http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292168,00.html

Sunday, August 05, 2007
Associated Press

NOBLE, Okla. — A stray bullet fired by a police officer trying to shoot a snake hit and killed a 5-year-old boy fishing at a nearby pond, officials said.

Austin Haley was fishing with his grandfather, Jack Tracy, Friday evening when Tracy said he heard a shot and saw a bullet hit the water just a few feet in front of the boat dock where he was standing. [more]I hope this idiot is FIRED FROM THE POLICE FORCE!!!!!!!

"The snake was still hissing" after attempts to *drag* it from the tree....ya' THINK? Morons. :eek:

Why the hell are cops shooting at snakes, anyway? Haven't they ever heard of ANIMAL CONTROL?

Cripes.

Yeah what the hell are cops doing shooting at snakes or any other animal except for those pointing a gun.

The guy was hot-doggin' it that's what. And now some kid, his whole family, and the cop, and his whole family are gonna have a messed existance. All over a fricking hissing snake that was just in the wrong place at the wrong time as judged by some human asshole who had less brain power than the snake.

"The snake continued to hiss" wow!

Deja vu! Deja vu! HAS THIS HAPPENED BEFORE?

Jeez, I'm losing my freakin' marbles.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292168,00.html

I hope this idiot is FIRED FROM THE POLICE FORCE!!!!!!!
Negligent homicide.

Negligent homicide.

Okay, no doubt he should be fired for misusing a firearm, but please chill with labelling accidents as criminal.

Accidents can be considered criminal when the negligence is of a great enough extent.

Any cop should know that bullets ricochet off water surfaces and no cop should be shooting at snakes.

The cop should lose his job and be held liable both civily and criminally for causing the death of the child. This is a case where a simple sorry won't cut it.

Once again we have a group of highly intelligent people passing judgement on a police officer based on what they read in a short newspaper article. Does anyone here have anywhere near enough information to make a sound judgment on whether the cop was negligent, or even if the shot came from his gun?

Of course we are passing judgement based on what we have read in a news article. Short of being on the scene that is how we make all of our judgements, based on something we have heard or read as a second hand source or if we are lucky as a first hand account.

Either the article is lying or the police officer, (it is generally accepted that it was a police officer who fired the fatal shot so short of finding another shooter that will be the premise) accidently killed the child. If he was, as is purported by the article, shooting at a snake in a tree he was acting in a criminally neglegent manner. If he was acting in a criminally neglegent manner he should be held civily and criminally liable.

If more information comes out contradicting that presently available I might change my mind but that is how I feel based on all the available information.

Okay, no doubt he should be fired for misusing a firearm, but please chill with labelling accidents as criminal.There is a criminal level of culpability here. Either negligent, which means he perceived the danger and chose to ignore it or criminally negligent, which means he didn't perceive the danger.

Either way he's cuplable (this is NY terminology but it has equivalents everywhere).

Brooks, I could be wrong but I think you have negligent and criminally negligent transposed.

If he perceived the danger and ignored it he would be criminally negligent. If he didn't perceive the danger he would be merely negligent.

This seems like a small story to be put into "World News"... we should have a "local news" or something.

Okay, no doubt he should be fired for misusing a firearm, but please chill with labelling accidents as criminal.Many accidents are criminalized. Since you are familiar with the law, how is negligent homicide defined?

Of course we are passing judgement based on what we have read in a news article.

Why "of course"? Do you not have control over when you pass judgment and when you do not? I read the same article and you don't see me blaming anyone either criminally or civilly. That would be the pervue of a jury that is presented with the evidence, which hopefully will consist of more than was stated in the article.


Short of being on the scene that is how we make all of our judgements, based on something we have heard or read as a second hand source or if we are lucky as a first hand account.

That's fine if you're talking about history, but I think it's a bit premature to be applying blame while the evidence is still being gathered.


Either the article is lying or the police officer, (it is generally accepted that it was a police officer who fired the fatal shot so short of finding another shooter that will be the premise) accidently killed the child.

You left out at least one other possibility. The article could be mistaken.


If he was, as is purported by the article, shooting at a snake in a tree he was acting in a criminally neglegent manner.

Why? What makes his action automatically negligent?


If he was acting in a criminally neglegent manner he should be held civily and criminally liable.

I can agree with that, but isn't his negligence yet to be determined?


