figuring this out.

just another case of cops that have bad training, which would be most. i have no respect for a cop but only for the profession. the way they train is the incorrect, dangerous and counterproductive to protection of the citizen. maiming a person (appendage shots) does in fact inhibit them from responding due to the agonizing pain of hot metal in the body (might take more than one shot though) and should be the first thing done in a situation like this especially to a young teen as they have no where near the reaction time nor the pain threshold(if the cops were smart enough non-lethal force would been easy as pie). hell it aint that hard to shoot the "gun" out his hand if they were anywhere near 100f using a m-16 (as someone said a m-16 will spin u round lol um noooooo it wont, doesn't have the power to do that, m-16 is weak in that regard). the boy probably just moved away from the pain (involuntary reaction) and thats why he turned and got shot in the back of the head.

oh and yeah 3 shots for a teen (overkill and telling of how scared the cops are, a joke) lol i really dont like cops cuz they have no clue how to do their job and they are trained to protect themselves first before any citizen (citizens come first always). prime example of why the police force is so bad is the penalties for killing one....life in jail but hey u go kill a citizen and bah just a couple decades maybe. a cops life is not more important than a citizens life, matter of fact a citizens life is more important than the cops life as its the duty of the cop to protect the citizen. cops should be held to higher standards and respect as well as compensation for bravery outstanding and just pay but they will never get that until they train to protect and serve not kill and insult.

this boy made a life ending mistake but he didnt end his life, the cops did. if u have a gun and a badge and need 3 shots to take down a young teen, something is wrong.

I would take you down, regardless if you were a teen or not, if you point a gun at me. Nothing is wrong here, just your perception of what happens when someone threatens another, and the loser happens to be the one not following lawful orders, or even rational ones. If your point a gun at me and I tell you to put it down or I will shoot, and you don't put it down, what can you imagine being the consequence? Do I even need to ask you? Maybe you need more time, too late.

ya, not as if a kid was bullied and got fed up....never a reason huh...and we all know articles defending LEO never tell half truths or omit all the facts...

This was exactly what I was thinking when I finished the article. His parents are saying he was a good kid and would've never hurt anyone, yet he punched a student and was walking around with what appeared to be a hand gun. Whether bullied, threatened, or harrassed for any reason, you become a bad kid the minute you walk into a school with anything that looks like a weapon. While my heart goes out to these parents, this child alone made the choices that led to his death.

you should have been there to tell the cops, that somone aiming a gn at them, wouldnot really hurt them. You Jerk........

Yeah, those two kids who shot up Columbine were reportedly bullied....Good thing the police didn't shoot THOSE kids....After all the 15 or 16 kids they ended up killingbefore they killed themsleves probably deserved it. Kids who are mean and call names deserve to be shot but the poor bullied 15 year old 8th greader.

I feel bad for the parents having lost their son, I truly do. But I also feel badly for the officers who are going ot have to live the rest of their lives battling internal guilt for killing a kid. This entire situation is the kid's fault. He must have been trying suicide by cop. No kid doesn't know what happens if you bring a gun to school, and threaten others with it. This isn't a new problem.

Why isn't there a law that says pellet guns have to be bright blue or something? I remember this being a danger when I was a kid, only then it was contained to youths in the inner city being shot by cops who mistook their water pistols for the real deal.

If you point a gun at someone you should expect to be shot.

.

Actually Xina, they are now required to have bright orange tips on them. This one must have been an older one that was made before the law went into effect...

Or he broke off the orange tip.. many of them are designed to easily pop off because some people WANT the gun to look real.

Apparently, the boy had issues the parents weren't aware of or were aware of but didn't want to admit to. It's sad, but the police did what they had to do to keep anyone else from being hurt. My heart goes out to his family, they have a rough road ahead of them.

Toys have to have orange tips. BB and pellet guns are not toys and don't have them.

The picture showing the decedant's weapon clearing resembles the real thing.
ALL replica 'toy guns' sold in the stores have been either completely manufactured in International Orange, clear plastic to show it is a toy (with Orange Tip) or in black/blue plastic with an orange tip.
However, it is VERY simple to paint over the clear/orange with black/dark blue paint...

According to the parents of the deceased...THEY did NOT give this toy to their son...hence...he got it elsewhere or on his own...

All of that is a moot point now...their son did something really stupid and paid for it with his life. Only HE had the reasoning behind his actions.

All,

Ted Bundy, many people interviewed: Well he was just the best young man, I can't imagine him doing such things... John Wayne Gacy: He was so quiet, always kept to himself, was helpful if asked... The list goes on and on about these nice guys who just couldn't do such things...

And one more thing, if you wound him, he still has the ability to use the weapon...

Xina - unfortunately when you are talking about a 14 year old they may NOT believe a police officer will shoot to kill them. Their maturity and mental level is far below an adult.

This one has me torn. I would never want a police officer shot but a head short should be a last choice to make. I can't believe there was no other way. I too feel sorry for both the parents and the police officers. What a horrible thing to live with.

Pellet guns aren't done in orange because they aren't toys. You can actually hunt small game with them. A muzzle velocity of 450 fps is no toy close range. It will discourage a badger from hanging around the buildings.

B Murphy, well said. I am glad I am not the only one that feels this way.

It's hard to find fault with the police here. However, I do wonder what would have happened if a different cop had handled it. I didn't read anything specific to the cop such as age, gender, experience, etc.. What gets me is 3 shots needed to be fired? I'm left assuming the answer is "yes" and that this kid was doing "suicide by cop"; a very real issue that cops have to deal with. Sad story.

BTW....can people leave the kids age out of it. He's only 1 year older then most 8th graders. During all my years of schooling, it seems there was ALWAYS one kid a year older then the rest of the class.

How are the cops supposed to know though? Seriously, how are the cops supposed to know? Look at that picture, could you possibly know that's a Pellet Gun when someone's pointing it at you?? You've got an obviously disturbed teenager (he's 15), pointing a gun at you, and threatening violence, maybe you have a family of your own, and it comes down to him or you....what do you do?

No one wants to shoot a kid, a cop certainly doesn't because of the certainty of public backlash, but sometimes this happens, and everyone needs to know they can't keep pushing the limits with cops without things turning out in a tragic manner.

