Are you serious? Unless the officer’s bullet didn’t strike the boy. I’d sure like to hear an any explanation explaining how the officer didn’t act irresponsibly in dealing with a snake in a tree.
I don’t think it is inappropriate at all. While we don’t know for a certainty that the shot was fired by the police officer’s gun, the circumstances serve as a good reminder for rule #4.
I have been in the same position. I was asked by my mother-in-law to kill some pests at her house. It is way out in the boonies. However, shooting the pests with a .22lr would have required elevating the gun and bullet path that I was not comfortable with because I had no idea what was beyond the “target”. So I did the responsible thing, I sought different methods of eliminating the pests.
I have also worked as a police officer in a small town and have been called out to destroy animals hit by cars. Backstop was always a consideration.
+1 i also agree that the actions taken were inappropriate, there should have been a different course of action. shoot at a snake in a tree??? i little bit of common sense can go a long way.
So, was the officer firing “up” at the tree…? I wonder how tall the kid was…? Did the bullet hit a branch and get redirected downward…? If so, would it be able to sustain enough power to travel 200 yds…and penetrate. None this makes a whole lot of sense.
Sad for everyone involved…
Five-year-old Austin Haley was shot in the head and killed Friday night when a Noble, OK police officer shot at a snake killing it and apparently the five-year-old. The boy was fishing at a pond nearby with his grandfather Jack Tracy at the time.
Speaking of the 9mm bullet, Tracy said, “It went right through the back of his head and came out the front. He was just bleeding severely and I knew, right then, he was most likely dead, right there.”
The first bullet missed Tracy and his grandson. He pulled the boy close to his side protectively just before the second bullet struck the boy in the head
^^^For those looking to blame someone other than the suspected shooter LEO/LEO’s ^^^^^
The Grandfather by protectively grabbing his grandson unknowingly moved the
child into the bullets path, a contributing factor at the very least
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :mad: :mad:
That has to be the dumbest statement in this entire thread. The grandfathers actions were parental instincts. Any parent/guardian in his position would have acted in a similar manner.
I know that sarcasm can be difficult to detect on the internet, so you may want to re-read that post and think about it.
There’s people here getting upset at others for presuming that the officer is responsible for the boy’s death. There’s no need to stress about what others may think. If OK is anything like OR, the officer in question has nothing to worry about. So much hand-wringing in the face of long established precident is silly. Relax people.
This situation sucks all around and my prayers go to all involved.
You have to wonder just what are the chances that two rounds that were fired up into a tree would (a) land in the same area; and (b) hit one of two persons who was anywhere near that particular area.
When I was attending AVOBC and IERW at Fort Rucker, AL; they had an incident where one (or two) individuals who were flying radio-controlled aircraft in a Stagefield were hit by stray .22 rounds. As it turned out, acouple of the local kids were shooting Snapping turtles at a pond about a mile away. Somehow the rounds skipped right off the pond (or a turtle’s shell) and managed to find their mark.
This is why I use shotshells to dispatch snakes and field mice around my backyard. I also use those “Colibri” .22s (no powder) out of my .22 revolver to kill squirells because they do not have enough reach to get past 50 yards. Even then I never not shoot upwards and I am cognizant of what is behind the tree my target is on (usually another tree).
I thought the emoticons would make it clear that my point was utter sarcasm.
Ellery, I imagine your statement goes to the supervisor being the one to take the majority or all of the responsibility for the rookies actions and even the sarge is not responsible legally as an individual. The city is going to be deemed ultimately (financially) vicariously responsible for the actions of the officers. The city will attempt to paint the supervisor and officer as not following procedure/ general orders/ SOP’s and distance themselves from the officers. If the fatal round did come from the officers attempt to kill the snake the city/cities insurance co. will be out millions in a settlement.
I sincerely hope that the investigation finds that a round fired from another source was the fatal round.
On LEO websites there is little sympathy for the officers/ their actions
I’d like to hear what kind of snake it was. Unless it was venomous or one of the giant non native snakes, I would have left it in the tree. I hope this thread gets refired when the official report comes out in 2017.
Two points of this story don’t make sense to me. Maybe someone here can clear this up.
-
Why does a snake in a bird house justify the use of a firearm? I’m not suggesting people would be happy about a snake in a bird house, but police leveling a firearm at it seems pretty excessive to me. How about go back inside your house and give it a few hours…the snake will likely be gone. Maybe the snake was poisonous? The article doesn’t say. I can tell you this though. I live in Florida, which has a fairly high concentration of venomous snakes. It would be almost unheard of that a report of a venomous snake would be dealt with by using a firearm. IMO, a gross over reaction right from the start. Though the story doesn’t say, it’s somewhat unlikely that the snake in question was venomous. The poisonous snakes in OK are rattlers, Copperheads and cotton mouths…none of which typically hunt in trees or do a lot of climbing to seek prey. I hope for the sake of the LEO involved, that the snake was at least venomous. Its going to be real tough to rationalize the use of a firearm on a non-venomous snake…in a bird house.