If more information comes out contradicting that presently available I might change my mind but that is how I feel based on all the available information.

Ok. :)

Will you at least admit that the available information is a bit scant?

I guess I'm just a hick, but if I'm going to shoot a snake from a tree... then I'm gonna use a shotgun with a pellet load. I was taught that you never shoot without a backstop of some kind with a bullet, especially with the possibility that others may be around.

I guess I'm just a hick, but if I'm going to shoot a snake from a tree... then I'm gonna use a shotgun with a pellet load. I was taught that you never shoot without a backstop of some kind with a bullet, especially with the possibility that others may be around.
Guess they won't be hiring you for their force anytime soon. Don't ya know, you just blast away at any clear and present danger...bystanders are just collateral damage. Geez.

Old Phart made a good point, Sal and you seem to have missed it.

A shotgun has an extremely short range, about 40 or 50 yards, so he would be able to see if there was anyone within range of any pellets coming out of the barrel. A rifle has a range that can be well over a mile making it almost impossible to know where the bullet will wind up.

Old Phart made a good point, Sal and you seem to have missed it.

A shotgun has an extremely short range, about 40 or 50 yards, so he would be able to see if there was anyone within range of any pellets coming out of the barrel. A rifle has a range that can be well over a mile making it almost impossible to know where the bullet will wind up.
Actually Frogger I was being facetious... his point was excellent. Anyone owning a gun should know what he posted, especially a professional. I knew after I posted it, I should have put a smiley face.

I'll let it slide this time. Next time you are in big trouble, Sal.

Many accidents are criminalized. Since you are familiar with the law, how is negligent homicide defined?

Actually, very, very few accidents are criminalized. Accidental shootings happen all of the time and are not prosecuted (see the "Cheney incident").

It's funny. For someone who is so anti-death penalty, you sure are approaching this crime in a vindictive manner. What exactly would you be hoping to accomplish by jailing/probating this officer?

Sue 'im? Yes. Jail 'im? No way.

Here's Texas criminal levels of culpability, which are pretty standard (the type of crime will say what level of culpability is required to convict...the default level is reckless or above, so a crime has to specifically outlaw a behavior with "criminal negligence"):

(a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. [Other jurisdictions sometimes call this level "purposeful" instead of "intentional"]


(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.


(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.


(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint. [Please understand that this is a standard that is above civil negligence...it's more like the standard of "gross" negligence]

*******************'

Here's criminally negligent homicide in Texas:

(a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.

(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

can you jail someone for stupidity? I don't think he should be jailed...fined,sued and given a leave from the force yes. How could he have possibly known that a bullet would ricochet and kill anyone,let alone a kid? It's sad and nothing anyone does is going to bring back this little boy or stop the police officer from repeatedly going over it in his mind thinking of ways it could have been avoided.
As a parent myself I can see where the boys family wants answers and justice for him but being a vigilante isn't going to solve anything.

It says in the very first paragraph of the article:

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

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


So the first shot ricoched and rather than thinking about it, he fires another shot. Sounds like negligence to me. He should be sued and fired, lose his pension and everything. Get a job somewhere else where he can't hurt anyone again.

well then,if the grandfather seen the first bullet hit the water,why didn't he grab the boy and get the hell out of there? Why sit there like a lump hoping no more are coming? When it's put like that,the grandfather is just as much negligent as the cop. The grandfather SEEN a bullet hit the water and still sat there and did nothing. IMO,they both are at fault,but casting blame and pointing fingers won't bring this little boy back.

Oh please, they said the second shot occured MOMENTS later. Moments mean different things to different people, did he mean seconds or minutes? If it was minutes then your right to a degree, if it was seconds how fast you want the old guy to move?

Guess they won't be hiring you for their force anytime soon. Don't ya know, you just blast away at any clear and present danger...bystanders are just collateral damage. Geez.


Yep your both right - this police officer is a moronic idiot - and I think he should be charged with manslaughter - this is reckless homicide - over a snake that was IN A TREE NOT HARMING ANYONE! :mad: and, he couldn't even get it with his first shot

Wow, it's an online lynch mob. Over an accident. If only you guys were present when Cheney shot his friend.

Wow, it's an online lynch mob. Over an accident. If only you guys were present when Cheney shot his friend.


