Tophat,
Please learn the difference between the meanings of "Every fact that is known", and "every fact is known".

My statement was in reference to the facts that are currently known, not a claim to know all the facts.

Debunker- My comment is based on my initial thoughts with only a glimmer of information. I drew no conclusion.
My only statement to the whole event was more information was needed prior to any opinion/conclusion. I remain with no concrete opinion.

We do know lethal force was utilized. . That will raise my eyebrows each and every time. "Fishy" was not my term. As such, this is the requested "enlighten" response.

Perhaps (in light of your stated "every fact that IS KNOWN"), you have far more information than I have access to. Limited information I have fails to point any conclusion.

I hold no "anti-cop bias whatsoever. You do not know me at all. Nor is there any speck of bias in my comment.

The fact you read something into a comment that doesn't exist -- will not reflect on my opinion. Enough said…..

Though it did not happen this way with this particular case. often times the suspect who has been killed by police action are often riddled with bullets. 20-30 even more rounds have hit the suspect and killed him dead on the spot. Police are often attacked over this as examples of police brutality or being trigger happy or over reacting to a situation.

Even if police are justified in shooting, they think they should only have fired once or whatever.
This is utter BS.

In such cases the suspect is often surrounded by a dozen or more cops. all have their guns drawn and pointed, fingers on the trigger. They don't want to fire but are ready if they have to. The suspect is being told to put down their weapon, let me see your hands, get on the ground, and whatnot.

The moment comes.
The gun of the suspect comes up and starts pointing towards one of the officers or an innocent bystander.

Of these dozen officers... you expect them to take a vote? wait and see if one of the other officers is going to take the shot?
NO!
They will each individually open up on the suspect.

Now... you expect them to fire one shot at a time slowly... evaluating each shot one at a time to see if another shot is necessary? or fire several rounds to insure the suspect is STOPPED from firing his own weapon at an innocent or another officer?

When you consider that each officer acting individually is going to fire several rounds to insure the suspect does not kill someone and multiply that by multiple officers firing. It's very easy to see why these culprits are hit 20, 30, or more times.

It's not trigger happy cops on a vengeance kick, killing people because they can.
It's sound proper police work to insure that the public is safe and that they too go home to their wife and kids at the end of the shift.

But I stand corrected on my first post, i should have read it before i posted it.. It was not written quite like I intended...

But great post, Debunker, on the Civilian vs Military standards... That was more for what I was going for...

Well I just saw in a report on the news (Which I shouldn't trust) where the parents and teachers of the kid said he was an all around good kid/student. Also the parents did not even know about the incident until they saw it on the news. No police contacted them nor answered their questions... So like I said, from what I HEARD yesterday, it sounded fishy... (And haven't heard anything since). I'm sure it was justifiable, so there is no need to crucify me for questioning... That's what the founders of our country wanted us to do!

With critics like y'all, before I make comments on this website, I guess I should write it like a college research paper with all the sources outlined! (haha)

And please stop with your blind accusations - I am NOT Anti-Cop ...I also have many friends and family that are in the force, kind of hard to hate them! ...I guess I am Anti-bad cop, though. But judging by your comments... oh forget it... i'm done!

eolsovsky,

I am not drawing any conclusions about you.

You claimed you were not making a criticism then TWICE you made criticisms in stating the police were 'trigger happy" and that a double tap (though you didn't call it that) was unnecessary.
I pointed out where some of the facts you cited were in FACT wrong and that those wrongful facts were used as the basis of at least one of your criticisms, of which you claimed wasn't a criticism.

You and Tophat both make the claim that not all facts are known (true) and we should not be drawing conclusions (Which both of you proceed to do in stating something is fishy)

Neither of you have stated for the rest just what it is that is fishy. Because based on the few facts that ARE KNOWN. NOTHING is fishy at all. Fully justified shooting.
Tragic? yes.
But fully justified none-the-less.

You and I am sure many others (because it always happens) are letting your emotions (because the suspect was a child) overrule your brain and logic.

