This is a freak accident. Stop trying to hang some rookie cop over it.Stop trying to defend someone who is so irresponsible that he killed a child.

You've got to be kidding, Leper. People are tried as criminals all the time when do stupid things, ie, drink and drive, take drugs and drive, not seat belt their children and get into an accident in which the children die. There is a case on Long Island right now where they are thinking of bringing criminal charges against the parents of a child who drowned in a neighbor's swimming pool. The parents didn't want their child to drown but they were extremely negligent just as the police officer was extremely negligent.

Stop trying to defend someone who is so irresponsible that he killed a child.

You're right, we should lock him in jail and throw away the key, just so whiny citizens like you can cry about how the justice system is "broken" cause too many people are in jail.

You're right, we should lock him in jail and throw away the key, just so whiny citizens like you can cry about how the justice system is "broken" cause too many people are in jail.


Or we could do what you seem to be suggesting and simply ignore the fact that because of his dumb and irresponsible actions an innocent five year old is dead and two parents have lost their only child.

You've got to be kidding, Leper.

People are tried as criminals all the time when do stupid things, ie...

not seat belt their children and get into an accident in which the children die.



Let's stick to what you said. Name or google me one person who has been convicted for homicide solely because their deceased child was not strapped in a seatbelt in an autoaccident (And don't try to bringing a case of a drunk parent...intoxicated manslaughter is whole different issue).

And no, I don't count instances when someone was "thinking of bringing criminal charges."

Sassy, a wooded area separated the officer from the 'innocent person' so he was not visible to the 'snake hunters'. The officer shot at the snake at the request of the homeowner.

It's pretty easy to find out more details about this story. Google it and you'll come up with over 400,000 hits.

Only place I couldn't find any news about it was in the Ponca City News which is their local newspaper.

And who sez the media tends to blow things out of proportion?

SMW

No you are wrong, the homeowner was not home at the time - they were out of town - and their neighbor saw fit to report the snake. This was revealed 3 hours ago - you gotta keep up.
They are very upset with the cops for their actions.

I'm not saying the cop should be convicted of homocide, per se. I am saying he should be treated at least as harshly as a drunk driver who kills someone.

Why is drunk driving a different issue? In both instances a person made an extrememly poor decision that resulted in the death of an innocent person.

Even had he not killed the child he should be removed from the force for firing his pistol into the air in a residential neighborhood. It was an act so reckless as to require removal from the force.

I'm not saying the cop should be convicted of homocide, per se. I am saying he should be treated at least as harshly as a drunk driver who kills someone.

Why is drunk driving a different issue? In both instances a person made an extrememly poor decision that resulted in the death of an innocent person.

Two important reasons why they are different:

(a)Drunk driving alone is a serious crime, because of the widely recognized fact that drunk driving is very dangerous to the public. Shooting a gun at an allegedly poisonous snake (the person who called the police said it was a rattlesnake) is a legal activity.

(b) Drinking is not a duty carried out pursuant to your duties to the public; rather is an activity that has no purpose other than sheer hedonism. An officer trying to help a citizen kill a rattlesnake is an officer just trying to do his job.

Even had he not killed the child he should be removed from the force for firing his pistol into the air in a residential neighborhood. It was an act so reckless as to require removal from the force.

I might agree with that. But the fact that he's brand new makes me think twice about that.

P.S. I'm still waiting for that instance when someone was prosecuted cause their child was not wearing a seatbelt.

This has got to be one of the dumbest things ever posted in Allforums or any other forum.

You say that a lot about other people's posts.


Vile is attempting to make the snake seem dangerous because a child was killed. News Flash, Vile, it was the cop who killed the child, not the snake. The snake was sitting by a birdhouse. Lots of snakes eat baby birds so it is a fairly safe guess that the snake was looking for a baby bird to eat. It was not endangering the cop and it definitely wasn't endangering the five year old.

The only dangerous one here was the cop.

I've been accused of having a dry sense of humor in the past, and it does sometimes garner me some odd looks. Sorry my obtuseness upset you. :)

I must say I find it ironic that you're accusing me of stupidity when it is you who are shouting the loudest that this cop is guilty of a horrendous crime based on nothing more than conflicting, and highly emotional statements reported in the press. If that's your idea of sound reasoning, I can't say I'm insulted by your comment.

Despite all the agonizing reports we read in the press, we won't have a clearer idea of what happened here until the investigation is complete and it is reported on, hopefully in a much less emotional manner. Quoting the horrified and grief-stricken grandfather serves no purpose other than to inflame our emotions and lure us into making a judgment based on our stoked outrage. We know that people don't make sound decisions when they're in a highly emotional state, yet you posted an article designed to appeal to those emotions in an attempt to bolster your argument for the police officer's guilt. Not your best argument. :)

Animal control that collected the snake: it was a plain, black rat snake.

http://www.tomuphoto.com/reptiles/images/black%20rat%20snake%202.jpg
Black Rat Snake
The black rat snake, as the name implies, is completely black except for a white chin. The common rat snake is medium-sized, averaging 42 to 72 inches in length. At the widest point of the snake's body, its average diameter is 1.5 inches. The rat snake is covered with keeled scales, and has a powerful slender body with a wedge-shaped head.

Common rat snakes tend to be shy and, if possible, will avoid being confronted. If these snakes are seen and confronted by danger, they tend to freeze and remain motionless. Common rat snakes are excellent climbers and spend a lot of time in trees.


http://wwwstatic.kern.org/images/calmzoo/wdiamondback.jpg
Western Diamondback Rattlesnake
Its heavy body has dark diamond shaped blotches with light borders. There are two light diagonal lines on the side of its triangular shaped head. The base of the tail is encircled with white and black rings. It can be yellowish grey, pale blue, or even pink in color. There is a postocular stripe that is smoky gray or dark gray-brown and extends diagonally from the lower edge of the eye across the side of the head. This stripe is usually bordered below by a white stripe running from the upper preocular down to the supralabials just below and behind the eye.

The Western diamondback rattlesnake is the largest western rattlesnake. It has a plump body, a short tail, and a broad, triangular head that is very distinct from the body. It can be yellowish gray, pale blue, or pinkish and has dark diamond shape marks down its back.

Solitary outside of mating season, they are one of the more aggressive species found in North America because they rarely back away from confrontation. When threatened they usually coil and shake their rattle to warn an aggressor that it has stumbled upon something dangerous. An aggressive and easily excitable rattlesnake, the western diamondback is responsible for more snakebite deaths than any other in the country.

Diamondbacks occupy dry, rocky, shrub covered terrain where they can conceal themselves in cracks in the rocks and in holes in the ground. Rattlesnakes are capable of climbing trees and shrubs but rarely do so.


This is such 20/20 hindsight. If you saw a rat snake, would you be able to identify it as such?

Yeah. I think I could. I'd sure as hell know it wasn't a diamondback. Y'know, since they don't look or act remotely alike, nor do their habitats bear the slightest resemblance.

The cop was an idiot. If he didn't KNOW that it was a diamondback (and he obviously didn't, because it wasn't), then he acted negligently and is entirely too eager to whip his gun out and shoot just so's he can kill thangs.

Well, that's exactly what he did. :(

Y'know, since they don't look or act remotely alike, nor do their habitats bear the slightest resemblance.

Or maybe they do act "remotely" alike. :)

"When spotted by humans, Black Rat Snakes may freeze and wrinkle themselves into a series of kinks. If cornered, they may attempt to mimic rattlesnakes' behavior by vibrating the tip of their tail, giving a buzzing low-pitch sound."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rat_Snake


The cop was an idiot. If he didn't KNOW that it was a diamondback (and he obviously didn't, because it wasn't), then he acted negligently and is entirely too eager to whip his gun out and shoot just so's he can kill thangs.

Well, that's exactly what he did. :(

I'm curious Fran, from where does your certainty come?

1. I can tell the difference between solid black and a brown-on-tan diamond-like pattern.

2. I can tell the difference between a skinny snake with a narrow head and a plump one with a fat head.

3. Snakes rarely strike without provocation - they have to feel threatened - and that can be anything from stepping on one accidentally to simply standing too close. Most snakes would just rather be left alone. Even the aggressive ones.

The fact that this rat snake was hissing proves that it felt threatened. If the officer had just left it alone (and, if he couldn't stay there until animal control arrived, asked the homeowner to keep an eye on it until that time) it wouldn't have done a thing to anyone - whatever kind of snake it was.

4. Unlike this police officer, I know when and how to use firearms. There isn't a responsible gun owner on earth that would do what this officer did.

He's now the poster child for irresponsible gun use.

1. I can tell the difference between solid black and a brown-on-tan diamond-like pattern.

2. I can tell the difference between a skinny snake with a narrow head and a plump one with a fat head.

Congratulations.


Most snakes would just rather be left alone. Even the aggressive ones.

How nice. Someone who doesn't feel the same love of reptiles you do, called the authorities to get rid of the snake.