My dear, what Cheney did was very stupid - however his hunting friend did not die - he is alive and WELL - and he chose not to sue -he was probably paid off , and I dislike Cheney.

This was an innocent child , fishing with his grandpa and he is killed, his life is over, get it? The family will never get over this tragedy - over a harmless snake.

LOL @ Leper. Not only that, but most of these folks have obviously never spent a weekend at a deer lease in Texas. The most fun thing to do all day (when it gets too hot to hunt) is shoot snakes. I've shot plenty myself... in trees, in the water, whereever.

It was an accident, guys. With a little poor judgment thrown in for shooting when there were other people around.

IMHO, snakes serve one purpose... target practice.

;)
SMW

LOL @ Leper. Not only that, but most of these folks have obviously never spent a weekend at a deer lease in Texas. The most fun thing to do all day (when it gets too hot to hunt) is shoot snakes. I've shot plenty myself... in trees, in the water, whereever.

It was an accident, guys. With a little poor judgment thrown in for shooting when there were other people around.

IMHO, snakes serve one purpose... target practice.

;)
SMW

With a "LITTLE" poor judgement thrown in for shooting when there were other people around? ?- oh SMW - WHAT THE HECK?! To you snakes are target practice, hee hee, but they were put on this earth to live just like you.

With a "LITTLE" poor judgement thrown in for shooting when there were other people around? ?- oh SMW - WHAT THE HECK?! To you snakes are target practice, hee hee, but they were put on this earth to live just like you.
Then they need to stay out of my sight and I'll be happy to let 'em live!

And fortunately (for them), I no longer own a gun. So, nowdays, I'd probably just run away!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292168,00.html

I hope this idiot is FIRED FROM THE POLICE FORCE!!!!!!!

"The snake was still hissing" after attempts to *drag* it from the tree....ya' THINK? Morons. :eek:
I don't believe it....it happened on Fox news.

I guess I'm just a hick, but if I'm going to shoot a snake from a tree... then I'm gonna use a shotgun with a pellet load. I was taught that you never shoot without a backstop of some kind with a bullet, especially with the possibility that others may be around.
Ya think....?

Yep your both right - this police officer is a moronic idiot...
You're a goldmine, SR.

Then they need to stay out of my sight and I'll be happy to let 'em live!

And fortunately (for them), I no longer own a gun. So, nowdays, I'd probably just run away!!!


You know - I am a outdoors girl - I've never had a threatening encounter with a snake - they just mind their own business - I was running one day and saw one sunning on a rock - he was a big one too - he paid me no heed.

I'm just very upset about this child's death and upset for the family.

You know - I am a outdoors girl - I've never had a threatening encounter with a snake - they just mind their own business - I was running one day and saw one sunning on a rock - he was a big one too - he paid me no heed.

I'm just very upset about this child's death and upset for the family.
Yes, it was a tragic accident. Just like one that happened here yesterday... mother, 12 yr old and 2 yr old went to a public swimming pool. Mother left 12 yr old in charge while she ran to the car for more diapers. When she got back, 2 yr old was floating in pool. CPR was administered.. child was rushed to hospital, but died anyway.

The cop who shot the little boy, his grandpa, the mother who trusted her 12 yr old, and the 12 yr old herself will never forgive themselves. Anything 'the law' can do to them would pale in comparison.

:(
SMW

Actually, very, very few accidents are criminalized. Accidental shootings happen all of the time and are not prosecuted (see the "Cheney incident"). When you go hunting, you assume a certain amount of risk. Not so when you go fishing with your grandpa.

It's funny. For someone who is so anti-death penalty, you sure are approaching this crime in a vindictive manner. What exactly would you be hoping to accomplish by jailing/probating this officer?I'm not saying he should be executed. A person may be "tough on crime" and still be morally opposed to the death penalty.

What would be accomplished? Justice. Send a message that people should be careful when they fire a gun. Let people know that cops are not above being held accountable for their actions. Something like that.

(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint. [Please understand that this is a standard that is above civil negligence...it's more like the standard of "gross" negligence]Sound about right.

I still can't get over how completely stupid this cop was. A snake in a tree is no immediate threat to anyone (and possibly not even an eventual threat). Seems to me he was hot-dogging it trying to shoot the stupid thing. Why else even try to kill it? Just notify animal control and stay there until they arrive.

