|
Author
|
Topic: Another Situation For You Guys: TeenBoy Shot by Police
|
4949shooter
SECOND PLACE HIGGINS (MAGNUM P.I.) LOOK A LIKE CONTEST
Member # 3530
|
posted April 07, 2010 03:34 AM
I got this off another forum, sorry there was no link:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hudspeth County(TX) sheriff's deputies and state game wardens shot and killed a 14-year-boy after he ran away from home, stopped at a ranch and then allegedly fired at officers who wanted to take him home.
Hudspeth County Sheriff Arvin West said the deadly confrontation started as a simple search for a runaway. The boy had left his family's ranch in Hudspeth County on Saturday and was reported missing by his parents Sunday.
West said authorities had problems with the boy at school in the past in the desolate county east of El Paso County. The boy's name had not been released.
A Texas Department of Public Safety news release stated an initial investigation by the Texas Rangers found the teen had broken into a deer camp at Gunsight Ranch, about 20 miles north of Sierra Blanca.
West said one of his deputies and a Texas Parks and Wildlife game warden found the boy at a hunters' camp at Gunsight Ranch.
"They told him (the boy) they were looking for him," West said. "He said 'That's me.' They said, 'Your parents are concerned about you. You need to come with us.' The boy then drew a weapon."
The boy had a rifle and a handgun and refused to go. The teen then allegedly fired shots as the officers retreated.
According to the Texas DPS account, the boy fired several shots and fled to another camp. Officers followed him to the second camp, urging him to put down the weapons but the boy continued firing. He ran to a third spot, where he climbed to the top of a barn and shot at officers.
Dozens of shots were fired in an area spanning a mile and a half, West said. At one point, deputies brought the boy's mother to the scene to try to get her son to surrender, but the teen took a shot at her, West said.
"The officers backed off, backed off and backed off. He finally got them where they couldn't back off anymore," West said.
The end came while the boy was atop the roof of the barn and took aim at a game warden.
"He had a clear shot at a game warden," West said. Fearing for the game warden's life, law enforcement officers fired and shot the boy, who died at the scene. The officers were not hurt.
Five law enforcement officers -- two deputies and three game wardens -- were involved in the confrontation, West said.
The names of the deputies were not immediately released. One of the deputies involved in the shooting has been with the Hudspeth County Sheriff's Office for five or six years. The other deputy has been with the agency for about a year.
The shooting is under investigation by the Texas Rangers, the Texas Department of Public Safety and the El Paso District Attorney's Office. The El Paso district attorney investigates all officer-involved shootings and has jurisdiction on felonies in El Paso, Hudspeth and Culberson counties in far West Texas.
Posts: 2274 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
4949shooter
SECOND PLACE HIGGINS (MAGNUM P.I.) LOOK A LIKE CONTEST
Member # 3530
|
posted April 07, 2010 03:35 AM
Another Article:
Teen shot by deputies was gun expert
By Maggie Ybarra \ El Paso Times
Posted: 04/07/2010 12:00:00 AM MDT
The 14-year-old boy killed in a shootout Sunday was an experienced hunter with dreams of becoming a West Texas rancher, his mother said.
Anthony Lucas was raised to respect guns and hunting laws, Kay Lucas said Tuesday.
Lucas said her son had a strong moral compass that he used when he hunted. He shot only bucks and learned everything he could about hunting from magazines.
"He wasn't a reader," she said. "He hated school, but he would get those little hunting magazines and he'd read everything on those."
Anthony learned to use guns at a young age, Kay Lucas said.
"He got his first BB gun when he was 7 years old, and then we moved him up to a .22 (pistol)," she said. "We have a gun safe and an adult was with him the majority of the time."
Anthony had three stolen handguns with him the day he was shot by sheriff's de puties and state game wardens at Gunsight Ranch in Hudspeth County, Kay Lucas said.
But he was only using those guns to keep the officers at bay, she said.
"If he had wanted to shoot those officers and hit them, he would have," she said. "He knew he was a good shot, and a majority of those officers knew him and knew he was."
Hudspeth County Sheriff Arvin West said Tuesday that Anthony had been shooting at the officers from the roof of a barn, and that officers fired back in self-defense.
Anthony had been reported missing by his parents earlier that day.
Reports varied on the types of guns the teen used during the shootout. West said Monday that Anthony had a handgun and a rifle. On Tuesday, West said Anthony had "several guns." Kay Lucas said her son had two .22-caliber pistols and a .25-caliber handgun.