The fact that this rat snake was hissing proves that it felt threatened. If the officer had just left it alone (and, if he couldn't stay there until animal control arrived, asked the homeowner to keep an eye on it until that time) it wouldn't have done a thing to anyone - whatever kind of snake it was.

This is a small town, with a small town police force and no local animal control. How much do you think it costs for an animal control officer to come out from the next town, and remove a rat snake?


4. Unlike this police officer, I know when and how to use firearms. There isn't a responsible gun owner on earth that would do what this officer did.

How can you make that call? You have no idea of the surroundings, or the circumstances of the shot.


He's now the poster child for irresponsible gun use.

Are you trying for poster child of irresponsible slogans? :)

You're right, we should lock him in jail and throw away the key, just so whiny citizens like you can cry about how the justice system is "broken" cause too many people are in jail.I never, ever said that people who kill children should not be locked up. Just the opposite, in fact. Are you actually unable to understand that point? Are you an attorney?

I must say I find it ironic that you're accusing me of stupidity when it is you who are shouting the loudest that this cop is guilty of a horrendous crime based on nothing more than conflicting, and highly emotional statements reported in the press. If that's your idea of sound reasoning, I can't say I'm insulted by your comment.

Despite all the agonizing reports we read in the press, we won't have a clearer idea of what happened here until the investigation is complete and it is reported on, hopefully in a much less emotional manner. Quoting the horrified and grief-stricken grandfather serves no purpose other than to inflame our emotions and lure us into making a judgment based on our stoked outrage. We know that people don't make sound decisions when they're in a highly emotional state, yet you posted an article designed to appeal to those emotions in an attempt to bolster your argument for the police officer's guilt. Not your best argument. :)
Well said.

However, now that I've agreed with your post, that's all he'll talk about. ;)

P.S. I'm still waiting for that instance when someone was prosecuted cause their child was not wearing a seatbelt.Would this apply?
§22.041. Abandoning or endangering child.

(a) In this section, "abandon" means to leave a child in any place without providing reasonable and necessary care for the child, under circumstances under which no reasonable, similarly situated adult would leave a child of that age and ability.

(b) A person commits an offense if, having custody, care, or control of a child younger than 15 years, he intentionally abandons the child in any place under circumstances that expose the child to an unreasonable risk of harm.

(c) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or omission, engages in conduct that places a child younger than 15 years in imminent danger of death, bodily injury, or physical or mental impairment.

(c-1) For purposes of Subsection (c), it is presumed that a person engaged in conduct that places a child in imminent danger of death, bodily injury, or physical or mental impairment if the person manufactured the controlled substance methamphetamine in the presence of the child.

(d) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an offense under Subsection (b) is:

(1) a state jail felony if the actor abandoned the child with intent to return for the child; or

(2) a felony of the third degree if the actor abandoned the child without intent to return for the child.

(e) An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the second degree if the actor abandons the child under circumstances that a reasonable person would believe would place the child in imminent danger of death, bodily injury, or physical or mental impairment.

(f) An offense under Subsection (c) is a state jail felony.

(g) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (c) that the act or omission enables the child to practice for or participate in an organized athletic event and that appropriate safety equipment and procedures are employed in the event.

(h) It is an exception to the application of this section that the actor voluntarily delivered the child to a designated emergency infant care provider under Section 262.302, Family Code.

Originally Posted by Frogger
This has got to be one of the dumbest things ever posted in Allforums or any other forum.




You say that a lot about other people's posts.



I've been accused of having a dry sense of humor in the past, and it does sometimes garner me some odd looks. Sorry my obtuseness upset you. :)

I must say I find it ironic that you're accusing me of stupidity when it is you who are shouting the loudest that this cop is guilty of a horrendous crime based on nothing more than conflicting, and highly emotional statements reported in the press. If that's your idea of sound reasoning, I can't say I'm insulted by your comment.

Despite all the agonizing reports we read in the press, we won't have a clearer idea of what happened here until the investigation is complete and it is reported on, hopefully in a much less emotional manner. Quoting the horrified and grief-stricken grandfather serves no purpose other than to inflame our emotions and lure us into making a judgment based on our stoked outrage. We know that people don't make sound decisions when they're in a highly emotional state, yet you posted an article designed to appeal to those emotions in an attempt to bolster your argument for the police officer's guilt. Not your best argument. :)


Vile,

Perhaps you don't consider the following exchange to be an example of stupidity. Maybe you think it was an intelligent response to Sassyrunner's post. I happen to disagree with you.


This snake was in a birdhouse in a tree - was human life endangered??







Apparently so. A child was killed.


Quoting the horrified and grief-stricken grandfather serves no purpose other than to inflame our emotions and lure us into making a judgment based on our stoked outrage.


You seem upset that the grandfather is grief-stricken. Either that or you think that fact should be hidden. Of course the grandfather is grief=stricken. His grandchild was killed right before his eyes due to the actions of a police officer. He heard the thunk as the bullet entered the child's skull and saw the blood. The fact that he is grief-stricken should be reported to show the enormity of what happened. This wasn't just a stray bullet that hit a tree. It was a stray bullet that killed a five year old and left his grandfather and his parents grief-stricken.

One of the first rules of shooting is, never shoot a rifle or pistol into the air. That is exactly what the officer did. Even if he hit the snake the bullet would travel right through it. It isn't as if he was shooting into a two by four. It was a thin snake, something that would offer no resistance to a bullet.

You seem to think that the fact that he was new to the force somehow mitigates what happened. It doesn't. How long he has been on the force doesn't make his actions any less stupid or the child any less dead. Neither will waiting until emotions are no longer raw. Time will not bring the child back or change what the officer did. He fired a pistol into the air and because of that an innocent child is dead. Those are the facts and all the excuses in the world won't change that.

You seem upset that the grandfather is grief-stricken. Either that or you think that fact should be hidden.

I'm not upset that the grandfather was grief-stricken, nor do I think it should be hidden. I also think the level of grief is irrelevant to the police officer's guilt.


Of course the grandfather is grief=stricken. His grandchild was killed right before his eyes due to the actions of a police officer.

Seems obvious.


He heard the thunk as the bullet entered the child's skull and saw the blood. The fact that he is grief-stricken should be reported to show the enormity of what happened.

Did you not understand that the family was grief-stricken before you read your emotion-laden article? I did. Does the fact that the grandfather heard and saw these things make the police officer more responsible in your opinion?


This wasn't just a stray bullet that hit a tree. It was a stray bullet that killed a five year old and left his grandfather and his parents grief-stricken.

Duh.


One of the first rules of shooting is, never shoot a rifle or pistol into the air. That is exactly what the officer did.

You know this how? You don't. You are assuming this. It may very well be true, but you are basing your condemnation of the police officer on assumptions.


Even if he hit the snake the bullet would travel right through it. It isn't as if he was shooting into a two by four. It was a thin snake, something that would offer no resistance to a bullet.

And what, from the visual perspective of the officer who fired the shot, was in his line-of-sight behind the snake? You don't know, and I don't know.


You seem to think that the fact that he was new to the force somehow mitigates what happened. It doesn't. How long he has been on the force doesn't make his actions any less stupid or the child any less dead.

Perhaps not, but if he was an officer-in-training, and the other officer was his supervisor, I would certainly want to know what words were exchanged between them before I attempted to place blame for this tragedy.


Neither will waiting until emotions are no longer raw. Time will not bring the child back or change what the officer did.

Neither will succumbing to your human desire to blame someone for what may have been just a horrible mistake.


He fired a pistol into the air and because of that an innocent child is dead. Those are the facts and all the excuses in the world won't change that.

And repeating that assumptions are "facts" will not make them so. Your argument is based on your emotional outrage, not on any "facts" you think you know. But keep calling me "stupid" if it makes you feel better, Frogger. I understand. :)

No you are wrong, the homeowner was not home at the time - they were out of town - and their neighbor saw fit to report the snake. This was revealed 3 hours ago - you gotta keep up.
They are very upset with the cops for their actions.

Like I said, Sassy... if you google the story, you can actually find hundreds of thousands of versions. NONE from the local paper, however.

Police officer shooting at snake apparently kills boy fishing with granddad in Oklahoma

(AP) - NOBLE, Oklahoma-A police officer shooting at a snake apparently killed a 5-year-old boy who was fishing at a nearby pond, officials said.

Austin Haley was fishing with his grandfather, Jack Tracy, when Tracy said he heard a shot and saw something hit the water just a few feet in front of the boat dock where he was standing.

Moments later, a second shot hit Austin in the head.

A Noble police officer who had responded to a report of a snake in a tree apparently fired the deadly shot while trying to kill the snake on Friday, City Manager Bob Wade said.

"I was told that they tried several ways to get the snake down, but it was still hissing at them and firmly lodged," Wade said. "What I was told is that the owner of the home either suggested or agreed that they should go ahead and shoot the snake, and then everything happened from there."