How many of y'all have EVER had a cop or three YELLING at you to do something? They don't ask you to "please put the gun down" -- no, they come in SCREAMING at you like a Marine Drill Sergeant, and if you do not do what they DEMAND (not "ask") within .1 second of the SCREAMED order, you're likely to get shot. It don't matter how confused and/or shook up you are, either.

That TV show "Cops" only shows half of the story.

As for how "real" that pellet gun looks, how it "appears" to be at least .30 caliber -- nice of the cops to photograph it ONLY from the side. I'm betting that from the muzzle it looks like a pellet gun, i.e., VERY small caliber.

@ The Quacked One: Any time I've ever had unfortunate luck to have dealings with cops, I've never put myself in a situation where they're screaming at me. I've been in the passenger seat during a traffic stop, and had one eyeing me in the passenger seat with hand on his gun. But, other than that, I've never screwed with cops enough to warrant them screaming at me.

That's the first problem, you push the limits of acceptable behavior and you risk your life, when it comes to police officers. Period. Hindsight is 20-20, but you can't do that when you're dead. Plain and simple, you see cops, stop doing whatever you're doing that's considered illegal, dangerous etc... End of story.

For those wondering why a 15 year old was in the 8th. grade, there are a dozen reasons. Poor grades - held back. Perhaps he was very ill for an extended period , and had to re-do the 8th. grade. From his name, he may have been Hispanic, and had language troubles. said his grades were coming up - better understanding? And, when i was in school, you had to turn 7 by a certain month to start. If your birthday was after that, you waited. So, he may have been born in that odd period that he had to wait to start school.

B Murphy, be glad that you have never had a cop SCREAMING at you to put something down, SCREAMING at you to "get down on the ground" (whether indoors or not), SCREAMING at you to do "whatever" while another cop is SCREAMING at you to do something else. But if you're such a Good Citizen who never gets into trouble, why are you finding yourself being "eyed" by a cop at all? Think about it.

rds040, cops are supposed to be trained to observe -- not just when they're sitting in their car, but AT ALL TIMES. You may not know the difference between a .17 and a .45 just by looking at the the muzzle of a gun, but there is a huge difference to those who do know.

Of course, you can just sit back and accept the old bs about how "all they saw was something that looked like a gun". Yes, even a screwdriver "looks like a gun" to a lot of cops.

There was only 2 white people in my school-----> back that up only 1 real white person at my school growing up. i do think guns should be aloud in some schools maybe not this one. My school you needed something just to walk home after school. These cops atleast the one that made the head shot, you need the die yourself. i mean really headshot from behind you coward who shoots any man in the back. i hate cops hate them hate them hate them. Hey POLICE your time is coming too. people are going to get tired of your crap and hearing just how much of cowboys power tripping a** berry you guys are. One day us people will take our laws into our own hands and make the police nomore. this is not a threat just looks like the way it is heading. Im not a cop so atleast i know im safe.

On the funny side they fired shots that hit somebody. funny how a guy steals a car then kills 3 people, a car chase 7 cops fire 50 rounds and dont hit this guy. Yet a 15 year old kid gets hit from the back. yes true that 1 shot can spin a person yes but.......... headshot there was a cop thinking he was playn a video game. (2 the police) the big F word for you

in the back of the head? cmon.cops are primarily village fund-raisers and are not qualified to carry weapons

really septimus...you were there? he took two rounds to the chest spun and took a round to to the head

i have had the cops pointing guns at me yep......was nailing window sills into a house with a nail gun when they came upon what they were told was a break in by a really stupid ass cretin across the alley i saw them i saw the badges.......they said drop the (weapon)......and i did a foolish thing......i said as i put my hands in the air ......i paid 300.00 for this i can't just throw it! i will slowly lay the nail gun down on the tailgate while keeping my other hand in the air.......they waited guns trained.....and then came in and cuffed me........showed great restraint in not shooting.......and i did what they told me to do........when they realized i was legit they let me go......so yes they did their job and did not fire when they had a right to....the builder i was working for had the @#$% across the alley arrested for filing a false report......and sued him in court and won......i was shifted to another subdivision because i wanted to beat the living crap out of him.....for putting me in that situation.

and for the rest of the clueless the reason cops say drop the weapon really loud is so you will hear them.......they really are trying NOT to shoot you......until you give them no choice.......by doing something really stupid .....like pointing your weapon at them....i guess maybe you would be happy he had a real gun and killed one of the officers.....or several students.....first.....to justify his [execution] as you say........the cops are in the right.......but no winners here......real life situation...... with tragic results.........all he had to do was put the gun down.......he did not......he is dead at his own hand...period

@ The Quacked One: Why would the cop be eyeing a passenger during a traffic stop? Maybe for due diligence? Maybe to make sure his partner isn't questioning a driver while the passenger is loading/preparing to fire a weapon? That's actually the easiest question I've ever been asked. Cops nowadays cannot trust that when they make a routine traffic stop, with multiple passengers in the vehicle, that one of the passengers won't pull out a gun and shoot them. That's the reality of the world we live in. It's happened many, many times in recent history, and that's simply what they're trained to do.

If you've been in the situation where a cop was screaming at you to drop something, what the hell were you doing holding whatever it was in the first place, even remotely close to a police officer? It sounds like you may have actually made a poor decision there, and as unfortunate as it is, you paid the price. This child made an extremely poor decision, and he paid the price also.

In Cameron county where the shooting occured school cutoff date is the 1st of September so the oldest kids are almost a year older than the youngest. But also many kids start school deficient in english which can contribute to being a year behind. You can take race out of the equation because the police department is mostly hispanic as are the people of Brownsville. I live in the same county so I speak from personel knowledge. I worked in Brownsville for 25 years.

Sorry Quacked. WRONG!!!! My brother has been a cop for 20 years and you are wrong. They spend each day trying to keep you safe and not die in the process, so if they look at you funny get over it.

For all of you morons out there. It depends when you were born what grade you are in at a certain age. With a late birthday a 14 yr old would be in 8th grade at this time of year. So maybe he failed a grade, but the real question is why do you care how old. You dont kill a 15 yr old for pointing a gun. He obviously did not fire it or they would have known that the gun was fake. A head shot? This stinks of pork with trigger happy fingers. If this was your child you would not be saying it was the kids fault.

Sorry Quacked but your off base with this one,, there was audio played on television today here in Texas and the boy was being talked to by a trained negotiator through a bullhorn for 5-10 minutes with a clam voice and was only fired on when he raised the gun at the officers and moved toward them. What ever whacked emotion problem that have led to your warped opinion of cops, I'm sorry for you. Or then again, maybe your just a criminal and don't like that they keep you in check.