Kay Lucas said that no other people were endangered during the shootout and that if the officers had left Anthony alone, he would have eventually become hungry, tired or taken his pills.
Before the shooting, Anthony had broken into two homes at the Gunsight Ranch, Kay Lucas said.
"He broke a window and he went into Kevin Jessup's house, took a shower and ate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and tried to watch a Western movie but couldn't get the VCR to work," she said.
Anthony took the guns during the break-ins, she said.
When law enforcement officers found her son, he pointed one of the guns at them and told them to get away. He shot at them to scare them off, Kay Lucas said.
West said the officers backed away from Anthony and returned to their patrol cars, and that's when Anthony started shooting at them.
The decision to kill Anthony was made only after he endangered an officer's life, West said.
Anthony was standing on a barn roof and the officers were on the ground near a horse trailer about 30 yards from the barn when he was killed, West said.
"They decided they had to stop him before he shot that officer," he said.
West said his officers were devastated by the shooting death.
"They're not OK," he said. "That's not something any officer wants to do -- take the life of a child."
Before the shooting, officers had taken Kay Lucas out to the site in an attempt to calm Anthony.
Anthony's mother pleaded with him over a PA system, but he eventually fired a shot at her, too, West said.
Kay Lucas said her son's hearing impairment might have hindered his ability to understand what the police wanted from him.
He had tubes put in his ears twice and sometimes had to focus on lip movements to get the gist of what someone was saying. He also had bad vision and took medicine for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Kay Lucas said.
She said he was not taking his medicine before the shooting.
Perhaps if Anthony had been on his medicine, the situation would have ended differently, said Joseph Elder, a local store owner.
Elder, 33, said Anthony was a "wild little country boy" who liked to hunt rabbits and live on the land.
But without his medicine, he was unpredictable, Elder said.
"In a way, he was like a little coyote," he said. "He knew how to take care of himself ... but he got off his medication, and he had been off his medication going on two days, and that's too long."
Elder said the circumstances surrounding the shooting death of Anthony were tragic.
"He was scared to death," he said, "and the officers were probably scared to death, too."
Posts: 2274 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Andy L
HI, I'M THE NEW MODERATOR OF THE CENTRAL MISSOURI FORUM, PULL MY FINGER!
Member # 642
|
posted April 07, 2010 05:21 AM
I dont see the problem. They gave the boy every chance. He shot at his mom for god sakes. Whether he meant to hit them or not. Good call by the cops. What the hell were they supposed to do?
I know with my mom it would have been different. If I shot at her, she would have yelled you little bastard, your gonna get it now, and marched into that barn and put a ass whuppin on me. Thats the difference between a midwestern mom and a western mom.
49, how many websites do you cruise? You and TA17 run the same circuit?
--------------------
Andy
Posts: 2645 | From: Central Missouri | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Possumal
HONORARY CALLS FORUM MODERATOR edit: AND TOKEN LIBERAL
Member # 823
|
posted April 07, 2010 06:18 AM
I agree with Andy on this one. What other choice did the officers have, with bullets whizzing by them? A tragedy no doubt, but unavoidable.
--------------------
Al Prather
Foxpro Field Staff
Posts: 781 | From: Nicholasville, Ky. | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
4949shooter
SECOND PLACE HIGGINS (MAGNUM P.I.) LOOK A LIKE CONTEST
Member # 3530
|
posted April 07, 2010 06:22 AM
Andy this was from Glocktalk:
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1206137
I reposted the articles here because I was wondering what you guys thought of the incident, and the way it was handled.
I only frequent here, GT, PM, and occasionally NPHA. I have a login at Cabelas talkforums but I only have a few posts there.
Posts: 2274 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
4949shooter
SECOND PLACE HIGGINS (MAGNUM P.I.) LOOK A LIKE CONTEST
Member # 3530
|
posted April 07, 2010 06:25 AM
I agree the officers didn't have much of a choice. I think they used great restraint actuslly, and they gave the kid enough chances to surrender.
Posts: 2274 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2
|
posted April 07, 2010 08:16 AM
It was obviously unjustified; white hooded officers shooting a poor black kid just trying to defend himself. They should have tried that trick I've seen in the movies, and shoot the gun out of his hand.
Seriously, sometimes a company of Rangers on bullhorns can masturbate the situation unnecessarily .
That's it! Dart him with tranks! Why do I have to do all the thinking for this group?