Tracy thought someone must be trying to kill him and his grandson, so he put the child on the back his vehicle and drove to his daughter's house about 200 yards (182 meters) away.

"Then two officers came out of the brush over there," he told The Oklahoman. "They didn't tell us they were the ones who had been shooting or that they had shot him. They didn't admit a doggone thing."

The boy was pronounced dead at an Oklahoma City hospital, about 25 miles (40 kilometers) north of Noble.

Wade refused to identify the officer but said the person had been placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation.

"This is so bizarre it has to be fully investigated," he said. "We're pretty sure circumstantially that it is the bullet from the police officer's gun, but it might be a bullet from someone else."

Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation spokeswoman Jessica Brown said a state investigation was under way, though it appeared the fatal shot had been fired by the officer.

Tracy has little doubt. "I'm not saying the cop shot him on purpose," he said. "But let me tell you - if I had a kid and put him in this car and didn't put him in a car seat and he got killed on the way to town, they'd charge me with murder ... and what this cop did is a lot worse than that."

2007-08-06T13:28:29Z

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/08-06-2007/3bd5000cb805f52e.html

That is so sad! The cop should have called animal control and that cop should be fired I don't know what he was thinking. I've been up since 7am and I watched headline news this morning and this is the first I'm hearing of this story but you think that cop would be smarter than that.

Like I said, Sassy... if you google the story, you can actually find hundreds of thousands of versions. NONE from the local paper, however.
2007-08-06T13:28:29Z

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/08-06-2007/3bd5000cb805f52e.htmlWhy paste the story from a couple of days ago when Sassy is saying that new info has been reported in the matter? Am I missing something here?

Why paste the story from a couple of days ago when Sassy is saying that new info has been reported in the matter? Am I missing something here?

No, Shiloh, you're not missing a thing. My point is, there is a tremendous amount of conflicting info out there about this case. The article I posted contained a direct quote from an eyewitness. Regardless of the fact that there remains CONFLICTING INFO about the circumstances, some people here have already made up their minds and would have the cop hung if it were up to them. Just hoping they're not on any jury I'm ever involved with.

Fortunately, it's not up to any of us to say what happens to the cop for his part in this TRAGIC ACCIDENT in small-town, OK. I'm not saying he should get off scott free... but neither am I saying hang him from the highest tree.

Deskchair detectives just irritate me, that's all.

:)
SMW

Seems obvious.

Yes, it does seem obvios that the grandfather is grief-stricken. That's why I don't understand your annoyance at that fact being mentioned in the newspaper article. Or are you suggesting that I should have altered the article I cut and pasted to omit that part?





Did you not understand that the family was grief-stricken before you read your emotion-laden article? I did. Does the fact that the grandfather heard and saw these things make the police officer more responsible in your opinion?

No, it doesn't make the officer's actions more horrible. What it does is lend some perspective to the results of his actions.




You know this how? You don't. You are assuming this. It may very well be true, but you are basing your condemnation of the police officer on assumptions.

It is not an assumption on my part that you should never shoot a pistol or rifle into the air. I have taken hunter safety courses twice and served in the military where I was taught weapons safety. One of the first things they tell you is to never shoot a weapon into the air.



And what, from the visual perspective of the officer who fired the shot, was in his line-of-sight behind the snake? You don't know, and I don't know.

It is obvious that his line of sight did not include what was in the path of his bullets. If he saw the grandfather and child and still shot he would be a murderer. He didn't see them so it was an accident but still an accident caused by his unbelievably stupid behavior.



Perhaps not, but if he was an officer-in-training, and the other officer was his supervisor, I would certainly want to know what words were exchanged between them before I attempted to place blame for this tragedy.

Now who is making assumptions? You keep mentioning his being an officer in training. You don't know that. You are simply assuming that. You also don't know that the other officer present was his supervisor. That is just another assumption on your part.



Neither will succumbing to your human desire to blame someone for what may have been just a horrible mistake.

A mistake is putting taco sauce on your hamburger instead of ketchup. This was more than a mistake. It was a tragedy caused by the officer's behavior.



And repeating that assumptions are "facts" will not make them so. Your argument is based on your emotional outrage, not on any "facts" you think you know.

You are the one assuming that he was a trainee officer and that the other cop present was his supervisor. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

But keep calling me "stupid" if it makes you feel better, Frogger. I understand. :)

I didn't call you stupid. I called your post stupid. I guess you actually don't understand.

No you are wrong, the homeowner was not home at the time - they were out of town - and their neighbor saw fit to report the snake. This was revealed 3 hours ago - you gotta keep up.
They are very upset with the cops for their actions.Can you source that newer report for us, please? We'd like to keep up.

Congratulations.

Sarcasm doesn't become you, Vile. Nor does willful ignorance. The snake was reported as a diamondback rattler. Any idiot with eyeballs - including a trained police officer - could tell that the snake in question was NOT a diamondback rattler.

How nice. Someone who doesn't feel the same love of reptiles you do, called the authorities to get rid of the snake.

I don't love reptiles. I just don't see the necessity of shooting up into a tree to kill a harmless snake.

This is a small town, with a small town police force and no local animal control. How much do you think it costs for an animal control officer to come out from the next town, and remove a rat snake?

Regardless of the cost, animal control exists for a purpose - to professionally and safely remove unwanted or dangerous animals/creatures from private and municipal property. Had the creature(s) in question been a swarm of aggressive killer bees, should animal control not be called because of the potential cost? What about rabid dogs? Raccoons or wildcats that harass or kill livestock or family pets? Which creatures/situations do you think DO warrant calling animal control and which do not?

Beyond this, as already noted, the snake in question is easily identified as NOT a rattler and it did not pose an immediate threat to anyone nearby. It was up in a tree, in a bird house, hissing at the people who were harassing it.

How can you make that call? You have no idea of the surroundings, or the circumstances of the shot.

I can make this call because the very first lesson of responsible gun ownership is to never aim or discharge your weapon in an unsafe direction. Surroundings and circumstance do not enter into this inviolable rule of responsible gun use, and bullets that go up always come back down somewhere.

Another of the most important rules of responsible use of firearms is to KNOW your target and never shoot unless it's absolutely necessary. Given the situation (an annoyed non-lethal black snake in a tree), any responsible gun owner would tell you that discharging a firearm in this situation was NOT absolutely necessary.

Another of the most important rules of responsible gun use is to know what lies beyond your target before firing your weapon. This officer didn't bother to properly check what was beyond his line of sight.

But please, don't believe me. Check it out for yourself:

Firearms Safety

1. Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.
2. Firearms should be unloaded and secured when not in use.
3. Do not rely on your gun's "safety."
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
5. Use the correct ammunition.
6. If your gun fails to fire, handle with care!
7. Always wear ear and eye protection when shooting.
8. Be sure the barrel is clear of any obstructions.
9. Do not alter or modify your firearm.
10. Learn your gun’s mechanical and handling characteristics.

--Firearm Safety Rules from Lipsey's (https://www.lipseys.com/firearmsafety.aspx)

The NRA recommends following similar gun safety rules:

ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
This is the primary rule of gun safety. A safe direction means that the gun is pointed so that even if it were to go off it would not cause injury or damage. The key to this rule is to control where the muzzle or front end of the barrel is pointed at all times. Common sense dictates the safest direction, depending on different circumstances.

Know your target and what is beyond.
Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt. Equally important, be aware of the area beyond your target. This means observing your prospective area of fire before you shoot. Never fire in a direction in which there are people or any other potential for mishap. Think first. Shoot second.

Be aware that certain types of guns and many shooting activities require additional safety precautions. --NRA Gun Safety Rules (http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp)

Additionally, firing into the air is against the law in many (most?) communities:

"Even though some consider [shooting your firearm into the air on New Years Eve] a tradition, it is extremely dangerous and a violation of the law," Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. said in a statement. He went on to say: "In densely populated urban areas, this behavior is not only illegal, but it's reckless. There is no way of predicting where the bullet will land. Criminal charges for this type of offense range from Endangering Safety by Use of a Dangerous Weapon to Reckless Homicide in the event of a death, with penalties ranging from nine months to 25 years in prison. "

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says bullets fired into the air can return to the ground at speeds greater than 200 feet per second, which the agency describes as "a sufficient force to penetrate the human skull and cause serious injury or death." --Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=381365)

Vile, if I recall correctly, you don't own a gun (and never have?), so your knowledge of such things would necessarily be lacking.

I do own a gun. I've had the proper training in its use, storage, and care. I think, at least on this matter, you would be wise in accepting that some people know more about the safe handling and use of weapons than you do.

Sadly, this police officer wasn't one of them. :(

Well, that about clears it up, I think.:drinktoth

Well, that about clears it up, I think.:drinktoth


Now lets take the Cop, and who ever called him, out behind the barn and shoot them both. :thumbs:

Now lets take the Cop, and who ever called him, out behind the barn and shoot them both. :thumbs:Joke, right?