But NOOOoooo. He had to be the big man with his big gun and try to handle the situation himself.

Now he'll pay for his complete lack of common sense and big stupid ego forever.

Unfortunately, so will the family of the little boy. :(

I find it hard believing some of the comments being posted. There are the blame the grandfather, it was a simple mistake, I would do the same thing the cop did, the cop shouldn't be punished comments that defy common sense.

A snake in a tree in Oklahoma is not going to be a dangerous snake. While Oklahoma has rattlesnakes, rattlesnakes lie on the ground as ambush predators they do not climb trees. A snake in a tree would have been a harmless, non-poisonous one.

A police officer is taught to NEVER discharge his gun unless a life is in danger. No life was in danger.

You never discharge a gun unless you are sure what is in the possible path of the bullet.

Based on what has been reported this is a case of an unbelievable stupid man who was given a uniform and a gun and sent out to supposedly protect the public. Instead, he killed a five year old boy quietly fishing with his grandfather.

Since he should never have shot the gun in the first place there is no excuse. There are no extenuating circumstances. The officer is guilty of negligent homocide and should be made to appear in both civil and criminal court.

At the very least he should be stripped of his badge and heavily fined. At the most he should be imprisoned for a period of up to three years. Whatever the outcome this officer should be removed from the force and should never be allowed to again own a gun of any kind.

When you go hunting, you assume a certain amount of risk. Not so when you go fishing with your grandpa. .

So the only people who can be victims of criminally negligent homicide are those who don't assume some sort of risk? Besides, you take risks all of the time...when you drive a car you could get hit by another car, when you walk outside a tree branch could fall on your head, or even when a 5 year old goes fishing, he could fall in the water and drown, or maybe even die from a poisonous snake bite!



I'm not saying he should be executed. A person may be "tough on crime" and still be morally opposed to the death penalty.

No, you can't. Being opposed to the death penalty means you support the idea that a murderer doesn't suffer as much as his victims. That's not tough on crime; It's quite the opposite.

What would be accomplished? Justice. Send a message that people should be careful when they fire a gun. Let people know that cops are not above being held accountable for their actions. Something like that.


Wow, sounds strikingly similar to death penalty rationale. The only difference is that you seem to apply stricter rationale to negligent police than you do to common killers.

But I suppose you'll call it "justice" when a killer rapes and murders a young couple, if the killer is sentenced to a life of reading books in prison.

My problem with your rationale is that deterrance is a bad reason to punish somebody over an accident.

Here's a scenario that fits the facts:

Let's say a young police officer arrives at a house where a little old lady called 911 and says she almost got bitten by a snake in her yard. The police officer responds to the call and discovers what appears to be a poisonous water moccasin sunning itself in the old lady's backyard.

The officer calls animal control, and animal control is responding to another call and won't be available for another couple of hours. Around the same time, the officer finds out that there is an armed robbery in progress only a block away. Realizing he has to act quickly, the officer decides to shoot the snake and hurry to the robbery scene. Turns out the ground is rocky underneath the snake, the bullet ricochets and happens to kill a nearby kid.

Should this guy be thrown in jail? Several people here are saying "yes." Frankly, that really galls me, that several of you could be calling for imprisoning this policeman for nothing more than trying to do what he thought was best. And the reality that you people don't realize is that these are the sort of scenarios police have to face on a regular basis....one wrong move by the cop, some bad luck, and some of you people want to throw the guy in jail. It's just stupid. You need to know a lot more than what this story has to offer.

I am coming to believe that you are a moron.

I am coming to believe that you are a moron.

Nice guy. Considering the other conclusions you jump to, I take that as a compliment.

I take that as a compliment.It was intended only as an assessment of your mental functioning, not your worth as a human being.

It was intended only as an assessment of your mental functioning, not your worth as a human being.

I understand, although I'm sure that wouldn't stop you from wanting to throw me in jail.

Edit: This exchange made me realize what a hypocrite you're being. Here's another smarmy, yet blithely conclusory, response from you about a week ago....

And which ridiculous sentencing practices are you referring to? Or are you just shooting your mouth off about something you know nothing about?

Ready, real slow this time: the practice of sending people to prison when it is not really needed, thus crowding the system to the point that paroles are given too readily.

Out of one side of your mouth, you want to throw a cop in jail for an accidental shooting, but on the other, you make these unfounded statements that the problem with the system is that we send people to prison when it's not really needed.