@ robisntcool,,, Actually yes I would... I showed the article to my FIFTEEN year old TENTH grader and said "Look what happens if you don't follow directions in that situation."

Did you think of that yourself. I bet you didnt. Hell being a 10th grader in Texas is like being in 5th everywhere else right, so give your kid my congrats. Are'nt you late for the Rick Perry welcome back party. I figure if you give him a couple more years you guys wont even have public school anymore, and this whole thread will be a moot point.

we'll remember that when LEO puts a slug through the back of your head over not dropping that sack in your hand...

the post patriot act LEO talk:

"sorry he's dead, but there were some other cops shot during some raids that didn't follow proper procedures, didn't follow constitutional law, so we did nothing wrong, again..."

Not being a gun-owner and never likely to ever be so...I'm ignorant as to why these guns (bb or pellet whatever they are) are made to look like real guns. I can't even comprehend why water pistols (and there have been officer-involved shootings over those) look like real guns. It makes for very difficult situations with law enforcement officers. Agree - that they could not take chances.

This situation really sounds like suicide-by-cop.

But shoot a kid three, times it actually was more then that, three hits. No you telling me that they don't receive the proper training, in this case police need a sniper, sorround the boy once the sniper hits him on the hands the other officers can take the boy........I don't justify crimes like that.. They're criminals too.

I am pretty sure it doesn't take that extreme force to control such situation.

One bullet is sufficient to bring down even the largest of teens. Who ever took the head shot should be punished. A head shot from behind on someone that has already been shot twice? That is murder.

I have owned guns in the past, and I have always wondered why pellet and water guns "need" to even resemble the "real thing". Beyond the obvious need of a handle, barrel and trigger, there is no reason for a pellet or water gun to look like a Barretta/Colt/Sig-Sauer/Ruger/Glock/S&W/whatever-your-favorite-gun-happens-to-be.

But any cop who has sufficient training SHOULD be able to tell the difference between a .17 caliber pellet pistol and a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol when they see the muzzle. Another give-away is the finish on the gun -- metal, even when blued, has a certain "look" to it that plastic never will be able to mimic; if that kid had an all-metal pellet pistol, I have to wonder just where he got the money for it.

For myself, I'm getting sick of the cops who panic when they see something that "looks" a gun, but if they had bothered to take a second or two longer would be seen to be nothing more than a screwdriver -- or a pellet gun.

BB guns look like real guns

Maybe that's not such a good idea.

Carlos Reyes, you don't think it takes extreme force to control a person pointing a gun at your face? Really? look at it from the cops point of view. You are called to a school (so thats anywhere from 200-600 innocent kids in the area) because a teen is brandishing a weapon. You don't know what mental state this kid will be in, nor if you will find dead or injured kids already. You don't know if he has hostages, certian victims in mind or mad at the whole world. You also don't know if he is stable enough to listen or going to fly off the handle and shoot them on sight. You find the kid pointing a gun at you and repeatedly tell him to drop it. He's not listening. Are you going to risk your life, your fellow cops lives and the lives of all those kids by trying to disarm a single shooter or are you going to end the confrontation before anyone else is hurt or killed?

Yes, its tragic. But remember, two cops shot up to three times. What if the one who shot twice missed? What if they all missed? Just because they had proper training doesn't mean they are not human and capable of making mistakes. In this case, they did what they had to. They are not criminals, they are heros who risk their lives every day to keep people like you and me safe from those who would do us harm. You'd feel a lot differently if it was your kid who was hiding under a desk and not knowing if they would live to see their family again.

And do you even know what a sniper is? They don't just send in snipers to "surround" people. A sniper is never seen by the target. And its reckless and stupid to try to disarm someone like that, if it didn't work and it had been a real gun, there would have been dead officers and a rage-filled teen that would have probably been sent into a killing spree.

You are forgetting that they HAVE to treat these situations like life or death. Either they remove the threat or the cops, along with a lot of kids, will die by the hand of a disturbed teen. The kid was told to drop the weapon, he refused. He could have done so, told them it was fake and he'd still be breathing now.

I do feel bad for the cops though, that kind of knowledge is hard to hear and they will have that on their hands forever. I hope they don't blame themselves too much, they did the right thing. My condolances to the family and friends of the teen as well...

Off the shelf very few toy guns look real. Some are clear some are black orange. But nothing a 2 dollar can of black paint cant fix. And even BB pellet guns if used wrong can still injure or kill someone. I'm a gun owner always will be. Stronger gun regulations will only take them from us responsible owners. No one is going go buy a gun register it then kill someone. there going go get it from the black market where there will always be guns available no matter what laws you want to enforce. The cops were justified. I read multible times "OH HES ONLY 15" Who caresssss..... Have you seen some of these gangs in TX AZ CA. There 10yo out there willing to kill. And sorry but if you have a gun and point it at me im guessing you are willing to fire and im not going wait to find out so yeah im going shoot you first. Think possitive people who know he could have been on a road to Gang banging and in 2yrs from now may have killed your kid. Then you would ask why dident we stop him when we had a chance? Its easy to ask what could have been done after the fact, but in reallity its whats in the moment thats the most important. I dont like seeing lives lost just as much as otheres but I hate seeing innocent people die more. Are officers did what they had to do with the information that was given. This kid was OBVIOUSLEY not inocent he punched a kid then pulled out a gun. So yeah eather he was trying to gain respect or suicide and well guess suicide was the outcome.

RANT OFF..

SteveG1981

No a gun owner and never will be, don't believe in them, I agree with you 100% In the end all these cops want to do is work there shift, protect the streets, serve the public and GO HOME!!!!!!! when there shift ids over.

My uncle is a retired chicago policemen, 25 years ago a 14 year old pointed a real gun at his partner, my uncle said he did not remember shooting him all he remember was his gun going off. he shot this kid 1 time in the chest and killed him, the public was out raged, how can a cop shoot a kid like that, when kids carry guns and or BB guns that look like real ones, they are no longer kids and must pay the price for confronting the police like a adult.

I am a gun owner and I can assure you BB guns and pellet guns are real guns. They simply use compressed air or carbon dioxide instead of gunpowder. By law all toy guns must have a bright orange plastic muzzle to make them easily recognizable. I have hunted and bagged squirrels and rabbits with my pellet gun so make no mistake, they are real.