One of the first rules of shooting is, never shoot a rifle or pistol into the air. That is exactly what the officer did.

You know this how? You don't. You are assuming this. It may very well be true, but you are basing your condemnation of the police officer on assumptions.
There's no assumption involved, Vile. Frogger's absolutely right. The only time firing a handgun in the air is an option is when you're on PRIVATE property (and taking that into consideration - any person with half a brain should know how much land they're dealing with (i.e. square acreage; forested or flat), where they're positioned in it, and the trajectory of the round they're firing skyward. Trust me, it's NOT rocket science, and nor is it discharging a firearm within city limits – WHICH, mind you, cops are only given a special dispensation for in life-threatening situations). Even while hunting on private property, shooting INTO THE AIR is a risky maneuver that's generally frowned upon by fellow hunters/plinkers (as it's usually NOT required with any weapon other than a shotgun), and moreover, it typically carries with it a five minute lecture on why it's not a good idea in the first place. This assclown should NOT be allowed to own a weapon, period.

Look, if the officers who beat down a scumbag like Rodney King (a convicted felon and drug user, who actually THREATENED the life of real police officers (and innocent citizens alike) after a ten minute long chase at speeds over a hundred while traveling THRU residential neighborhoods) can take the fall for their actions in the public's eye (which I'm sure you were happy about – I mean, after all, poor Rodney was a "victim", right?), then surely, this son-of-a-bitch can man up and face the (hopefully criminal) charges for his stupidity.

Vile, if I recall correctly, you don't own a gun (and never have?), so your knowledge of such things would necessarily be lacking.
Yes, he does - he owns James Bond's old gun; a Walther PPKS chambered in .380.

The NRA recommends following similar gun safety rules:

1. Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.
2. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
These are the two cardinal rules of gun safety while on the shooting field, period. And EVERY responsible gun owner observes them as absolute. The third is don't switch the safety off or put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot.

Exactly.

I don't often agree with Fran but when she's right, she's right. Great post, Fran.

Yes, it does seem obvios that the grandfather is grief-stricken. That's why I don't understand your annoyance at that fact being mentioned in the newspaper article. Or are you suggesting that I should have altered the article I cut and pasted to omit that part?

I'm saying that the grandfather's grief isn't relevant to the officer's guilt or innocence.


No, it doesn't make the officer's actions more horrible. What it does is lend some perspective to the results of his actions.

We know what the results were. What we are discussing is the officer's culpability.


It is not an assumption on my part that you should never shoot a pistol or rifle into the air. I have taken hunter safety courses twice and served in the military where I was taught weapons safety. One of the first things they tell you is to never shoot a weapon into the air.

Your assumption isn't that you shouldn't do that, your assumption is that the cop did that.


It is obvious that his line of sight did not include what was in the path of his bullets. If he saw the grandfather and child and still shot he would be a murderer. He didn't see them so it was an accident but still an accident caused by his unbelievably stupid behavior.

If your assumption that the officer fired his gun "into the air" is correct, I would probably agree with you that his action lacked intelligence.


Now who is making assumptions? You keep mentioning his being an officer in training. You don't know that. You are simply assuming that. You also don't know that the other officer present was his supervisor. That is just another assumption on your part.

This was my statement:

"Perhaps not, but if he was an officer-in-training, and the other officer was his supervisor, I would certainly want to know what words were exchanged between them before I attempted to place blame for this tragedy."

Notice I said "if". No assumptions here.


It was a tragedy caused by the officer's behavior.

Can you prove that, or are we just supposed to accept on your word that the officer is to blame?


You are the one assuming that he was a trainee officer and that the other cop present was his supervisor. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Again Frogger, you need to read people's posts a little more carefully.


I didn't call you stupid. I called your post stupid. I guess you actually don't understand.

Oh but I do understand. When horrible things happen to the innocent we desperately want to affix blame, because such an apparently random violent death upsets our sense of security, and threatens our perception of the universe. We don't want to believe that bad things happen to good people, or that even a person exercising reasonable care can "cause" a tragic accident. Some of us, in our desire to affix blame, will do so regardless of the quality, or quantity, of the evidence available to us. We naturally more readily accept the evidence that bolsters our preconceived notion of guilt, and we can dismiss that evidence which contradicts our idea more easily. It's a human failing and everyone falls victim to it from time to time, myself included. Still, we can try not to fall prey to our emotions and remain calm in the face of such tragedies.

Would this apply?
§22.041. Abandoning or endangering child.

(a) In this section, "abandon" means to leave a child in any place without providing reasonable and necessary care for the child, under circumstances under which no reasonable, similarly situated adult would leave a child of that age and ability.

(b) A person commits an offense if, having custody, care, or control of a child younger than 15 years, he intentionally abandons the child in any place under circumstances that expose the child to an unreasonable risk of harm.

(c) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or omission, engages in conduct that places a child younger than 15 years in imminent danger of death, bodily injury, or physical or mental impairment.


.

No, not putting a seat belt on your child is not putting a child in imminent danger of death, etc.

And since I haven't heard any basis for Frogger's statement that a parent would be prosecuted for homicide for an un-seatbelted child, I'm going to presume that Frogger was F.o.S. and just making stuff up to support his point.

[url="http://www.eastriding.gov.uk/corp-docs/cis/handinhandparents/newsletter_v2_11_06.pdf"]

The above is a PDF file so I couldn't cut and paste it.

Sarcasm doesn't become you, Vile. Nor does willful ignorance.

My apologies. I wasn't attempting to be sarcastic, I was expressing my frustration with the irrelevance of your argument.


The snake was reported as a diamondback rattler. Any idiot with eyeballs - including a trained police officer - could tell that the snake in question was NOT a diamondback rattler.

Honestly Fran, I don't think it matters at all whether the snake was venomous or not, but since you seem to think so, and I like snakes...

"Forty-six species of snakes are native to Oklahoma. Only
seven species (15%) are potentially harmful to humans.
Venomous species include the copperhead, cottonmouth,
western diamondback rattlesnake, timber rattlesnake, prairie
rattlesnake, western massasauga, and western pigmy rattle-
snake."

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:TwtJgBYgqBkJ:osuextra.okstate.edu/pdfs/F-9010web.pdf+Snakes+of+Oklahoma&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us


I don't love reptiles. I just don't see the necessity of shooting up into a tree to kill a harmless snake.

Neither do I, but it wasn't my tree, and I didn't see the snake.:)


Regardless of the cost, animal control exists for a purpose - to professionally and safely remove unwanted or dangerous animals/creatures from private and municipal property. Had the creature(s) in question been a swarm of aggressive killer bees, should animal control not be called because of the potential cost? What about rabid dogs? Raccoons or wildcats that harass or kill livestock or family pets? Which creatures/situations do you think DO warrant calling animal control and which do not?

You're kidding right?


Beyond this, as already noted, the snake in question is easily identified as NOT a rattler...

We covered this already. Contrary to your statement, the Rat Snake in question can easily be misidentified as a rattler. You're not being willfully ignorant here are you? ;)


...and it did not pose an immediate threat to anyone nearby. It was up in a tree, in a bird house, hissing at the people who were harassing it.


I can make this call because the very first lesson of responsible gun ownership is to never aim or discharge your weapon in an unsafe direction.

Please define "unsafe direction", and then, if you can, please tell me how you know that the officer in this incident knowingly fired his gun in an unsafe direction.


Surroundings and circumstance do not enter into this inviolable rule of responsible gun use,

Of course they do. Always. Unless I'm mistaken as to your meaning here.


and bullets that go up always come back down somewhere.

Can't argue with that.;)


Another of the most important rules of responsible use of firearms is to KNOW your target and never shoot unless it's absolutely necessary. Given the situation (an annoyed non-lethal black snake in a tree), any responsible gun owner would tell you that discharging a firearm in this situation was NOT absolutely necessary.

I can't agree with you that shooting a snake in your backyard makes you an irresponsible gun owner.


Another of the most important rules of responsible gun use is to know what lies beyond your target before firing your weapon. This officer didn't bother to properly check what was beyond his line of sight.

Yeah. Was he supposed to make that judgment from his vantage point as the shooter, or was he supposed to physically check the area behind the snake?


Vile, if I recall correctly, you don't own a gun (and never have?), so your knowledge of such things would necessarily be lacking.

Your recollection is incorrect on both counts.


I do own a gun.

Just one? :)


I've had the proper training in its use, storage, and care. I think, at least on this matter, you would be wise in accepting that some people know more about the safe handling and use of weapons than you do.

No doubt that's true Fran, some people do. For what it's worth, you're a year older than I am. I got my first rifle when I was 16. Since then I've owned and/or fired a variety of weapons, from muzzle-loaders to a MAC-10. I have a degree in Police Science, and worked for five years for an international armored car company where one of my duties was to take new employees to the pistol range for qualification. That being said, while I'm certainly not an expert in safe firearms handling, I feel qualified enough to hold a discussion with you on allforums. :)


Sadly, this police officer wasn't one of them. :(

It's entirely possible that you're completely right about that.