-
According to this part of the article:
http://newsok.com/article/3098884
"It went right through the back of his head and came out the front,”
This certainly doesn’t sound like some high arching or downward moving bullet to me. It sounds like a line drive. Maybe the elevation of the shooter vs. the kid is the factor? Maybe the story is short on specifics? All I know is that any bullet that goes through the back of a head and comes out the front is moving fairly fast and most likely on a rather flat trajectory (it wasn’t a lobbing shot). It doesn’t “sound” like the weapon that fired the lethal shot was aiming up when it was discharged.
FWIW, my agency’s policy prohibits us from even presenting our sidearm unless it is a life-or-death situation (the only exceptions are during qualification or when placing said handgun into the lock box before gaining entry into lockup or jail).
I’m willing to bet that the Officer who tried to kill the snake in this manner probably broke agency policy, regardless if the snake was venomous (unless it was attacking another human being).
The officers should have notified Animal control.
Small town. May or may not have had animal control services available to them.
For instance, in the town I worked we had a dog catcher who also would handle a stray cat, but snakes? Forgetaboutit.
So far, none of the very knowledgeable shooters here have presented a scenario to diffuse the question as to how the boy was hit while apparently being so close to the officer. It has been asked several times without a response supporting the officer (other than the “don’t draw conclusions yet, despite all the evidence” crowd) :rolleyes: .
However I believe the reason is clear. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that he must have been aiming very low and was very negligent. No two riccochets from a 9mm or any other LEO weapon would have ended up that close together if fired past 45 degrees. Anything lower, you must know your background. Of course, the child could have had some powerful enemies who were in the area at the same exact time :rolleyes: :rolleyes: .
That said, he has likely also ruined himself for life and will never escape her poorly thought out decision. That poor child, fishing with his grandfather. What rotten, horrendous, pathetic bad luck for that little boy. God bless his soul. I am sure he would give anything to bring him back, but it was stupid.
Sorry Ace, I’ll stick with my statement. I don’t know what I don’t know. I have been involved with the press and accurate reporting is quite rare (even when it is about things that don’t really matter). When the investigation is complete, then I can draw conclusions.
The actions taken by the officers don’t appear to be appropriate, based on the story. However, over the years, I’ve found that when I rush to judgement, I’m sometimes wrong. To me this incident is too serious to make speculations, even if what happened appears obvious.
While I disagree to an extent because of all the presented facts in this particular case, I do respect your desire to remain fair until all is said and done. Hope I would be treated so if ever in such a horrible predicament.
Noble officers charged with manslaughter
By Tom Blakey
Transcript Staff Writer
Prosecutors filed second-degree manslaughter charges Friday against two Noble police officers involved in the Aug. 3 accidental shooting that claimed the life of 5-year-old Austin Haley of Noble.
Brad Rogers, 34, and Shawn Richardson, 29, are expected to turn themselves in to authorities next week, said Cleveland County District Attorney Greg Mashburn.
Rogers, who had been on the Noble police force approximately one month, was the officer who reportedly twice fired a .357 semi-automatic handgun in a residential area, attempting to shoot a snake in a bird house. One of the two shots struck Austin Haley in the head while he was fishing at a nearby pond with family members.
Sgt. Richardson was the supervising officer at the scene, Mashburn said.
“Being a member of the law enforcement community made the decision more difficult,” Mashburn said. “At the end of the day, I looked at the law and visited with the family and made the decision based on the law.”
Mashburn said he “thoroughly reviewed” OSBI reports and “personally walked” the scene of the shooting.
The second-degree manslaughter is based upon “culpable negligence,” Mashburn said.
“Culpable negligence is defined as the omission to do something a reasonably careful person would do,” Mashburn said. “Based on my review of the OSBI report and my viewing of the scene, I concluded these officers failed to do something that a reasonably careful person would do by firing a weapon at a non-poisonous snake that was stuck in a birdhouse without knowing what lay behind their location.”
Mashburn said he looked at other cases involving accidental deaths, and determined there “must be some level of accountability for the officers involved.”
Several family members attended Mashburn’s afternoon press conference at the Cleveland County Office Building.
“Just because they wear a uniform doesn’t mean they’re above the law,” said Cheryl Tracy, Austin’s grandmother. “If they had just used their brains, our grandson would not have been shot.”