Every one shut up first of we all know the boy is wrong i agree with that but we should also know the police should be to for example thats a kid one shot is enough a head shot thats over the board 3 shots is to much why 3 if the boy didnt even shoot back dont u people think if he would of shot back after the police shot first shot? to be hounest i wanted to be on the police side but after asking my self question n thinking hard i think both side were wrong after the first shot the police really ment to take him down becasue we all know the light bulb could of click on in their head and be like oh why he not shooting back? but no they were excited to shoot him down like whoa this is soo cool. And for every one else who judgeing him and his parents none of us know this kid i belive he was a good kid but his mind wasnt right that morning every thing happend for a reason, we dont know his family either i think they are good parents stop saying its their fault who wants their kid dead they say they would never buy their son. As for the middle school their school is located in Texas mexican border duhh one of the state where @!$%# always goes down they need an alarm detector dog search something

princessdiayen-

Every one shut up

I advise you to take your own advice. Ever hear the saying "It's better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"? It applies here very well.

I thought maybe an officer was behind him and an officer was in front of him.

True. Could also be an exit wound from a bullet entering from the front. There was no official report that it was an entrance wound in the back of the head. Autopsy will be informative.

Thought the same as you in that as he was going down, it being a number of cops on scene and firing in a timeframe of nano seconds, the turn of a body would easily account for the shot to the back of the head.

My sympathy for the family lessoned when I read 'he's a great kid'. Yea right. Clearly these parents don't know and truly have not involved themselves in the kid's life as they didn't see a 'problem'. This is typical 'parent speak' after the fact -- justifying themselves to themselves as I'm totally fed up hearing that statement spewed by parents of kids like this. They say it after their kid beats the pulp out of a kid, who may or may not survive; after shooting someone -- it's the same old mantra -- "Oh my boy is such a good boy'. Sorry, but sympathy for the parents - none. They like the comment of the Godmother -- these people were totally disengaged and it's not society's responsibility to feel sorry for them for they are the ones that didn't do their job. If we all got a dollar for the same 'good boy' comment, we'd all be rich and retired.

But, if there was one behind and one in front, what if they missed the kid and shot each other??? Too fishy and police should be able to shoot someone in the leg to bring them down. Most likely he would have dropped the gun, but still, the kid should know better and should have dropped it. Maybe he wanted this???

@ meede1,

The son and mother went and got nachos then watched a movie together the night before, what part of bad parenting is that? In today's day and age where both parents often have to work to cover the bills it is difficult to say what is bad parenting and what isn't. Certainly there are plenty of obvious cases, but many of these sort of incidences are from fairly "normal" households. The kids are often enough "good kids" as their family and friends describe but it only takes one small spark to explode a situation to a whole new level, especially if there is any kind of psychological reasoning. Without further information it is hard to tell in this case, but one question is why the boy had the toy gun at school at all. From the way they describe the boy's local behaviors I'd say he sounds like a good kid overall, and the parents are deserving of our sympathies, after all this wasn't anything remotely similar to Columbine High School years ago. Toy guns look alot like real guns more so then ever before, sadly the boy could have bought one at a toy store for barely a few bucks. From the description I say the police acted correctly with the exception of the head shot, I'd like to know more information on the reasoning for that. The boy should have listened and even more so he shouldn't have even taken the gun to school to begin with. I am curious why a 15 y o was in 8th grade, maybe if he'd been held back for behavior reasons or other issues that might be linked to what happened. A sad story for sure and I sympathize with the family, what a terrible way to start the new year.

Tony, the two key words in your comment are "most likely." Had the officer shot to wound and the "most likely" didn't happen and had the gun been real and the kid got off a shot that killed a police officer, teacher or student, there would have been a lot more sorrow going around and the police officers who had the opportunity to end this would have been to blame.

I don't imagine there was a cop behind him, as the other cops would not have fired if there were. However, the article said three shots were fired, with at least two hitting, it is entirely possible that the shot at the back of the head was indeed an exit wound. It is also possible that one of the police was standing more to one side than the other and his head was turned; or like many others have suggested, that his body twisted as it fell and resulted in the shot to the back of the head.

As for why the guns look real? Beats the heck out of me, I despise toy guns that look real, and real guns that are bright colors and end up looking like toys.

Having been a police officer, you learn the rules for deadly force. Opportunity, intent and capability. To discharge your weapin, you must meet all three rules. The subject must have the opportunity to inflict deadly harm (he was present in the hall where other people were present), intent (he aimed the weapon as to fire or was holding a weapon as to use), and capabilitiy (he had a weapon and was in a position that it could be used to harm another). You are taught to fire center mass of a body (the torso) and normally to do a double or triple tap (pull) of the trigger because shots don't always find their target. You always give the subject an opportunity to obey commands to disarm or surrender and except under extreme circumstances, you always give repeated opportunities.

For those saying that it was a pellet gun, should we place you in the same situation? Could you have been able to acurately identify the weapon as a pellet gun when it was pointing at you or was being threatened to be used against other children? All officer involved shootings will be reviewed by a panel and in most states a special grand jury of citizens to determine justification. Let the panel and grand jury hear all the evidence before we (after reading an article that may or may not be biased and lacking all the evidence) determine justification.

Police officers are not trained to try to shoot in the leg in a high pressure weapon related incident. They are trained to shoot center mass. Even with their continual firearms training, how often do officers miss their target in such a situation? Trying to hit a kid in the leg in such a situation would get a cop killed. It was a terrible situation to be in, and I expect those cops willhave 'shooter's remorse' over just what you are saying. To think they shoot with no feeling is just plain dumb. They will need counseling to get through this too. Much as I hate the outcome, they did what they had to do given the circumstances--don't second guess them to oblivion!

There is NO excuse for using this type of force on a child. The police are way over the top and disregard human life. Was anyone in immediate danger besides the police? Why didn't they call a professional to talk the child down? Why not use the famous TAZER? They seem to tazer anyone they can. The policeman should be fired at the least and /or put in jail for manslaughter.

I have to take the side of the police on this one. Every kid in America these days knows what can and does happen if you bring weapons to school. The police have a very difficult and dangerous job to do on a daily basis. My heart goes out to his family but I feel the shooting was justified.