I have watched the Vile/Frogger back-and-forth and to me to snake breed is irrelevent, the request is too. All that matters is that someone willfully fired a weapon in such a manner that he killed a child. It doesn't matter if there was a scarey/nice snake, or if the shooter was a crackhead/cop, or new/experienced. You are responsible for your bullet and knowing where it could go.

You guys who defend this idiot make me crazy. I bet it'd be different if it was some projects kid in his backyard shooting at snakes. If my kids were irresponsible while playing ball and put one through your window, they'd damn sure get punished, and have to pay for the repairs.

But behind a badge it's okay to kill somebody and just say sorry? Sick.

Gun safety exists so gun accidents don't happen. If a person manages to hit a person instead of his target, proper safety was not exercised. The cop should be held accountable for criminal negligence. If there was any more information we needed to know, the article would have listed it. We need no more information than what is in the article to determine that the cop was negligent, assuming the article happened as was written.

All that matters is that someone willfully fired a weapon in such a manner that he killed a child. It doesn't matter if there was a scarey/nice snake, or if the shooter was a crackhead/cop, or new/experienced. You are responsible for your bullet and knowing where it could go.

What happens when you exhibit reasonable care about where your bullet will go and someone gets killed anyway?


You guys who defend this idiot make me crazy. I bet it'd be different if it was some projects kid in his backyard shooting at snakes.

Of course it would. I wouldn't expect the "projects" to be in a town of 5,000 in a semi-rural area.


If my kids were irresponsible while playing ball and put one through your window, they'd damn sure get punished, and have to pay for the repairs.

This presumes of course that they knew the window was there.


But behind a badge it's okay to kill somebody and just say sorry? Sick.

I really have no idea what to say to that.

It brings to mind a Charles Babbage quote..."I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

What happens when you exhibit reasonable care about where your bullet will go and someone gets killed anyway?Got an example of such an event?

Of course it would. I wouldn't expect the "projects" to be in a town of 5,000 in a semi-rural area.So people being near by should be a factor? Not to this cowboy.

This presumes of course that they knew the window was there.Before you fire a gun, you find out!
I really have no idea what to say to that.

It brings to mind a Charles Babbage quote..."I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."I'm sure you don't. But you can still circle the wagons for one of your brothren, huh?

What happens when you exhibit reasonable care about where your bullet will go and someone gets killed anyway?
You didn't exercise reasonable care, then.

What snakes I have killed (all copperheads), I used a hoe. It's quite effective and doesn't cost anything to "swing". Of course, I never killed a snake in a tree... just avoided the tree till he vacated.

:D

Got an example of such an event?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021300452.html

:D


So people being near by should be a factor?

Of course. Do you suspect the police officer knew the child was in his line of fire but he shot the snake anyway?


Not to this cowboy.


Before you fire a gun, you find out!

Do you hunt?


I'm sure you don't. But you can still circle the wagons for one of your brothren, huh?

What?

You didn't exercise reasonable care, then.

Happily, your definition of "reasonable care" differs from the legal one.

There's no assumption involved, Vile. Frogger's absolutely right. The only time firing a handgun in the air is an option is when you're on PRIVATE property (and taking that into consideration - any person with half a brain should know how much land they're dealing with (i.e. square acreage; forested or flat), where they're positioned in it, and the trajectory of the round they're firing skyward.

Gee...according to some here you NEVER fire a weapon into the air. (I assume they make an exception for skeet shooters and bird hunters)


Trust me, it's NOT rocket science, and nor is it discharging a firearm within city limits – WHICH, mind you, cops are only given a special dispensation for in life-threatening situations).

Hogwash. The rules regarding the use of deadly force don't change when you're inside "city limits". Further, the use of deadly force is allowed in many non life-threatening circumstances.


Even while hunting on private property, shooting INTO THE AIR is a risky maneuver that's generally frowned upon by fellow hunters/plinkers (as it's usually NOT required with any weapon other than a shotgun), and moreover, it typically carries with it a five minute lecture on why it's not a good idea in the first place. This assclown should NOT be allowed to own a weapon, period.

Look, if the officers who beat down a scumbag like Rodney King (a convicted felon and drug user, who actually THREATENED the life of real police officers (and innocent citizens alike) after a ten minute long chase at speeds over a hundred while traveling THRU residential neighborhoods) can take the fall for their actions in the public's eye (which I'm sure you were happy about – I mean, after all, poor Rodney was a "victim", right?), then surely, this son-of-a-bitch can man up and face the (hopefully criminal) charges for his stupidity.

As Turd would say...Wow.

Seriously Prae, you have a major problem with cops, period. In your mind they're guilty until proven innocent.

Of course. Do you suspect the police officer knew the child was in his line of fire but he shot the snake anyway?No, he obviously didn't check, which is why the kid is dead and why he should be prosecuted for negligent homicide.
Do you hunt?Began as a kid. Then twenty years in the military. That's how I know that any responsible person knows you are accountable for your bullet.

What?Well, wouldn't your background (Police Science, armored car) make you a little more likely to be unobjective here?

Happily, your definition of "reasonable care" differs from the legal one.What is the legal definition of "reasonable care" in the state of Oklahoma? Is it "to fire your weapon without knowing what's out there?" Notice the police didn't say they knew he was there yet considered the risk of this snake, which seemed so set on staying in the tree, to be sufficient to warrent firing anyway, given the small likelyhood of actually killing the child.

Vilepagan,

Your continued defense of the police officer's actions have gone beyond being silly. You post stuff like Of course. Do you suspect the police officer knew the child was in his line of fire but he shot the snake anyway?

Whether he knew the child was there is not relevant. He fired his pistol into the air without knowing that there was no one downrange of where he was aiming.

You also have an eerie ability to ignore anything that does not fit in with what you want.

Gee...according to some here you NEVER fire a weapon into the air. (I assume they make an exception for skeet shooters and bird hunters)

Either you know that shotguns are used for skeet shooting and bird hunting and are simply ignoring the fact or you know nothing about the subject about which you are posting.

Shotguns, pistols and rifles all have different characteristics. Pistols and rifles can fire a round for a long distance. A shotgun can fire its pellets for forty to fifty yards at most.

Vilepagan,

Your continued defense of the police officer's actions have gone beyond being silly.

I have defended nobody. My only point in this whole thread is that those who are demanding his head on a platter are doing so based on conflicting, and emotional news stories.


Whether he knew the child was there is not relevant.

Yet you claim the man was criminally negligent?


He fired his pistol into the air without knowing that there was no one downrange of where he was aiming.

For the last time Frogger, that's just an assumption on your part. You don't know that he fired in the air, and you sure as hell don't know what the officer saw from his vantage point as the shooter.


You also have an eerie ability to ignore anything that does not fit in with what you want.

I don't "want" anything here Frogger. I'm not the one trying to convince people this cop is guilty. All I've been saying all along, is that you don't have anywhere near enough accurate information to back up your claims.


Either you know that shotguns are used for skeet shooting and bird hunting and are simply ignoring the fact or you know nothing about the subject about which you are posting.

Shotguns, pistols and rifles all have different characteristics. Pistols and rifles can fire a round for a long distance. A shotgun can fire its pellets for forty to fifty yards at most.

Thank you Frogger. :rolleyes:

Just out of curiosity, has anyone else even tried to familiarize themselves with the area where the shooting took place?

In case you haven't, according to a news story the police in Noble were called to the 300 block of Crest Lane in Noble OK.

Do a Google Earth search for that address and then have a look around.

No, Shiloh, you're not missing a thing. My point is, there is a tremendous amount of conflicting info out there about this case. The article I posted contained a direct quote from an eyewitness. Regardless of the fact that there remains CONFLICTING INFO about the circumstances, some people here have already made up their minds and would have the cop hung if it were up to them. Just hoping they're not on any jury I'm ever involved with.

Well said, SMW.

Here's the latest installment of "conflicting" news stories.

http://www.normantranscript.com/localnews/local_story_222012328

Some details from the story:

"The officers responded to an animal complaint call in the 300 block of Crest Lane Friday evening.

The note on the call on the emergency radio log for Friday evening reads, "brown diamond head snake hanging from neighbor's porch."


"Officials have not confirmed what kind of snake it was. The initial report from OSBI was of a water moccasin."

"An anonymous source at the Norman Animal Shelter said the snake was a black rat snake, according to unconfirmed published reports. Rat snakes are not venomous, but can be confused with the kinds that are."


"Officers do receive training in the use of force, including firearms training, Emmons said.

"That would have been specific to identifying the target and being aware of the backdrop, what's behind the target," he said.

When it comes to whether to shoot an animal, Emmons said officers are told to refer to their own department's policy.