Good hunting. LB
--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!
Posts: 31449 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dan Carey
unknown comic
|
posted April 07, 2010 10:21 AM
To hell with it, it's too big a problem for pea brains, just kill him.
IP: Logged
|
|
Az-Hunter
Hi, I'm Vic WELCOME TO THE U.S. Free baloney sandwiches here
Member # 17
|
posted April 07, 2010 01:11 PM
Sounds like the only danger the kid posed, was to the fridge at the place he broke into?
They are miles from nowhere, so he poses no threat to a local population, not like he can climb the tower and start shootin' people. The officers could have just backed out of there, they forced the situation, christ all mighty, it was a 14 year old kid?
Leonards not to far off the mark really, they could have left a tranqed PBJ sandwhich at the door with some spiked milk if they wanted to...stupid fucking decision by the officers in my opinion.
Posts: 1627 | From: 5 miles west of Tim | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2
|
posted April 07, 2010 02:37 PM
Well Yeah. I'm being asinine, but I am of the opinion that those cops faced with a friggin' kid on the roof, COULD HAVE BACKED OFF, HID BEHIND A TREE, OR SOMETHING? WHY IN THE HELL WAS ONE OF THEM OUT THERE EXPOSED TO THE POINT WHERE ANOTHER DUMB SHIT FELT THE NEED TO SHOOT IN SELF DEFENSE?
Rather than some comments we see posted above; I do NOT think the police handled this thing very well, at all. Of all the possible outcomes, shooting the kid is the goddamned dummest thing that an entire gang of "trained professional" officers could have come up with!
They should all be fired and none of this suspended with pay, pending outcome of investigation. I don't care if he broke into a cabin and that he had a gun. That right there has all the elements for a justifiable shooting, for some trigger happy policemen. Sorry, I can't see that I agree with what they did. At all.
Good hunting. LB
--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!
Posts: 31449 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrossJ
SECOND PLACE: PAUL RYAN Look-a-like contest
Member # 884
|
posted April 07, 2010 03:32 PM
,".... but he would get those little hunting magazines and he'd read everything on those."
Excuse me, but its obvious that some of these magazine writers own some of the responsibility here.(just kidding Lance)
Whats the deal 49? Do you believe you are going to change everyones opinion?
Maintain
--------------------
A friend will help you move. A good friend will help you move a body.
Posts: 1025 | From: on a water tower | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tlbradford
Rimfires are MAGIC on COYOTES! If you do your part
Member # 1232
|
posted April 07, 2010 03:57 PM
I'm with Az-hunter on this one. Kind of reminds me of the FBI stand-off at Ruby Ridge, Idaho where law enforcement forced the issue and it escalated to deaths.
--------------------
"Dan Carey ain't that special" - LB
Posts: 423 | From: Spokane Valley, WA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Melching
Radical Operator Forum "You won't get past the front gate"
Member # 885
|
posted April 07, 2010 04:06 PM
Was Janet Reno in the area ? I hear shes got a lot of experiece with them Texans!
--------------------
Those who value security over liberty soon will have neither !
Posts: 4188 | From: The forest ! north of the dez. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
4949shooter
SECOND PLACE HIGGINS (MAGNUM P.I.) LOOK A LIKE CONTEST
Member # 3530
|
posted April 07, 2010 07:28 PM
quote:
Whats the deal 49? Do you believe you are going to change everyones opinion?
No deal Crossj. I was just looking for opinions from some independent thinking men. You guys have your opinions and be it far from me to try and change them.
I do think the police used restraint however. They waited a long time before they fired back on the kid. As Rich pointed out in my other thread, it can be hard to judge what you would do from the safety of the internet.
But let me pose a question here....what do you think would have happened if the rangers did back off, and the kid got away with a rifle and in an unstable state without taking his medication? How do you think those rangers would have felt if he shot some innocent person on his unmedicated rampage?
Sometimes decisions have to be made at the moment without the benefit of hindsight.
Just some food for thought.
That having been said,prayers sent on behalf of the kid's family and the officers who were faced with a most difficult decision.
Posts: 2274 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
4949shooter
SECOND PLACE HIGGINS (MAGNUM P.I.) LOOK A LIKE CONTEST
Member # 3530
|
posted April 07, 2010 07:32 PM
quote:
I'm with Az-hunter on this one. Kind of reminds me of the FBI stand-off at Ruby Ridge, Idaho where law enforcement forced the issue and it escalated to deaths.