Dennis, you are wrong. You asked if anyone else besides police were in danger - you seem to mean that police lives are worthless. To use a tazer would have required them to place themselves in unnecessary danger. When someone apparently unstable is waving a gun around you do not have time to wait for a professional to talk the child down. A 15-year old with a gun is just as dangerous as anyone else with a gun. Remember Rodney King from the 90's? He took how many Tazer hits without going down? And for those who say that the police should have been able to tell that the gun was a pellet gun, at the distance they were at, the difference in size between a pellet gun and something around a 9mm is extremely hard to tell. Try it yourself.

The guns look real because they are not toys. The muzzle velocity on some is 450feet per second. A field point interchangeable with BB in those guns is designed to penetrate skin. Its a target or small game weapon.

Dennis- how about you stand in front of someone holding a weapon at you, and then I'll tazer him. Say your goodbyes to your family beforehand though, because you're about to be shot.

A tazer shocks you, causing uncontrollable muscle contractions. What do you think happens to a trigger hand when the person is being tazed?

Ray-3696396

Question? How old were the cops......because in my eyes they use the wrong force....pepper sray would have resulted in a 15 year old kid still being alive today. Iam glad myself and my family don't live there

SORRY TO SAY THIS AGAIN BUT BB GUNS LOOK LIKE REAL GUNS.

today in chicago there are laying to rest a 41 year old officer who was killed by to bastards who tried to rob the convince store he was working in part time.

No, officer tell you to drop a wepond, drop the dam thing or they will shoot you.

The problem is this pellet gun looked real. The cops can not take a chance when someone is pointing a gun at them....especially inside a school where other kids are at risk.

@Ray....Did you see the picture of the "gun" the boy had? It absolutely looks real! None of us know the circumstances of what went on, but those officers probably only had a split second to decide what to do.

The police did the right thing and anyone who disagrees has NEVER been in a situation where they needed to make a decision to use lethal force. There is no way the officer could have known nor should he have taken the chance. this kid would kill eventually and we should be thankful the officer acted. he is a hero!!!!

And screw that kid for making the officer take his life and have to live with this.

You don't use pepper spray against a person holding a gun moron.

Kid got what he was deserving of, I feel sorry for the cops that were put in this

position and have now taken a life (justified) and must now live with it. I get that the parents are

upset, losing a child can't be easy, but taking close up pictures of the wounds immediately

after the incident is not the actions of a grieving mother...just saying.

Hey Ray -- you gonna offer to walk up in close enough range to spray the pepper spray. This while a gun that looks real. This while the kid is refusing orders to put it down. DUH

Yeah. You pepper spray someone with a gun and see what that gets you. Oh wait, I'll just tell you. It gets you one pissed off dude - WITH A GUN!

Ray-are you serious? What a stupid thing to say. The range on pepper spray is a few yards the range on a bullet can be miles would you have tried to get that close to this defect pointing a gun? Moron no not moron you are an insult to morons.

"pepper sray would have resulted in a 15 year old kid still being alive today."

Or it could have caused him to shoot. It doesn't immediately incapacitate him, but uit will make him angry. He madae the rules when he pointed a gun at a cop. 'nuff said.

Pepper spray against a handgun??? You're an idiot! Why dont we fly you over to Afghanistan and drop you off there with some pepper spray and see how long you last ( Yes...handgun...as far anyone was concerned that is what it was) It is NOT the police officers fault, NOT the parents fault, NOT the teachers fault and most definitely NOT societies fault.... it IS the idiot kids fault. That is the trouble with America today.... no one accepts responsibility for thier own actions.... it always blame someone else!

What does the age of the officers have to do with anything. This 15 yr old punk was branishing a weapon on school grounds and didnt expect there to be consequences. That is the problem today, kids dont think they have to deal with consequences of their actions. He was a good kid really then tell me why he walks into a classroom and punches another kid. These parents obviously are trying to shore up their defense so they can sue the school and police department. I dont know about anyone else but when the police say drop the weapon it becomes a hot potato. The sad part is now other students have to deal with the tragedy.

i think the police did the right thing.... Pepper Spray will not stop a bullet from a real gun and the BB looks real... i think the parents had a problem child on their hands, uncontrollable and unwilling to follow rules... Now he will RIP and not be holding guns at an officer..... A police officer has a family and to often the story is a sad one for the wives and children of slain officers... Parents need to be more responsible for kids they dump on society... RIP kid and thank God this officer is going home to his family tonight...

Maybe I'm just stupid but how do you get close enough to an armed suspect to use pepperspray or a taser without getting shot?

I agree with you WEZEL, they could do that or a sniper, just to get ridle of that gun/pistol and take him down.... Like I said before they just use that as en excuse, they criminals too..........

Hey Carlos and while they wait for a sniper to get set this kid (remember Columbine) kills five or six kids and you would be the first one whining about why they waited.

You must not read well. The father specifically said that they did not get it for the kid.

The father 'says' they didn't get it for the kid. I don't believe him. The father's trying to make himself appear above it as clearly when the mother says 'he wasn't perfect but was a great kid' tells me these parents were totally disengaged and being the kid can't speak up now, they can say what they want to make themselves appear above it.

I don't buy the father's comment about not buying the BB gun.

Humm... Shot to the back of the head, and the chest seems to me like they had everything pretty much under control no other students were in the hall way therefore nobody else was in danger, the police won't release the conversation with the slain student. Can you smell that? Is Bull Sh!t!!! Can we say: Happy Trigger, Trigger Happy? Well it is Texass.

meede1, but you'll buy the story that shooting the kid in the BACK OF THE HEAD was justified...

It certainly is a sad situation. The story does not say what he did between the time he punched the other student and the police came. He wasnt thinking rationally at all. He could have yelled out "its not a real gun" or put it down like he was being told to. He chose to act like a "tough guy" and found out the hard way what happens to " tough guys" who bring guns to school.

Thou, not releasing the conversations until after the required investigation is complete is standard operating procedure. Releasing any statements made in that hallway could prejudice the entire case. This isn't TV. They aren't going to get this all wrapped up in an hour. Investigations, if done right, take time.

cbawl - I don't believe at all that their was a purposeful shot directed to the back of the head from a cop standing behind.

The timeframe of nano seconds and which cops don't have the time to have a conversation as to what parts they will shoot at "Hey I'll go for the shoulder' "I want the head' - doesn't happen, the likelihood of the shot to the back of the head is that happened as the kid's body turned at the shot to the other area. A cop in front and a cop behind - if they fired at same time, there is too much of a chance of any body movement, one of the cops could be in harms way. All the facts aren't released yet as investigation is ongoing and it will be found what I have said and that all shots came from the same direction.