Noble's policy on the use of firearms says they may be used to destroy an animal that represents a threat to public safety.

"Except for exigent circumstances, supervisor approval is required," according to the policy.

Noble City Manager Bob Wade said a shift supervisor with five years' experience was at the scene of the shooting Friday."

Gee...according to some here you NEVER fire a weapon into the air. (I assume they make an exception for skeet shooters and bird hunters).
I (along with several others) mentioned shotguns. :confused: If the officer in question had simply used his, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Hogwash. The rules regarding the use of deadly force don't change when you're inside "city limits". Further, the use of deadly force is allowed in many non life-threatening circumstances.
I'll admit that I don't know the law, per se - but what I do know, without doubt, is that officers are EXPECTED to use a modicum of judgment (especially when it comes to discharging a weapon). Firing a slug (bullet) into the air at a snake within city limits (while demonstrating a flagrant disregard for where the round might land) doesn't qualify. It's was utter stupidity in the extreme, and rightly, he should be charged for being derelict of his duty, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If it had been you or I, then we'd be front page news, our identity would've been revealed to the public, and we'd be rotting in jail until our arraignment (provided that we couldn't post the 25,000 dollar requisite bond, that is.....).
As Turd would say...Wow.

Seriously Prae, you have a major problem with cops, period. In your mind they're guilty until proven innocent.
Well, that's how they treat us, so why should we assess their conduct any differently? That said, you're right - I hate the fuckers. It's high time they're held accountable for their actions. They love to sanctimoniously slap the cuffs on others for their actions, so why not give 'em a taste of their own medicine? Oh, that's right....because they're cops; they're "above" it..... :rolleyes:

He fired his pistol into the air without knowing that there was no one downrange of where he was aiming.


For the last time Frogger, that's just an assumption on your part. You don't know that he fired in the air, and you sure as hell don't know what the officer saw from his vantage point as the shooter.

Since there was a five year old child downrange of where he was shooting he obviously didn't know that there was no one downrange of where he was aiming. If he did know there was someone there and shot anyway that would be even worse.

The snake was partially in a birdhouse that was on a pole. Unless the officer climbed a tree or a ladder he was aiming toward the sky. So yes, I do know that he fired into the air.

SMW states that there is conflicting information about the case. The only things not conflicted are the fact that the officer fired his pistol into the air and his second bullet hit a child in the head, killing him. Those are the only salient facts. All the rest doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the homeowner called him or if a neighbor called him. It doesn't matter if it was a Black Rat Snake or a Diamondback Rattle Snake. It doesn't matter if there were two people down range or one hundred. It doesn't matter that it was a small town. What matters is the fact that the officer fired his pistol into the air and accidently killed a five year old child. What matters is he ignored one of the most fundamental rules of gun safety. What matters is he is culpable in the child's death.

You can try to paint it any way you want but it all boils down to, an officer fired his gun into the air and a young child was killed by that bullet.

The snake was partially in a birdhouse that was on a pole. Unless the officer climbed a tree or a ladder he was aiming toward the sky. So yes, I do know that he fired into the air.
The autopsy will reveal (quite simply) whether or not the shot came from above or (even more disturbingly) from a flat angle, for that would indicate (given the general ballistics of a 9mm hollow point...admittedly a "hotter" round than a .40 or a .45 (in FPS and distance traveled, that is)) that the child was MUCH closer than we originally thought.

That aside, it's silly of us to assume he was "responsible" enough to get a ladder or climb a tree, yet too lazy (or too stupid, for that matter - which, as I see it, is a far more likely scenario) to get the shotgun from his cruiser.

You can try to paint it any way you want but it all boils down to, an officer fired his gun into the air and a young child was killed by that bullet.

That's reason enough to get your pitchforks and torches! Get Dick Cheney while you're at it.

Btw, your "example" was just a flyer about seatbelts in Britain....that's real, real weak if that's all you have to support your belief that parents are prosecuted for homicide when their unseatbelted children get killed.

That's reason enough to get your pitchforks and torches! Get Dick Cheney while you're at it.Maybe the kid should have been wearing a bright orange hat and vest. This comparision with a hunting "accident" is so lame I just called my kids down to read it. Cracked 'em up! "Now kids, you know that when you go fishin' with Grandpa, you might be killed by a police officer, right?":lolhit:

I have watched the Vile/Frogger back-and-forth and to me to snake breed is irrelevent, the request is too. All that matters is that someone willfully fired a weapon in such a manner that he killed a child. It doesn't matter if there was a scarey/nice snake, or if the shooter was a crackhead/cop, or new/experienced. You are responsible for your bullet and knowing where it could go.

You guys who defend this idiot make me crazy. I bet it'd be different if it was some projects kid in his backyard shooting at snakes. If my kids were irresponsible while playing ball and put one through your window, they'd damn sure get punished, and have to pay for the repairs.

But behind a badge it's okay to kill somebody and just say sorry? Sick.

I agree with you and the family does too - I will get you more info on the homeowner not being at home - I live here in Okla - so don't have to "google anything". And, like you said - "it doesn't really matter "- he killed the child.

Originally Posted by Frogger
This has got to be one of the dumbest things ever posted in Allforums or any other forum.

It was amazingly ignorant to me too.:thumbs:



Originally Posted by Sassyrunner
This snake was in a birdhouse in a tree - was human life endangered??



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vilepagan
Apparently so. A child was killed.




Time will not bring the child back or change what the officer did. He fired a pistol into the air and because of that an innocent child is dead. Those are the facts and all the excuses in the world won't change that.



Exactly right.:(

That's reason enough to get your pitchforks and torches!
Yeah.....I think so. A 5-year-old boy was just killed by an officer of the law. VERY needlessly, I might add.
Get Dick Cheney while you're at it.
Duuuuude.

Weren't you just talking about weak points??? C'mon, now...

Leper,

Your pitchforks and torches comment makes it seem people want the officer executed. You know that's not what people want so stop the hyperbole. People want the officer held responsible for his actions, actions that were incredibly stupid and that go against one of the most fundamental rules of gun safety. It seems you and Vilepagan wish to give the cop a free ride.

This wasn't a stupid action that resulted in someone getting a bump. It was a stupid actiion that resulted in a five year old being killed.

Your pitchforks and torches comment makes it seem people want the officer executed.
Eh....maybe not "executed".....

Perhaps just lamed.










I'm just kidding, but not really.

You can try to paint it any way you want but it all boils down to, an officer fired his gun into the air and a young child was killed by that bullet.

Frogger, you're the one painting the picture here, not me. I haven't commented on the officer's guilt or innocence, you have.

As I've said repeatedly, you may be entirely correct in your assessment of his actions, but if you are, it'll be blind luck, because you're just making up stuff as you go along and caling them "facts". :)

It seems you and Vilepagan wish to give the cop a free ride.

Then I'd have to say that you can't read.


This wasn't a stupid action that resulted in someone getting a bump. It was a stupid actiion that resulted in a five year old being killed.

Or maybe it wasn't a stupid action at all. We'll know once the evidence is examined by the investigators in this case, and not before.

Or maybe it wasn't a stupid action at all. We'll know once the evidence is examined by the investigators in this case, and not before.Well, given what we know right now, it was not only stupid; it was negligent homicide.

Maybe later we will learn something to unseat this position, like the snake had a gun or or was shooting poison at people, or whatever. Then the cop should be decorated for his ability to "protect and serve" the little kid.

Well, given what we know right now, it was not only stupid; it was negligent homicide.

But none of knows any of the important details about this case. The scary part is how many people have convinced themselves that they've got good information to make a decision about the officer's guilt. I second SMW's assertion in that I hope none of you ever gets anywhere near a jury box.

But none of knows any of the important details about this case. The scary part is how many people have convinced themselves that they've got good information to make a decision about the officer's guilt. I second SMW's assertion in that I hope none of you ever gets anywhere near a jury box.I'm basing this obvious position on the information that's available. Given the available info, what do you actually think?

I'm basing this obvious position on the information that's available. Given the available info, what do you actually think?
You can't use the available info.

Unless you're condemning the Iraq war, that is. Then the media can be counted on for using completely accurate, reliable, non-emotional FACT to help you determine your position.

Sheesh, everyone knows that....

You can't use the available info.

Unless you're condemning the Iraq war, that is. Then the media can be counted on for using completely accurate, reliable, non-emotional FACT to help you determine your position.

Sheesh, everyone knows that....Yeah, first all those bodies in Iraq, now a kid in Oklahoma. Someone should take away the press corps guns!

You can't use the available info.


Do you actually believe you have enough good solid information to determine accurately this man's guilt?

Vilepagan,

Answer these simple question with a yes or a no.

1. Was the snake partially in a birdhouse?

2. Did the officer have to raise his pistol in the air to aim at the snake?

3. Did the officer fire his pistol at the snake?

4. If a bullet hits a snake does the bulletl pass through the snake.
5. The officer fired his pistol without knowing there was someone down range of the direction in which he was firing.