There was some poor leadership at Ruby Ridge. The rules of engagement were changed by those in charge. I won't name agencies but all you have to do is an internet check.
Unfortunately mistakes were made that caused the death of innocents as well as a sheriff;s office SWAT team member.
Posts: 2274 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Briguy
Unofficial AGENT PROVOCATEUR
Member # 3471
|
posted April 07, 2010 11:09 PM
Are you freakin kidding me??? They should have backed off and feed him a tranqualized PB&J??? That's crazy talk there. And his momma saying he's a good shot and wasn't trying to hit them...what else do you expect his mother to say?
Sorry, I'm not a LEO, never have been, and never will be, but I'm smart enough to know that if some kid -- who's hardly a kid at 14 in this day and age -- has such little respect for the law; not to mention his own mother, then it's only going to end one of a couple ways for him. Lethal injection after he kills some other people, or with a bullet.
Let's turn this around a bit. You got a couple kids on your block about the same age and you walk in on one of them robbing your house. The kid has a gun, and so do you. He starts shooting at you. (Fortunately, he's a really good shot and wasn't trying to actually shoot you). Now, you also let him know that if he throws his down he can just go to jail for a bit. Well, he decides to shoot at you some more...
Okay, big question...armed robbery at your house, who's making the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches???
Posts: 94 | From: El Desierto | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2
|
posted April 07, 2010 11:27 PM
Oversimplification. Not only that, guess who gets to tell the official account of what happened?
Good hunting. LB
--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!
Posts: 31449 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Briguy
Unofficial AGENT PROVOCATEUR
Member # 3471
|
posted April 08, 2010 12:22 AM
Not buying that...there comes a point where a decision has to be made. If you're lucky, you can manipulate the situation into a circumstance where that decision and action is well thought out and planned. If things don't go as planned, you have to make the next decision or action, and sometimes that's the gamebreaker.
There is no indication of how long this whole engagement lasted, but I would have to guess it lasted a bit with them bringing his mother in and all that. It appears to me they did try to reason and bring it to a peaceful end. Somewhere in there, a couple decisions were made by both parties that prevented that.
Oversimplified? Maybe. But to just say they should have done this, or they should have done that is myopic. We don't know what decisions were made that lead to what actions. I stand by my initial assessment; they did what they felt like they had to do at the time, and I couldn't blame 'em for that...at least not based on the information provided.
Posts: 94 | From: El Desierto | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
4949shooter
SECOND PLACE HIGGINS (MAGNUM P.I.) LOOK A LIKE CONTEST
Member # 3530
|
posted April 08, 2010 03:43 AM
I discussed this with a good friend of mine at work yesterday. This friend works on a counter terrorism unit and has 23 years on the job. He also is in the military and has done some time in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq, and will be headed to Afganistan in two years. He has three boys, two of which have graduated high school and one who is still a sophomore.
His response was very similar to Briguy's...the kid made a decision that cost him, and the police made a decision based upon his actions.
But my next question for you guys is this: Being that the kid took a bead on a police officer, how long were those police/rangers supposed to wait for this to happen? Can anyone predict when this will occur? Just like we can never really predict what a coyote will do when coming to a call, we can't predict the actions of a deranged individual with a rifle. All we know is that he is firing a rifle, and at an time could take one of us out.
A 14 year old with a rifle is just as dangerous as a 34 year old with a rifle.
Crossj, let me again interject that I am not trying to change your opinions. I just would like to offer different viewpoint from the "other side."
Posts: 2274 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrossJ
SECOND PLACE: PAUL RYAN Look-a-like contest
Member # 884
|
posted April 08, 2010 05:45 AM
OK, so you're the devils advocate. Great. It is fairly apparent which side of the fence you fall on based on your LE vocation. Fair enough I guess.
The thing is, all these scenerios(the 3 you have posted) have all used the words "IF" and "BUT"; atleast when used to describe or defend possible LE reaction. Hell, theoretically, pigs can fly when explained with enough 'ifs' and 'buts'.
My whole point is that LE et al has an image problem. I think most everyone on here who has responded to the last few threads had a 'johnny law' horror story....and thats the ones who responded. Phrases like 'eat pavement' and 'proned out' continue to fuel the problem.