The parents are 'disengaged' parents crying the 'he's a great kid' and will cry the boo-hoos with no facts. The shot to the back of the head came only with body reacting and turning at receipt of other shot to shoulder and quite probably the shot was aimed at upper arm or shoulder and with kid going down & turning, it found it's way to back of head.

More people should think outside the box instead of believing 'every instant reported story' contains all the facts. Never does as I don't buy into the father saying he didn't give the kid the gun and that he was a 'great kid' as the parents, even the Godmother -- they were disengaged in knowing who this kid truly was - whether troubled or whatever. The parents are speaking to make themselves appear 'good'. The kid can't respond now.

@ Thou Shall Not Teabag

STFU I'd love to see you in that same situation with a teenager pointing a gun (real or not) at you and threatening to shoot you. You'd probably scream and empty the clip at him. Bottom line, when anyone is put in that position, even a trained police officer, things can escalate in the blink of an eye and you just don't have the luxury of analyzing all the "what if" scenarios, much less try to determine if the gun is real. Until you've been there and done that, STFU

Are you serious. The article states the father did not buy it, but so what if he did?? Millions of parents buy their kids pellet rifles/pistols every year. What planet are you from??

tiredofhypocrites-794827

Thou, not releasing the conversations until after the required investigation is complete is standard operating procedure. Releasing any statements made in that hallway could prejudice the entire case. This isn't TV. They aren't going to get this all wrapped up in an hour. Investigations, if done right, take time.

• #8.6 - Thu Jan 5, 2012 2:06 PM EST

I do understand what you're trying to say and the logic behind it, the problem is that cops are known to lie worst than any criminal since they're supposed to uphold the law, they're also extremely well known for their abuse of power against the people. So know think about it, do you see why I wrote it?

To filthy angry mouth SkeeterHawk who wrote:

SkeeterHawk

@ Thou Shall Not Teabag

STFU I'd love to see you in that same situation with a teenager pointing a gun (real or not) at you and threatening to shoot you. You'd probably scream and empty the clip at him. Bottom line, when anyone is put in that position, even a trained police officer, things can escalate in the blink of an eye and you just don't have the luxury of analyzing all the "what if" scenarios, much less try to determine if the gun is real. Until you've been there and done that, STFU

• #8.8 - Thu Jan 5, 2012 2:19 PM EST

Why are you so angry, why do you have to go and brake the COD of the Vine? Why do you tell me to "Shut the F%ck up" twice you did that twice, twice you sound like the uneducated moron you are, you need a soap bar in your filthy mouth and a little time out.

You can buy those guns at Wal-mart but they required ID the last time I bought one. If I remember you had to prove 18 to buy it. No need for proof for the CO2 cartridges though because they get used for a lot of different items.

Since when can an 8th grader buy a gun from any reputable legal source? Plus, it wasn't even a real gun in the first place. Maybe liberals like yourself could restrict what kind of toys are available too.

The problem is that "Liberal Common Sense" isn't common sense at all. I'm going to start calling it "Commie Sense"

I had a pellet gun when I was a kid and I never brought it to school or used it during a stand off with police. Now that's common sense.

Really? Availability of guns? Kid had a pellet gun that looked like a real firearm, but wasn't.

Your statement makes little sense if you had read the story. Perhaps "availability of non-firearms that

look like real firearms to minors..." would have been a better way to phrase it.

Not really sure what you are talking about here. The 15 year old boy did not take a gun to school, he took a toy pellet gun to school (Unfortunately it looks like he removed the bright orange barrel cap so police officers had no way of knowing it was a toy gun.).

No amount of gun control would of prevented this incident.

Fawn-This wasn't a gun, this was a toy. Were the words too hard for you to understand? A pellet gun is a toy sold in toy stores. On the other hand a 15 year old cannot own any type of firearm.

uhhh..what part of it was a BB gun did you miss?

What a ignorant comment. I dont care what laws you put on guns. Go back and find out how many leagly registered guns were ever used in a illegal crime. majority of gun related crimes, the gun was purchased illegally anyways so the more restriction you place on firearms the more you are taking them from us responsible gun owners. If someone wants a gun to kill someone they sure as heck ain't going go buy and register one in there name. even tho this was a pellet gun witch can be bought by a 18yo witch hm he was 15 something tells me he knows a 18yo to help get him one. Its sad to see he was killed but better him than One of are own who is there to serve and protect. Witch is exactly what they did. Guns will always be available to those who shouldn't have them and we will be left unarmed and more innocent people will get killed if you get what you want.

There is already enough 'common sense' when it comes to the availability of guns. We're talking about a pellet gun. Anyone (including felons) can walk into a store and buy one. Problem is, though, this one looked just like a real handgun. Maybe that's where the changes need to be made. The last time I was shopping for a pellet handgun, they all had orange caps on the end to distinguish it from a real handgun. Either this one didn't come with one, or it was removed?

Where 'liberals' get it wrong when it comes to gun control, is that they don't factor humanity into the equation. Humans don't always exercise common sense. It's humans that are unpredictable. Guns act in very predictable ways, every time. The push to outlaw guns will (overwhelmingly) only serve to take guns out of the hands of honest, law abiding citizens. I don't want to live in a world where guns are outlawed, because only criminals and cops will have guns. You know the old saying, "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away"? Liberal gun control policy isn't based in any form of reality. There is no law, no ban, no policy that is or ever will be in place that will fix human stupidity. Tragedies always have and always will happen, no matter how many rights we give up in pursuit of the good-intentioned liberal ideology.

It was actually a carbon dioxide powered pellet handgun, which is more powerful than a BB gun and you don't buy these in toy stores. Here in Jersey you need a permit to buy one of these things.

Liberals? What common sense do the liberals suggest?

unofortunately, each freaking state has their own laws, here in MD you don't need no permits to buy one of those.

A. This was a pellet gun. Gun laws, heavier or lighter, would have absolutely NO bearing on what so ever.

B. The liberal's views on gun laws are the exact opposite of common sense.

Guns will always be available to criminals via other criminals and the black market. So only the police and the outlaws have guns in a liberal's perfect world. But check this out:

Nobody ever has to worry about me brandishing a firearm, holding up a convenience store, robbing a bank, car-jacking someone, etc. But I will say this... Should some sorry, no-good, S O B choose my door to kick in and help themself to my belongings that I worked hard for... They picked the wrong door, for sure. "Came for gold, left with lead" is what their headstone will read. And that, my friend, is COMMON SENSE.