6. Was a five year old shot in the head and killed?

Below are job postings for the position of Noble Police Officer and Cleveland County Sheriff Deputy. In both cases, neither organization is attempting to recruit an intelligent law officer. Let’s be serious, a “GED”, just a “HS Diploma”, CLEET certification “not required”, “Certification and experience preferred”. How about requiring a bachelor college degree, or at least an associate’s degree as one method to screen out low intelligence? How about requiring CLEET certification? They are giving this man a gun and the authority to use it. Read their requirements for the job. Pathetic. Outrageous. #1 Noble, Oklahoma Police Department “Skills Required: Must be 21 years of age. Possess a HS Diploma or GED. Must have a valid drivers license. Must not have been convicted of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude. Must be willing to undergo physical agility testing, an MMPI (personality inventory), a polygraph exam, and an Oklahoma Police Pension physical exam. CLEET certification is desirable but not required. Compensation: $21,840 to $30,701 (salary range / fulltime)” #2 The Cleveland County Sheriff's Office “The Cleveland County Sheriff's Office is accepting applications for Deputy Sheriff Salary $25,200-$26,400, Min. Age 21. Certification and experience preferred.” Source: http://www.cleet.state.ok.us/Job_Openings.htm

Do you actually believe you have enough good solid information to determine accurately this man's guilt?You didn't answer my question.

And my point is not to determine guilt, but rather to profer charges. Let the kid have a chance for justice, and the cop a chance to us all that looks can be deceiving.

Given the available info, what do you actually think?

Firstly, I think there isn't enough information to say whether he's guilty or not, but...if I had to make a call now, only on the conflicting reports I've read...I'd say the officer who fired the shots may be in some trouble.

Two reasons mainly. As Prae pointed out, and I was waiting for someone else to mention it, the grandfather said in one report that the bullet hit the boy in the back of the head and came out the front. This could mean many things because it's not a precise description, but one of the things it could mean is that the bullet was not coming at a down angle, but a relatively flat trajectory. This would mean the boy wasn't very far from the shooter. Another point is that two bullets were fired, and both of them apparently passed through whatever obstacles may have been between the shooter and the boy. This would mean that the trees/bushes (if any) weren't very dense.

You didn't answer my question.


Patience project. :)

Two reasons mainly. As Prae pointed out, and I was waiting for someone else to mention it, the grandfather said in one report that the bullet hit the boy in the back of the head and came out the front. This could mean many things because it's not a precise description, but one of the things it could mean is that the bullet was not coming at a down angle, but a relatively flat trajectory. This would mean the boy wasn't very far from the shooter. Another point is that two bullets were fired, and both of them apparently passed through whatever obstacles may have been between the shooter and the boy. This would mean that the trees/bushes (if any) weren't very dense.I have discussed with a Harris County Deputy buddy (fira arms instructer) the issue of in-out on the skull, and his take is that this bullet had a lot of its kenetic energy remaining at the time of impacting the head. Bad for the defense. The bullet wasn't bouncing around a bunch before hitting the child.

(On the first matter, the boy could have been looking downward, which may allow for the falling out of the sky notion. Just trying to be fair.)

Patience project. :):drinktoth

Do you actually believe you have enough good solid information to determine accurately this man's guilt?
And not just because I'm predisposed to hating them with a passion, yes. There's no defense for what he did, period. No sensible human being would've chosen that course of action.

(On the first matter, the boy could have been looking downward, which may allow for the falling out of the sky notion. Just trying to be fair.)
Good point, however I think you mean "flat trajectory" notion.

Good point, however I think you mean "flat trajectory" notion.If he were looking downward, say at the water, the bullet could have been coming from above, as if it had been fired up into the air and fallen back down to hit him.

Vilepagan,

Answer these simple question with a yes or a no.

No. :)


1. Was the snake partially in a birdhouse?

Not to my knowledge. I have seen no news report stating such. I have seen reports that the snake was "on" a birdhouse, in a tree, and on a porch. At this point I'm not prepared to say where the snake was except it was going after a birdhouse in someone's back yard in the 300 block of Crest Lane, in Noble OK. That much seems certain.


2. Did the officer have to raise his pistol in the air to aim at the snake?

At least high enough that he didn't shoot the ground.


3. Did the officer fire his pistol at the snake?

It would seem so.


4. If a bullet hits a snake does the bullet pass through the snake.

That would depend on the bullet and the snake. I wouldn't trust a .22 to go through an anaconda lengthwise, but this bullet apparently did pass through the snake and that's no surprise to anyone, not even the shooter, I'm sure. ;)


5. The officer fired his pistol without knowing there was someone down range of the direction in which he was firing.

Hopefully, he didn't know anyone might be struck by his shots.


6. Was a five year old shot in the head and killed?

If not, this whole thread is a bunch of nonsense.

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]No. :)






Hopefully, he didn't know anyone might be struck by his shots.



Oh Vile - stupidly, he did not know anyone might be struck - obviously the fathead did not even check it out - the grandpa said that after his grandson was shot - the policemen came out when they heard him yelling - THAT, shows you how close they were.

NOBLE, Oklahoma (AP)
""Tracy thought someone must be trying to kill him and his grandson, so he put the child on the back of a 4-wheeler and drove to his daughter's house about 200 yards away. "Then two officers came out of the brush over there," he told The Oklahoman. "They didn't tell us they were the ones who had been shooting or that they had shot him. They didn't admit a doggone thing."

and some blogs from my fellow oklahomans - most who live in Noble.

• In regards to the tragedy in Noble : I have resided in Noble seven years and if this is the decision making skills of the city's police officers then I suggest the city revamp the entire force .
kent, - Aug 8, 2007 7:12 AM
•
• Funny how the dump truck driver in OKC was immediately put in jail for "accidently" running over a 14 year old, but the police officer who committed the same type of "accident" is on "paid administrative leave. I live in Noble, the whole community is heartbroken. We need some answers........
Michael, Noble - Aug 8, 2007 4:24 PM

and this from my friend John, a police officer.

• As a 8 year veteran in Law Enforecement and former marine, I can assure you that....just because someone has a College Degree, doesnt mean that are smart enough to handle the job. I have seen officers with Masters Degree-and the dumbest cop on the force, I have seen officers with a GED- the best cop. Book smarts doesnt mean anything. It helps and a college degree doesnt hurt but.......training and common sense are of the importance. The 2 crimes listed below come from the Oklahoma Statutes down to the letter. I would like everyone to stop referring to this incident as an "ACCIDENT, it is called "2nd Degree Murder-Imminently Dangerous Conduct 21 O.S. 701.8 and Reckless Discharge of a Firearm 21 O.S. 1289.11." Here are the elements of each crime:(form your own opinion now and tell me what ya think:) 2nd Degree Murder-Imminently Dangerous Conduct 21 O.S. 701.8 1.) the death of a human 2.) caused by conduct which was imminently dangerous to another/other persons 3.) the conduct was that of the defendant 4.) the conduct evinced a depraved mind in extreme disregard for human life 5.) the conduct is not done with the intention of taking life of or harming any particular individual. Reckless Discharge of a Firearm 21 O.S. 1289.11 1.) knowingly engaged in conduct 2.) possession of weapon 3.) actions such as creating a situation of unreasonable risk and probability of death or great bodily harm to another 4.) demonstrating a conscious disregard for the safety of another person. In a residential neighborhood, it is not safe to shoot any weapons. There are thousands of places that bullet could go after it hits the primary target. I am truly embarrassed. I am a Law Enforcement officer of 8 years and tonight, while on patrol; at a convienence store, a woman made a statement to me that all cops are idots. I asked her what she was referring to and she stated that the boy should be alive and how could that have happened? We talked for a little bit and I convinced her otherwise, all are not created equal. My heart and prayers go out to the family and just as well to the officer.(Im sure, all parties involved are devastated.) However, I have no reservations for the City Manager or the Chief of police. That officer failed and the City Manager and Chief of Police failed to properly train that officer and furthermore, have no clue....their statements and accusations are absurd. Secondly, rather a citizen gives you permission or not to fire your weapon....you as the officer are liable and (hopefully trained) for your actions and must make the correct decision...(rather you have a split second to do it or not) you can not put the blame on the citizen. Third, the City of Noble probably still maintained the Animal Control equipment....send the second officer back to the station and retrieve the noose bar, while the other officer stays on the scene, then come back and safely remove the snake fourth, after failed attempts with garden tools, and as a very last resort maybe........use your 00 buck shotgun.......maybe.....I said. It is hard to say but... I can honestly say.....I would not have fired my duty weapon period!!!!!!! The only time you are to fire your weapon....when deadly force is authorized!!! I would like all people to maintain there trust in us and to not condem all law enforcement officers. Justice will prevail!!!! Secondly, I asked all persons on this board to pray for the family and the officer!!
john, Oklahoma city - Aug 7, 2007 5:42 PM

I'm guessing they'll go with "Reckless discharge of a firearm". I don't think this rises to "murder" of any degree.

and this from my friend John, a police officer.