That said, as far as the 14 year old, I have always been of the opinion that when you shoot at someone who is armed.....expect them to shoot back. Now, the two 'Barney's' in NM, well, everything that needed saying has basically been said. But,heres my two cents. We saw two LAW enforcement officers who don't know the LAW, but would rather lie about and or make up the LAW.....well you get my point.
Maintain
--------------------
A friend will help you move. A good friend will help you move a body.
Posts: 1025 | From: on a water tower | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
4949shooter
SECOND PLACE HIGGINS (MAGNUM P.I.) LOOK A LIKE CONTEST
Member # 3530
|
posted April 08, 2010 06:31 AM
No problem CrossJ. My loyalties lie with my LE counterparts. I don't think I have been trying to hide that fact at all. But if they are 100%wrong I will say so, like in the changing of the rules of engagement at Ruby Ridge.
And if you recall, I never defended the actions of the two New Mexico officers. In fact I stated I would have counseled them.
Having heard the opinions of some of the membership here, I feel I can offer a different perspective. Sort of broadening the horizons of the members, like you guys have been saying you are trying to do with me (hence my title).
Posts: 2274 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted April 08, 2010 07:14 AM
This one is a tough call for me. In '07, my then 17 year old son sustained a traumatic brain injury playing football which has, since then, literally redefined nearly every aspect of my family's life. Most of you know that I've been dealing with this since back then, and continue to deal with the issues today, except to a much lesser extent (he's improving). My own birth family and many of our friends look at how we handle our son as being incorrect when they don't know what we've dealt with with him. We don't share the stuff we don't want people knowing. Several lessons have been put to my wife and I, about our son, about head injuries, and about raising teenagers. The most relevant here is that teenagers have little to no comprehension of consequences. They don't think ahead to what will be the result of their actions. They are purely narcissistic, and in my son's case, just as with this young man, it's to the "nth" degree.
Chances are that this young man simply wanted to be left alone to deal with what was, to him, a major life problem. In time, I can almost guarantee you that he would have come wandering home on his own, having lost interest in the drama d'jour. Law enforcement felt compelled to do what they did because it is their job. Their interests were more in efficiency and expediency in dolling out justice rather than stepping back and engaging a little empathy for the subject they were pursuing. I don't recall any remarks about the young man posing a threat to himself or anyone else except for the officers, and only after they put pressure on him. Maybe I missed that in the first and only reading.
I have learned, in my son's case, that when dealing with someone who is moderately to severely ADD, the turtle always wins the race. You cannot push a person like this. You have to take slow measured steps and bring them around quietly and calmly. If emotion becomes a part of the dynamic, you need to stand down and back off. These LEO's violated that very simple rule. They maybe should have taken a defensive posture at a distance and simply monitored the young man until his mood changed, and I can all but guarantee you that it would have in time. My son has done things that have taken me to an emotional place where I could fully understand how people can become so violent as to hurt and even kill one another. I am not proud to admit that, but the admission is necessary to be able to fully understand what I mean when I say that today, when I even begin to see things going that way, I step back, go find something else to do, and give him a chance to settle down, too. An hour, or even minutes later, he can be dealt with without the emotion and the rhetoric.
This is also a close issue for me because some of the run ins my son has had with the law have been because his thinking was skewed by his way of thinking since the head injury. Same situation with this young man. And, like is the case with this youngster, LEO's have chosen to look at my son through myopic glasses and viewed him through the one singular perspective they hold in that all people fit one mold and they only know how to deal with people who fit that one mold and can't adjust or modify their approach to anything else. Justice is not served when it fails to take into consideration the causal factors leading to an individual's behavior. When someone acts a certain way because of a medical condition, it would be ideal to include helping them to deal with solutions to the problem to avoid recurrences of the misbehavior, but many judges and prosecutors choose to simply punish them for things over which they have no control. In this incident, the officers on the scene - even though fully aware of the child's medical problems - chose to scrunch him into their predefined "normal" box, and to deal with him in that context. Anyone who has worked with people like this will tell you that this strategy will not end well, and in this case, it didn't. BTW, I was at first concerned about the relevancy of the mother's remarks that he'd been off his meds for two days and was trying to blame his behavior on that. Like many, I didn't buy it, but having thought about it now, it isn't unusual for you to see an exacerbation in maladaptive behavioral traits when medications are abruptly discontinued. In other words, the problems the meds treat grow far worse before leveling out. It's a backlash effect.