Knight and Tophat are correct about the Double tap. it is a COMBAT tactic. Used by the MILITARY.
It is NOT a tactic used by civilian police. SWAT maybe, but not your patrol officers.

You see, the Double tap is designed to KILL your opponent.
POliuce officers even when they are authorised to used deadly force are not shooting to kill. They are shooting to STOP their opponent. Granted in stopping them, the result is often likely death, but death is not the intent. POLICE officers, not military, are trained to fire ONLY at center mass. The surest way of STOPPING an opponent.

Any POLICE officer intentionally performing a double tap to kill his opponent would be hung out to dry by any halfway competent attorney and rightfully so.

You both are inappropriately taking a MILITARY tactic and applying it to CIVILIAN law enforcement.

Tophat,

You are right in that we don't know all the details.

But going by what details ARE known... there is NOTHING fishy at all about the incident. every fact that IS KNOWN about this incident points to a fully justified shooting.

So what is causing this fishiness you speak of. Some detail that only YOU and eolsovsky knows?
Or just your anti-cop bias?

Please. Enlighten us with what exactly is fishy?
Since there isn't any.

I just love all these conclusions you draw about me for questioning. I Did state that I did not know the details, and I am no ACLU fan (depending on the situation). I just stated from the reports that I DID hear at the time (his parents' and teachers' comments), It sounded fishy.

I apologize [sarcasm] if I simply question most government actions - somebody needs to!

Pigskin- if I agreed with something said by another; does not mean I agree with everything that person said.

I agreed with eolsobsky statement: " ….since I don't fully know the details…" which I re-validated, "we don't know any of the particulars"
With such limited information at this point, it does look "fishy".

If there is a contradiction, sorry I just don't see it. Most assuredly can't see any political thread in my comment.

Thank you, Debunker. It appears safe to assume that eolsovsky is up-to-date on his ACLU dues, i.e. if the cops did it, they must be in the wrong.

There were only two in the chest; the head wound came from hitting the ground. The officers weren't trigger happy, they protected the rights of the law-abiding people around the person who brought an unidentified weapon to school. He already assaulted one student and he refused to drop his weapon. It is sad that it came to this but the police did their job.

Just an observation Tophat: you say you "completely agree" with eolsovsky, yet he uses the words unnecessary, trigger happy, fishy and basically acts as though he knows all the facts of this case. Then you say we don't know any particulars and should wait on the facts. What a contradiction! Are you a politician, by chance??

Knight is exactly correct- that is how it is done - referred to as double tap with third shot fired under recoil recovery. Military developed it for use with 1911-A1.

I completely agree with Eolsovsky, we don't know any of the particulars.
To draw any other conclusion is unmerited and unfounded.

Lethal force is a micro-second decision.

Things like this happen quickly. You can't call time out and draw straws to figure out who gets to shoot and how many times. Sad that it happened, but the kid had to know what would happen. Either way, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Two in the chest, one in the head is not trick shooting, it's a combat tactic.

1) despite your "claim" it WAS a criticism.

To quote: "Well, 2 in the chest, one in the head is a little unnecessary... Especially if it's a child with a BB Gun, not pointing it at you."

2) it wasn't "2 in the chest, one in the head" it was four rounds fired, of which 2 struck the chest. You are trained to aim "Center Mass" . That's it. the whole two in the chest one in the head is for the most part a work of HOLLYWOOD. as well as any "trick shooting " of the weapon from the hand, etc...
3) The boy DID point the weapon at the cops. when is when they opened fire as per training. And this was after multiple commands to drop the weapon.

4) The weapon was one of those pellet guns that look like the real thing. without holding the weapon themselves and examining it, the police would not have been able to tell the difference.

5) In addition to your "criticism" in which you got every fact that was the basis of your "criticism' WRONG, you further criticize by stating that the police were "Trigger Happy"

"I just think something is fishy about that story..."

Nothing fishy about it at all. The problem is that you don't.
Think, that is.

Just a comment/opinion. Not an attack upon your person, just an attack upon your factually wrongful statements, and the opinions you developed from them.