• after failed attempts with garden tools, and as a very last resort maybe........use your 00 buck shotgun

Since this is the way I handle poisonous snakes...

Trix are for kids and hoes are for snakes (or a shotgun... I would use birdshot though... 00 is a bit large for a reptile, especially at close range).


:)

I'm guessing they'll go with "Reckless discharge of a firearm". I don't think this rises to "murder" of any degree.
Probably not. But you better believe that if it wasn't a cop...

Yup.

I'm guessing they'll go with "Reckless discharge of a firearm". I don't think this rises to "murder" of any degree.

Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun


the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought



somehow even with all the "facts" that are presented,I didn't see anything where it said the cop knowingly shot the little boy. It was a tragic accident bottom line and nothing anyone says or does will bring this child back or make this cops life whole again.

Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun


the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought



somehow even with all the "facts" that are presented,I didn't see anything where it said the cop knowingly shot the little boy. It was a tragic accident bottom line and nothing anyone says or does will bring this child back or make this cops life whole again.
Agreed, Michelle.

The cop should be charged with reckless discharge of a firearm... and will have to live with this tragedy for the rest of his life.

certainly,he's probably going to feel like no punishment will be severe enough for him.

He should definitely be removed from the force. He has shown by his actions that he cannot be trusted to safely carry a weapon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogger
Vilepagan,

Answer these simple question with a yes or a no.





1. Was the snake partially in a birdhouse?


Not to my knowledge. I have seen no news report stating such. I have seen reports that the snake was "on" a birdhouse, in a tree, and on a porch. At this point I'm not prepared to say where the snake was except it was going after a birdhouse in someone's back yard in the 300 block of Crest Lane, in Noble OK. That much seems certain.

Partially in a birdhouse, on a birdhouse, in a tree and on a porch all mean the snake was not on the ground. The officer had to raise his weapon above forty five degrees to hit the snake.


2. Did the officer have to raise his pistol in the air to aim at the snake?

At least high enough that he didn't shoot the ground.

Agreed



3. Did the officer fire his pistol at the snake?


It would seem so.

In a residential neighborhood. Remember, the grandfather drove only two hundred yards to the child's house. That is only six hundred feet. The officer discharged a firearm unnecessarily in a 'residential' neighborhood.



4. If a bullet hits a snake does the bullet pass through the snake.

That would depend on the bullet and the snake. I wouldn't trust a .22 to go through an anaconda lengthwise, but this bullet apparently did pass through the snake and that's no surprise to anyone, not even the shooter, I'm sure.

Now you are just trying to be funny. Police officers don't carry .22s as their service revolver and he was not shooting at an anaconda lengthwise.




5. The officer fired his pistol without knowing there was someone down range of the direction in which he was firing.


Hopefully, he didn't know anyone might be struck by his shots.

He was firing a powerful weapon in an upward direction in a residential neighborhood. He SHOULD have known that someone might be struck by his shots. That is the crux of the matter. He fired in an unsafe manner in a residential neighborhood.


6. Was a five year old shot in the head and killed?


If not, this whole thread is a bunch of nonsense.

A five year old only six hundred feet from his house was shot and killed by a local law enforcement officer. Noble is a small town so the officer should have known the neighborhood. He should have known he wasn't out in the boondocks. HE FIRED HIS WEAPON IN AN UNSAFE MANNER AND UNNECESSARILY IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD KILLING A FIVE YEAR OLD BOY.
__________________
"We are here on Earth to do good to others. What the others are here for, I don't know."
-W. H. Auden

A five year old only six hundred feet from his house was shot and killed by a local law enforcement officer.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, Frogger, but the child's proximity to HIS house has no bearing on where the bullet came from. Hell, it could've come from a quarter/half mile away for all we know.

Either way, let's not get mired down with the (in light of what we know beyond doubt) completely useless details. You were dead-on with this statement:
He was firing a powerful weapon in an upward direction in a residential neighborhood. He SHOULD have known that someone might be struck by his shots. That is the crux of the matter. He fired in an unsafe manner in a residential neighborhood.
And THAT'S the whole issue here. He should be, at the very least, fired and prosecuted for whatever bullshit "Reckless discharge of a firearm" carries with it. (And while we're on the subject, isn't it just the berries when a COP can get cited with the same charge Joe Sixpack can despite his "expert" training in firearm "safety and use"? That seems r e a l "fair" to me, for sure....:rolleyes: :mad: )

And people wonder why I hate 'em...

Fry the taxpayers (you know, the "criminals") - and save the police.

While "reckless discharge of a firearm" sounds like a more fitting charge (although I suspect this law is designed to prosecute drive-by shooters rather than people like this guy), I don't see the purpose in prosecuting the guy. Are you going put him on rehabilitative probation so that the probation officer can ask "Did you fire any guns recklessly today?" Are you going to jail him because he's a danger to society?

Deterrance and/or incapacitation (e.g. jail-time) are not a realistic concerns because it's absurd to believe this will happen again....the magic-bullet-like shot was probably more than a one in a million chance of being deadly. Beyond that, he was well-intentioned cause he was just trying to help someone with their snake problem.

The simple (and just) solution is to demote him from being in a position to use his gun on behalf of the public and have him be liable for reasonable costs incurred by the family.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, Frogger, but the child's proximity to HIS house has no bearing on where the bullet came from. Hell, it could've come from a quarter/half mile away for all we know.


On the contrary, this point is relevant. The proximity of homes relates to whether the officer should have anticipated whether the shot would be a danger to others....i.e. it relates to his moral culpability.

Just because you've had some bad experience with a cop in your lifetime doesn't give you good reason to condemn every young person in a uniform who makes a mistake. The reality is that cops are humans who are constantly in positions where they have to make quick decisions that can have very serious consequences. You can play Monday-morning quarterback all day long with them, but that doesn't make it okay to condemn them when they make a mistake.

Just because you've had some bad experience with a cop in your lifetime doesn't give you good reason to condemn every young person in a uniform who makes a mistake.I, on the other hand, have always had good experiences with police officers of all types, military or otherwise. My uncle is a retired Ft. Worth PD sgt. His take is interesting in this matter.
The reality is that cops are humans who are constantly in positions where they have to make quick decisions that can have very serious consequences. You can play Monday-morning quarterback all day long with them, but that doesn't make it okay to condemn them when they make a mistake.Many officers I've spoken to, including the uncle just mentioned, say officers need to be held to a higher standard. They represent something in the community beyond a regular Joe, which is seen in the fact that they receive greater protections in law. (eg, kill a cop and it's a capital offense) On flip side, when they screw up, thay should be held accountable to the full extent of the law, not given a pass.

On the contrary, this point is relevant. The proximity of homes relates to whether the officer should have anticipated whether the shot would be a danger to others....i.e. it relates to his moral culpability.
You missed what I was trying to say - I said that the child's proximity to HIS house was immaterial (but I see how you could take it the other way, and maybe that's exactly the point Frogger was trying to convey - if so, then I apologize, Frogger) - now, of course, it goes without saying that the proximity of both homes (the kid's, and where the shot was fired from) bears significance as it "relates to the officer's moral culpability". Stupidity aside, I think any rational person knows just how "morally culpable" this schmoe is. He fired a solid projectile into the air in a residential area, and it wound up passing through a child's head (who, presumably, wasn't too far away from where the shot was fired in the first place).

Bold added by Shiloh:On the contrary, this point is relevant. The proximity of homes relates to whether the officer should have anticipated whether the shot would be a danger to others....i.e. it relates to his moral culpability.
Did you mean to say criminal culpability?

Many officers I've spoken to, including the uncle just mentioned, say officers need to be held to a higher standard. They represent something in the community beyond a regular Joe, which is seen in the fact that they receive greater protections in law. (eg, kill a cop and it's a capital offense) On flip side, when they screw up, thay should be held accountable to the full extent of the law, not given a pass.
And that's reasonable. If I'm a HAZMAT truck driver who gets pulled over and charged with a DUI (let's say I blew a .03) - I lose my license and job. It sounds to me like (and from what Leper is saying) that my defense could be, "well, guys - I am on the road all day long.....based on that fact alone, when can I be allowed to exercise a little "bad judgment" with impunity??? I mean, hey - I'm only human..."

Bold added by Shiloh: Did you mean to say criminal culpability?
No shit.

Bold added by Shiloh:Did you mean to say criminal culpability?

No, I'm not just considering what is criminal and what isn't...I'm also considering what is right and what is wrong.

In Texas (and most states), prosecutors are required under the law to "do justice." So a prosecutor can use discretion to not prosecute a crime even if it was technically criminal under the law. For instance, consentual "sodomy" was illegal in Texas for a long time, but it wasn't prosecuted because of discretion.