It is a tragedy all the way around. The Police did the right thing. In the end, everyone wants to play Monday morning quarterback and try to determine how this could have been prevented. The child was warned several times to drop the weapon realizing that live guns were pointed at him. The situation could not have played out otherwise. My heart goes out for all involved.

Yes - I know it was a pellet gun.

Why does this pellet gun look like a real gun? What purpose does this serve, except to intimdiate and threaten. To make people think you have a real gun? If you're going to own and use a gun, get a real gun. If you're just shooting tin cans, it doesn't need to look like a gun.

Why was a child able to purchase one and end up getting himself shot? They don't let children buy cold medicine, butane, 'mature' rated video games or spray paint... why should children (who we have already determined by law do not have a fully developed sense of judgment) be allowed to buy pellet guns?

They're not technically toys - they're sports equipment. Same with a starter gun. If you don't feel the need to be a bada@@, you don't need a pellet gun or starter gun that looks like pistol.

All 'liberals' want out of gun control is the common sense restriction of purchase to those who are legal adults, trained in their responsible use and not crazy. And maybe the common sense restriction about selling sports equipment that looks like a weapon.

Dixie Lee Franklin,

Very Well Said... I will have to use your phrase "Came For Gold, Left With Lead"... Gotta love it...

Fawn this ain't NYC you're talking about half or more of the county is farm and ranchland. Those liberal rules make sense there but they don't make sense here. We also have real fireworks for sale for Christmas,New Years and the 4th of July. Teaching common sense gun safety is the job of parents. My cousin got his first gun at twelve but he was trained how to handle it taking it to school was definitly on the list of no-no's. City rules from out east don't make sense here. Your metro rail pass won't work either come here you better know how to drive.

Carlos: Why is it "UNFORTUNATE" that every state have their own laws???? You dont believe a state has the right to pass and enforce its own laws???? Or should we do away with states altogether and be one federalist union with one federal police force like a communist utopia????

Here are the answers to your 2 questions. He doesn't know why his son was in the school with a gun. It states this in the story. Also, he may not be intentionally seeking to blame anyone. He is trying to come to grips with losing his son. If the same happened to you I guarantee you would have the same reaction. This is common to people that go through traumatic situations in life especially in the death of a child.

Exactly. How about the parents take responsibility for their kid!! Nobody else's fault, except the parents!

OR....The parents have already contacted an attorney and the father is already gearing up for a multi-million dollar wronful death suit jackpot brought against the police department.

Cops are damned if they do and damned if they don't. It's a tough job.

Or.. the parents are grieving over the loss of their son. Regardless of the situation, and the police did the right thing, they still lost their son.

They will not be rational...and initially, I wouldn't either. I feel for the family, I feel for the officers who have to live with it, and I feel for the kids that go to that school.

Why don't you wait to pass judgment ...on the parents of all people...until the time comes for them to file that wrongful death suit. Being so cynical also causes irrationality.

Cue_5.7....I hate that I'm so cynical. But after 57 years of living in America and watching the moral degradation of society spiral downward exponentually for every one of those years.....It's been hard to fight off the cynisysism. I've learned to be cynical. It didn't happen naturally.

I wasn't judging anybody. I was merely stating a possible scenario that occurs far to often in these situations.

But I do thank you for the thoughtful, kind way you pointed out my cynical nature and my possible irrationality because of it......My wife is way more mean spirited when she gets fed up with my cynical side.

Ray. I fight it as well. I guess I am trying to unlearn as MY wife would put it.
Your point is very real. These type of lawsuits have become just another stain on our justice system and every judgment in favor of the plaintiff only multiplies the rat lawyers looking for a cut.

I guess at this point I just see that as another topic as it hasn't happened just yet, and I could not imagine the loss the parents must feel. I believe in our constitutional rights, the second amendment, and the justification these officers had in their actions.

I just don't want us to lose sight of our humanity as well. Our wives would probably be good friends.

Do you know what my Dad would have said if I were shot and killed by police for brandishing a weapon and not following police orders in Jr.High....He would have apologized to the police, and the whole school that his son put them in any danger, and he would have catagorically put the blame of my exhibition of the "stupid gene" as my final act on this earth.... squarely as coming from my Mother's side of the family. Case closed.

You're right....It is too soon and I should try and refrain from making any judgements to either side until the facts become more apparent. Suffice to say it is a tragedy.

But the head shot will be an issue and the smell of a wrongful death lawsuit because of that one bullet.... will bring the lawyers crawling from out of the woodwork and promising possibly a big payout to the parents. I do still have a little faith in our justice system though that smarter people than I will decide whether they will deserve compensation for their loss, or not. Time, circumstance and forensics will tell. This will be an interesting case.

oh...nobody has said he POINTED the bb gun....nice of you to make that up.

Really cbawl?? Try this and notice the 'quotes':

"Interim Police Chief Orlando Rodriguez said the teen was pointing the weapon at officers and "had plenty of opportunities to lower the gun and listen to the officers' orders, and he didn't want to."

Hmmmm - I see the wording 'pointing the weapon at officers'

I also feel this was a suicide by cop.

Tragic...

They are called taser guns...They could have paralyzed the 15 year old without taking his life.

and while the kid is convulsing, his finger twitches on the trigger a few times and lets off a few shots that richochet and hit innocent bystanders or cops... hindsight is helpful, but unless your in that situation making life and death decisions, you can't just "hope for the best" in a gunfight

As a security specialist, I have used stun guns in the past as opposed to my sidearm and they are precisely used for this type of situation. A child with a handgun that hasn't fired on anyone. However the police officers were jusified for using deadly force, but the stun gun would have been just as effective. The problem is, cops are not trained properly to disarm armed perpetrators. I have Armed Security budddies who make $10 an hour, who could have disarmed that kid with one bullet, because they have to constantly qualify at the gun range to make certain shots. The police chose to kill that kid, believe me they didn't have to.