Those officers should have stood back and not cornered him. In his mind, he was right in doing what he was doing, he simply wanted to be left alone to try and sort out what his brain was telling him, and their continued pressure just made him feel cornered. He was only trying to do what his instincts told him to do - defend himself. His mother tried to explain and they chose not to listen. I'm sure they feel badly for what happened here, and in my opinion, a civil court should settle this matter.
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5438 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
4949shooter
SECOND PLACE HIGGINS (MAGNUM P.I.) LOOK A LIKE CONTEST
Member # 3530
|
posted April 08, 2010 07:46 AM
Cdog, let me start out by saying I am sorry for the problems with your son. As a parent, I can't begin to imagine what you must be dealing with. My prayer list grows longer every day but I will add your son to it just the same.
I agree with your post in many respects. I don't agree completely, because we don't know how much those law enforcement officers went through in trying to exercise restraint and give the boy a chance. It sounds like they made quite an effort, in my humble opinion.
That having been said, had I been the supervisor on that scene, I don't think I could walk away from the incident completely in the hopes the boy would just become tired and return home on his own. There is a concern for innocent citizens present. To just leave and let the boy sort it out on his own might also give him the opportunity to take an innocent life, and I don't think as a law enforcement officer I would be able to allow the possibility for that to happen.
Perhaps the officers could have secured the area, called in a negotiator, and waited the kid out. Though by bringing the mother in I do believe that is what they tried to do. I agree this is a tough one especially after having read your post.
On the other hand, as a supervisor I would also have to look out for the welfare of my men. I never wanted any of my guys to be hurt, and I never wanted to have to tell their wives or parents that their husband/son is dead because of my actions or inactions as a supervisor.
Your post is indicative of the fact (at least to me) that this incident is a tough one to MMQB from afar, withoout having been present. I have a 14 year old son myself, and I know I would want the responding police to give him a chance had it been him involved.
Edit for clarification.
[ April 08, 2010, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: 4949shooter ]
Posts: 2274 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted April 08, 2010 10:09 AM
Thanks, 4949,
My sister is one of the people who think we should handle our son with a firmer iron fist, if you will. When she offered that bit of advice in as nice a way as she could, prefacing her remarks by saying that she didn't want to make me mad, I told her of a lesson I've learned in life and relearned a number of times: When you look upon a situation that you think could be handled better because the way it is being handled is, in your opinion, illogical, it's likely that the reason it appears to be illogical is because you are not privvy to critical bits of information.
The same goes here. There are things none of this know and all of us can Monday morning quarterback as much as we want but no one here was there, thus no one here's opinion is any more valid than anyone else's. I agree that they seemed to be very patient and that they certainly appeared to give him every opportunity to concede, but I never said to just leave and let him have his way. I suggested that they stand back, monitor defensively rather than offensively intruding, and give the boy the perception that he wasn't being pushed unnecessarily. Ultimately, the boy needed to be taken into custody and gotten the help he needed. He wasn't going to walk away unrestrained from there by any means. Yeah, it may have taken a day or more to get to that point, but I think they might have considered trading a day of effort in exchange for the rest of that boy's life. As far as the safety of the supervisor's men, I can see your point there, too. As a Fire Captain, I sent men and women into burning houses on a number of occasions in my life, and knew that their welfare rested solely on my judgment and experience that had determined that they needed to go inside rather than fighting the situation from outside. It's a huge responsibility that I understand clearly. But, those men, again, could have pulled back a bit and not maintained the circumnstance that ultimately led to the final outcome. They were where they were because of tactical decisions to do so. I wasn't there, again, and don't know what all factors were considered in making those decisions, but I think that bad decisions were made, nonetheless. Also, there's a possibility that his mother was a contributing factor to his disappearance to begin with. IMO, and again, this is not my field of experience, they maybe should have considered the negotiator before bringing in the mother to make sure her presence would be a positive rather than exacerbating things and making them worse. Even here in nowhere Kansas we have trained negotiators within an hours drive of just about anywhere. Just my .02.
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5438 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tlbradford
Rimfires are MAGIC on COYOTES! If you do your part
Member # 1232
|
posted April 08, 2010 10:11 AM
I don't disagree with the decision to kill the boy when he had a direct shot at a game official. I do agree that they tried a lot of things to contain the situation and resolve it peacefully. Where I have a problem is that they made a mistake in their strategy when that gamey put himself in harms way. What was he doing in that situation? I haven't heard.
--------------------
"Dan Carey ain't that special" - LB
Posts: 423 | From: Spokane Valley, WA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