Who's the real moron here?

Here's a scenario that fits the facts:

Let's say a young police officer arrives at a house where a little old lady called 911 and says she almost got bitten by a snake in her yard. The police officer responds to the call and discovers what appears to be a poisonous water moccasin sunning itself in the old lady's backyard.

The officer calls animal control, and animal control is responding to another call and won't be available for another couple of hours. Around the same time, the officer finds out that there is an armed robbery in progress only a block away. Realizing he has to act quickly, the officer decides to shoot the snake and hurry to the robbery scene. Turns out the ground is rocky underneath the snake, the bullet ricochets and happens to kill a nearby kid.


The SIMPLE solution is: Find a trash can, put it over the sunning snake with a big rock/brick on top, tell the lady to stay in her house while keeping an eye on the trash can, THEN GO DO YOUR REAL JOB of fighting crime. Or, do what my dad does when he finds a rattler in his yard (happens regularly) - get a shovel and bash its head in.

There's no need to shoot the snake and take a stupid, pointless risk. :rolleyes:

Face it, the cop was a f%$#ing idiot. A deadly idiot, to boot.

Face it, the cop was a f%$#ing idiot. A deadly idiot, to boot.

I'm not denying that. My point is that he made a stupid decision, not necessarily criminal one.

Wow, it's an online lynch mob. Over an accident. If only you guys were present when Cheney shot his friend.

Come on Leper, it's no online mob. People are merely reacting to the story. No one is advocating stringing the guy up. The guy will never have a peaceful day for the rest of his life. But it was one hell of a moronic thing to do and many, many people are going to be paying for his moment of fun.

You know - I am a outdoors girl - I've never had a threatening encounter with a snake - they just mind their own business - I was running one day and saw one sunning on a rock - he was a big one too - he paid me no heed.

I'm just very upset about this child's death and upset for the family.

Yeah, the cop and his family too. The ripple effect is huge.

This whole discussion is silly... Noble, OK is a town of 5,000 people. I'm sure the cop knew the grandpa and the kid and wouldn't have done a thing to hurt either one of them on purpose.

Only reason the tragic ACCIDENT is being debated here is because the media picked up the story and jumped at the opportunity to make another lawman look bad.

Then the rest of you jump on that same ole bandwagon.

All your self-righteousness won't bring that little boy back. Give it a rest.

Yes, it was a tragic accident. Just like one that happened here yesterday... mother, 12 yr old and 2 yr old went to a public swimming pool. Mother left 12 yr old in charge while she ran to the car for more diapers. When she got back, 2 yr old was floating in pool. CPR was administered.. child was rushed to hospital, but died anyway.

The cop who shot the little boy, his grandpa, the mother who trusted her 12 yr old, and the 12 yr old herself will never forgive themselves. Anything 'the law' can do to them would pale in comparison.

:(
SMW

Ya, the toddler/(kid) actually ... happened in my town this summer in a public wave pool. After the waves stop, everyone must clear the wave pool, and still no one saw this kid floating... until too late. Couldn't revive the kid.

You hear things like that and you just think of the number of people whose lives are touched by that and others destroyed basically. The lifeguards, the parents of the other kids, the kids present, the parents of the child. It's numbing. Their kid is dead. Nothing is ever going to change that. And nothing is ever going to make it right short of turning back time.

Nothing.

This whole discussion is silly... Noble, OK is a town of 5,000 people. I'm sure the cop knew the grandpa and the kid and wouldn't have done a thing to hurt either one of them on purpose.

Only reason the tragic ACCIDENT is being debated here is because the media picked up the story and jumped at the opportunity to make another lawman look bad.

Then the rest of you jump on that same ole bandwagon.

All your self-righteousness won't bring that little boy back. Give it a rest.

See there's where you are wrong. It has zero to do with being self righteous. It has everything to do with understanding that every decision we make can affect another. The more responsibility we have the bigger the consequence.

Every person here could be held accountable for possibly making a stupid decision that could affect another life. It's why rubber necking is not a bad thing. And this discussion is warranted. People need to THINK before they act and then live with the consequence. It's the consequence we don't want to face.

Yes it was an accident. No one disputes that. But now there must be a consequence.