@Anthony - you do realize when hit with a tazer your muscles all contract right? You do realize if you have a perpetrator with their finger on the trigger and their muscles all contract you are going to get at least one shot fired right? The cops gave ample opportunity for the kid to put the gun down and he chose not to. The police made the right decision,

@Kevin - police have to requalify all the time too. And you are right, the police didn't have to kill the kid, but given the recent history of wackjobs shooting up schools, I would think the life of one 15 year old is better than who knows how many the next when he brings a real gun to school.

DjRickey that isn't a soft BB gun thats the kind that uses .177 field points or brass BB's They can hurt or even kill at close range. The soft BB guns are plastic and painted toy colors. Thats a target or hunting weapon.

.

The officers only had a split second. They had NO CLUE if the gun was real or not. What if it was real and they tasered the boy and the gun went off. Your comment just isn't logical.

You are an idiot, you dont take a stick to a gunfight,,,,,period, you've never been there so dont judge the police for doing there jobs. Youre the type of person that would be in the victim column.

If I was one of those cops, I would have said "drop the gun". When he didn't listen and raised it at me or a fellow officer I would have put a bullet in that kid.

Your an idiot and don't know what your talking about, thus the idiot part. Do some research before commenting Anthony the idiot!

when CHILDREN commit ADULT CRIMES, they deserve to be treated, and dealt with as adults... Most people know that if you point a gun at a cop, you are going to get shot, no matter how old you are.

An infant could get away with it... but thats about it...

Anthony, are you gonna volunteer to get to close enough range to use the taser with what appears as a real gun aimed at you. Didn't think so. DUH

wow, have you ever been shot at, well i have and the taser has a limit of 21 feet, do you want to get that close to a person who has a gun out pointing it at you, come on people use some common sense.

sorry but no, He had a weapon on school property if my child went to school there I'd want the police to take action and in my mind they took the correct course of action.

I understand there is a lot of outrage over it and the cops feel that they have to justify their actions and give a report of what happened.

People keep saying that they had to act fast and take him out before he took them out.. however.. they did have time to tell him several times to put the gun down. So, that to me, doesn't seem like one of those, he's shooting and we gotta get him neutralized NOW. I suppose what made me think it was the shot to the back to the head.. and that all shots were intended as kill shots and that they said they gave him warnings. They did not say that he escalated from there though to cause them to go immediately to kill shots.

Some people blindly think that police can do no wrong and will react perfectly each time. I'm not saying that they weren't justified in shooting, but perhaps, they panicked? I know that where I live, they hog tied, tazed, dogpiled and beat on an innocent un-armed mentally disabled person because he didn't follow their orders the way they wanted. In that case, they made a mistake, a huge one, then lied about it, covered it up and so on. Even with all that, some people will just not accept they @!$%#ed it up.

Sad situation. Could have been avoided of course by not bringing a weapon to school. I wonder if this outcome was the kid's motivation.

Tell that to the 15 or 16 yr. old gang banger that is robbing you or just shot your family member. Then tell us there is no reason for excessive force on a child.

Thanks for everyone who called me an idiot. I'm sorry I do not share the same blood lust as the rest of you by taking pleasure in the killing of a 15 year old (who is still a CHILD), but by no means does that make me an idiot, especially when taser guns are widely used on police forces across this Country and are effective in taking down dangerous subjects.

For those of you who claim that it was a split second decision, I suggest you read the following quote from the story.

Interim Police Chief Orlando Rodriguez said the teen was pointing the weapon at officers and "had plenty of opportunities to lower the gun and listen to the officers' orders, and he didn't want to."

If they had enough time to give him plenty of opportunities to drop the gun, then he could have been hit with a taser.

Also, for those who also think that you need to be up close with the subject, you obviously do not know what you are talking about. The TASER X26c ECD () can hit a person from 15 feet away...

There was no regard for the life of this child, or any other person in that hallway when the gun was fired...

Anthony-What a stupid @!$%#er you must be. A taser has a limited range and a bullet is lethal up to a mile so how do you suggest the officer get close enough to tase him? The reaction to being tased is to contract your muscles causing the person being tased to.....? Pull the trigger-I guess you would have taken the chance? The officer did the right thing.

Why, in all the states in the United States, would you bring a gun, especially one that looks like a real handgun, to school, wave it around, act all big and tough, and then when the police come, refuse to drop in and put your hands up? My god, helloooooo, Texas! Did the parents of this young man never explain things, or allow him to watch the news and see the way the real world works?

absolutely the tazer has a range, ive been in firefights and let me tell you you want to keep a large gap from the shooters, the farther the better. anthony you need to go to a police academy and see what they teach, then you'll understand it all

It has nothing to do with "blood lust". It has to do with being accountable for what you do and quit blaming someone else when the outcome is not what you expected. In this case, the 15 yr. old brought a gun to school (1st mistake), then when ordered (several times) to drop the gun, he refused (second and final mistake). To blame the police because they acted as trained, and at the time were in fear for their lives as well as the other students at the school, is ridiculous. Had they not shot at him and he ended up killing someone, you would be yelling that the police should have shot him. When you point a gun at someone, and repeatedly refuse to drop the gun per officers instructions, you deserve what happens. I do feel bad that the 15 yr old was killed. I have 15 yr. old son also and couldn't imagine. Doesn't change the fact he should have dropped the weapon.

Anthony,

No you are wrong, most officers do not carry Tasers... alot of officers do, just like alot carry night-sticks, but not most... Same thing with pepper spray alot, not most... If officers were required to carry everything that comes out in police technology they would all have to carry back packs, tell the perp to wait a second, while I pick what I want to use against you... Or maybe departments should have a drawing for weapon of the day, week or month maybe... Or officers could just say time out while I call my supervisor advise of the circumstances and see what weapon is allowed, so hold on I'll just be a sec!!! ROFLMAO

Yah, sure. The Columbine killers should have been tazed.

I agree that cops should often exercise MORE restraint than they do---but they have to save other people who are in potential danger. And a child with something that looks like a gun is potentially dangerous. It's definitely not black and white.

Anthony at 450 feet per second his shot will get to you before your tazer gets to him. At the range of a tazer his field point will penetrate skin. And a facial shot will most likely be fatal. How is that for a toy? Yeah you're an idiot.

Anthony, have you ever been hit with a tazer? I have, and your hands clench, so that if the subject had a loaded gun in his hand, and his finger on the trigger, he would have fired the gun. Real great reasoning, "lets force the person to fire the gun, maybe one of us can get killed, or maybe the bullet might go through a wall and kill an innocent child on the other side."