Oklahoma Police Kill 5-Year Old Boy While Shooting at Snake
Know your target and what’s beyond your target. Don’t do stupid things.
I feel safer already!
Tragedy, for everyone.
Prayers for the family (and the officers too).
My prayers go out to the family and to the officer. I had a buddy who killed a guy in a car accident (buddy’s fault) - the effects are life altering.
I’d like to hear the details of this shooting. I’d like to think that there’s more to it than we think.
Joe Mamma
Everyone is fallible. That’s why rule #4 always applies.
I wonder what details you suspect would make a difference? The kid was far down range and he was shot in the head right in front of his Grandpa.
What “more” to it would make it even close to reasonable. And for the officer who shot the child…his life should be altered forever.
and to the OP IMO this is way beyond doing “a stupid thing”…it’s criminal
Seems odd that the officer shot what one would assume is up into the tree, yet one shot hits near the child, then the second hits him. Really bad odds if shooting at an upward angle. As the story states, the guilty officers then walked to the scene and acted as though they did not know what happened. The grandfather says they “came out of the bushes” after the shooting, suggesting they came from close by.
How did the bullets fall so fast as to hit the child who apparently was nearby? If they shot up and then they fell, that would likely have been some distance away. If they shot that low, then surely they were negligent for not checking who what was in the bullets path first.
Of course, I am not insinuating in any way that the story is anything other than an accident, but it does seem like they almost certainly used extremely bad judgement if they shot as low as I suspect they did in what must be at least a semi-populated area.
That maybe there was a compelling reason for the officer in this case to fire her sidearm at a snake, rather than what appears to be an utterly negligent use of her weapon.
From what I have read around the various boards thusfar, it seems that this was in a fairly densely populated area and that the snake wasn’t presenting a real threat to any human beings…meaning it sounds like a giant charlie foxtrot, if you know what I mean.
The expression of hope is that there is something missing from the accounts we know of thusfar that would explain her decisions.
I’m a cop, I get accused of being a member of the thin blue line on TOS, I know I don’t have all the details, but how do you justify or explain this? I shoot animals, several times a year, that need to be dispatched, in the suburban city I work in. I ALWAYS check my backstop, to include getting a come along and dragging the injured deer or raccoon to a better location, like a soft dirt embankment, rather than pavement.
I guarantee that the cop, his department, the parents and the grandfather all wish the cop hadn’t taken the shot. This is a tragedy; too bad it was a preventable one.
Beats the heck out of me.
Right now it seems like a needless and stupid act and that there was no reason why the officer didn’t check their background before pulling the trigger.
Snake in a tree sounds like a job for animal control or game warden. Not a LEO firing off their weapon at it. Bad for all involved.
People that draw conclusions on the events and the actions of those involved based on media reports never cease to amaze me. You werent there, and neither was the person writing the “story.”
I can understand debating possibilities, but to directly say the officer was irresponsible based on what little info there is, is rediculous in my opinion.
I expect this BULLSHIT on dumber boards.
On the surface, it certainly looks like the officer did something she shouldn’t have. However, we do NOT have all the facts. Remember, innocent until proven guilty.
Regardless, total tragedy. I cannot imagine how the parents, the grandfather, and the officer feel.
Conclusion…officer was trying to kill a snake in a tree…officer killed a little kid.
Unless he/she was trying to kill the little kid he/she killed a kid that was not the intended target.
Responsible is hitting/killing the intended target…irresponsible is hitting/killing the unintended target…simple as that.
Even if the snake was attacking it does not mitigate the officers responsibilty.
Every round we fire has responsibility/liability firmly attached to it.
I wonder what www.forcescience.org would have to say on this one.
LEO since 1989 and have probably euthanized over 100 animals by firearm in that period.
[QUOTE=the1911fan;69182]Conclusion…officer was trying to kill a snake in a tree…officer killed a little kid.
Based on the article only, I can’t come to that conclusion. The article mentioned that the shots may have been fired by someone else. We don’t know for sure that it was the officer at this point. I’ll leave the conclusion to a court of law.
I posted this as a lesson and a reminder to always observe Rule #4 and to not do stupid things with guns. I did not comment on the police. I have no idea what happened. I will delete the post if is inappropriate.
I was the first to draw blood and I apologize. I have edited my post accordingly.
The OSBI will investigate and then we’ll see what happened, maybe.
2 shots were fired, 2 shots were heard. A little boy was fishing about 200 yards away with his grandpa and was killed. The weeds were tall around the pond so they couldn’t see anybody but you’re still responsible for the bullets fired.
Total tragic accident but if you’re looking for a conspiracy theory and another shooter because it couldn’t have been the officers fault, you need to re-evaluate things.