Only reason the tragic ACCIDENT is being debated here is because the media picked up the story and jumped at the opportunity to make another lawman look bad.
You think he needed the media's help!?!? Oy Vey, SMW. Noooo - IMHO, he's typical of his ilk; an intellectually challenged cowboy who discharged his weapon in public because he thought he could get away with it. Why the hell this moron wouldn't grab the shotgun nestled in the front of his cruiser is beyond me....

Every person here could be held accountable for possibly making a stupid decision that could affect another life.
Exactly.

Could you IMAGINE what would've happened to you or I if we decided to pull that boneheaded stunt? We'd fucking ROT in jail - the prosecutor would see to that. What's gonna happen to this assclown? He'll be fired, and that's probably it. My guess is criminal charges won't be filed. The funny thing is, his ENTIRE JOB is to exercise good judgment, protect the innocent and serve the taxpayers.

Exactly.

Could you IMAGINE what would've happened to you or I if we decided to pull that boneheaded stunt? We'd fucking ROT in jail - the prosecutor would see to that. What's gonna happen to this assclown? He'll be fired, and that's probably it. My guess is criminal charges won't be filed. The funny thing is, his ENTIRE JOB is to exercise good judgment, protect the innocent and serve the taxpayers.

C'mon Prae. Most accidental shootings do not result in jail sentences.

And the fact that he was a policeman on duty is why he deserves MORE leniency rather than less....that's IF he was performing his duties as an officer (the snake was related to his general policing duties), rather than just shooting targets out of boredom (in which case he deserves as much leniency as any other schmuck).

Police are frequently in the middle of controversies like this. Why? Because their duties as a police officer constantly puts them in situations where their decisions can endanger people. Throwing them in jail every time they make a bad decision would be punishing policemen more than your average Joe.

Exactly.

Could you IMAGINE what would've happened to you or I if we decided to pull that boneheaded stunt? We'd fucking ROT in jail - the prosecutor would see to that. What's gonna happen to this assclown? He'll be fired, and that's probably it. My guess is criminal charges won't be filed. The funny thing is, his ENTIRE JOB is to exercise good judgment, protect the innocent and serve the taxpayers.

Well it's the last line there that kinda scares me. And the fact that he carries a big gun.

I still can't get over how completely stupid this cop was. A snake in a tree is no immediate threat to anyone (and possibly not even an eventual threat).

You may be right, but apparently the person who called the police didn't think so.


Seems to me he was hot-dogging it trying to shoot the stupid thing. Why else even try to kill it?

Seems to me you're just jumping to conclusions without any evidence whatsoever.


Just notify animal control and stay there until they arrive.

If the town had an animal control officer, no doubt that's what would have been done. They don't have one, so your point is moot.


But NOOOoooo. He had to be the big man with his big gun and try to handle the situation himself.

Now he'll pay for his complete lack of common sense and big stupid ego forever.

Unfortunately, so will the family of the little boy. :(

So it's not good enough to call the guy stupid without any knowledge about him, now you're commenting about his ego. Brilliant.

Exactly.

Could you IMAGINE what would've happened to you or I if we decided to pull that boneheaded stunt? We'd fucking ROT in jail - the prosecutor would see to that.

Prosecutors don't pass sentences.


What's gonna happen to this assclown? He'll be fired, and that's probably it.

No...he'll think about that little boy every day for the rest of his life.

You may be right, but apparently the person who called the police didn't think so.

Vile you are not being your logical self here.

The person who called the police is a citizen. The police are carrying guns and supposedly trained to respond appropriately given the situation. He did not act according to his training nor did he behave appropriately for the given situation.

You keep thinking people are jumping to conclusions. No. People are assessing the situation as given and offering opinions like with every other issue or situation we face in our daily lives.

If we withheld judgement in every situation before responding we wouldn't make it through the day alive.

The man was irresponsible. Is he sorry. My guess is likely. Would he maybe give his own life to change things. Very likely.

He is an officer of the peace... trained... not some citizen or teenager who made a mistake. As such he is held to a higher level of responsibility for his actions.

Prosecutors don't pass sentences.



No...he'll think about that little boy every day for the rest of his life.

Pithy set of replies, VP.

A snake in a tree in Oklahoma is not going to be a dangerous snake. While Oklahoma has rattlesnakes, rattlesnakes lie on the ground as ambush predators they do not climb trees. A snake in a tree would have been a harmless, non-poisonous one.

You'd be right about that, except that you're just wrong.

Rattlesnake in a tree.
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j309/Vilepagan/TimberinTree.jpg


A police officer is taught to NEVER discharge his gun unless a life is in danger. No life was in danger.

What police academy did you attend?


You never discharge a gun unless you are sure what is in the possible path of the bullet.

I agree, but since neither one of us has visited the scene of the shooting, it would be difficult to say whether he was reckless or not.


Based on what has been reported this is a case of an unbelievable stupid man who was given a uniform and a gun and sent out to supposedly protect the public. Instead, he killed a five year old boy quietly fishing with his grandfather.

Has it occured to you that he was trying to protect the public when he fired the fatal shot?


Since he should never have shot the gun in the first place there is no excuse. There are no extenuating circumstances. The officer is guilty of negligent homocide and should be made to appear in both civil and criminal court.

Your certainty about things you obviously can have no knowledge of is disturbing. Tell me, are you as certain about these pronouncements of guilt as you are about the fact that rattlesnakes don't climb trees? :)


At the very least he should be stripped of his badge and heavily fined. At the most he should be imprisoned for a period of up to three years. Whatever the outcome this officer should be removed from the force and should never be allowed to again own a gun of any kind.

Bizarre.

Vile you are not being your logical self here.

Forgive me Sal, but I'm not being the emotional one here. :)


He did not act according to his training nor did he behave appropriately for the given situation.

Forgive me again Sal, but you don't know that either of those statements is true. He may have been acting according to his training, and the fact that a little boy was tragically killed does not necessarily mean the officer acted inappropriately.


You keep thinking people are jumping to conclusions. No. People are assessing the situation as given and offering opinions like with every other issue or situation we face in our daily lives.

People are also assuming many things not even mentioned in the article in question. People are talking about the cop's ego for crying out loud.


If we withheld judgement in every situation before responding we wouldn't make it through the day alive.

Indeed.


The man was irresponsible.

Perhaps. Maybe even likely. Not certain.


He is an officer of the peace... trained... not some citizen or teenager who made a mistake. As such he is held to a higher level of responsibility for his actions.

I can agree with that. :)

You can make all the excuses for the cop you want, Vile. It doesn't change the fact that he acted in a negligent manner and when a cop acts in a negligent manner and it results in the death of a child that cop should be removed from the force and prosecuted. If he does not receive jail time he should at the very least be fired and given a civil penalty.


Let's say a young police officer arrives at a house where a little old lady called 911 and says she almost got bitten by a snake in her yard. The police officer responds to the call and discovers what appears to be a poisonous water moccasin sunning itself in the old lady's backyard.

Since you are so upset by people jumping to conclusions based on what they read I am surprised that you haven't taken Leper to task for the gigantic conclusions he seems to have jumped to. We are to assume that the snake in question is a water moccasin and that it almost bit a poor old lady. It is just as easy to assume that the snake was harmless and was threatening no one, not a little old lady and not the 'young' officer. It is more probable that like many people he is afraid of snakes and loathes them and decided to blow this one away.

Whatever preceeded the incident the bottom line is; his unbelievably poor judgement resulted in the death of an innocent five year old. That is the only thing that is not just supposition.

his unbelievably poor judgement resulted in the death of an innocent five year old.
That about sums it up.

I understand, although I'm sure that wouldn't stop you from wanting to throw me in jail.No, being incapable of reasonable thought or unable to understand the things people are telling you doesn't mean you need to be in jail.

Edit: This exchange made me realize what a hypocrite you're being. Here's another smarmy, yet blithely conclusory, response from you about a week ago....


Out of one side of your mouth, you want to throw a cop in jail for an accidental shooting, but on the other, you make these unfounded statements that the problem with the system is that we send people to prison when it's not really needed.

Who's the real moron here?People who are irresponsible with firearms and so kill children NEED to be locked up. This was no accidental discharge.

Pretty much, a "normal" reaction to a snake in places like TX & OK is to shoot it. I'm not inclined to believe the cop was any more than negligent, the shooting death of the child was completely accidental. The cop, if he remains as such, will carry that death with him forever & it might possibly get him killed should he hesitate in a moment of real action being needed.

Prosecutors don't pass sentences.
So if they have no hand in influencing the sentence, then why do we have 'em? I mean, after all, they're called prosecutors. That aside, you and I both know they’re responsible for recommending the sentence the judge imposes. Make of that what you will.
No...he'll think about that little boy every day for the rest of his life.
And you were chastising Frannie for "jumping to conclusions without any evidence whatsoever"....?

This is the same yahoo who fired his PISTOL into the air at a snake. Once again, make of that what you will.

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]You may be right, but apparently the person who called the police didn't think so.



This person did not call the police. - they called animal control - there was no animal control in noble so they switched the caller to the police.

And Yeah - hotdogging is the right term for this guy - shooting at a snake in a tree - and it took him 2 shots - he was probably 3 feet from the snake.
This snake was in a birdhouse in a tree - was human life endangered??
Vile , if you have any cop friends and do proper research - anyone of them worth their salt - would not do such a stupid thing:mad: There was NO JUSTIFICATION for it.

You can make all the excuses for the cop you want, Vile.

I made no excuses for anyone. I'm also not excusing those in this thread who jump to conclusions, make wild assumptions, and manufacture "facts" out of whole cloth.


It doesn't change the fact that he acted in a negligent manner and when a cop acts in a negligent manner and it results in the death of a child that cop should be removed from the force and prosecuted. If he does not receive jail time he should at the very least be fired and given a civil penalty.

Frogger, you can state that he was negligent until you're blue in the face, and I'll still know you're speaking about things you can't possibly know. :)


Since you are so upset by people jumping to conclusions based on what they read I am surprised that you haven't taken Leper to task for the gigantic conclusions he seems to have jumped to. We are to assume that the snake in question is a water moccasin and that it almost bit a poor old lady. It is just as easy to assume that the snake was harmless and was threatening no one, not a little old lady and not the 'young' officer.

I understood that Leper was talking about a hypothetical incident, not the one in Oklahoma.


It is more probable that like many people he is afraid of snakes and loathes them and decided to blow this one away.

It amazes me what you'll manufacture to justify your position. I must admit, I thought the snake in the tree pic might have made you rethink the idea of stating "facts" you just make up.


Whatever preceeded the incident the bottom line is; his unbelievably poor judgement resulted in the death of an innocent five year old. That is the only thing that is not just supposition.

Well, the "unbelievably poor" part is still total supposition on your part.

Let's try another hypothetical. Let's pretend that the cop who fired the shots was a rookie on the job for a month, and that one of the other cops there was his supervisor. Who gets punished, and for what?

This whole discussion is silly... Noble, OK is a town of 5,000 people. I'm sure the cop knew the grandpa and the kid and wouldn't have done a thing to hurt either one of them on purpose.

Only reason the tragic ACCIDENT is being debated here is because the media picked up the story and jumped at the opportunity to make another lawman look bad.

Then the rest of you jump on that same ole bandwagon.

All your self-righteousness won't bring that little boy back. Give it a rest.

I live in Oklahoma - I saw this on my local news first - I and others here are not saying it was done on purpose - so what if he knew them - AND if he did, that would make it even worse for the cop if he knows the child that he killed, doncha' think?? This is about a careless decision with a weapon of death - no life was in danger - he was not using self-defense, nada. Self-righteousness ??- No way - - it's about cause and effect.

This person did not call the police. - they called animal control - there was no animal control in noble so they switched the caller to the police.

Ok. :)


And Yeah - hotdogging is the right term for this guy - shooting at a snake in a tree - and it took him 2 shots - he was probably 3 feet from the snake.

I would guess you've not had a lot of experience firing a handgun. Hitting a snake wouldn't be easy, and if he only fired two shots, that doesn't make him much of a "hot dog".


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

Apparently so. A child was killed.


Vile , if you have any cop friends and do proper research - anyone of them worth their salt - would not do such a stupid thing:mad: There was NO JUSTIFICATION for it.

You may be right. I'm only saying that this has yet to be determined, and you certainly can't make that decision using the meager information available.

Frogger, you can state that he was negligent until you're blue in the face, and I'll still know you're speaking about things you can't possibly know. :)
How can you NOT think that move was COMPLETELY derelict!?!? God, that makes me madder than Jesse Jackson at the airport having to answer the white courtesy phone.

Unbelievable.

How can you NOT think that move was COMPLETELY derelict!?!?

I think it may have been negligent. I'll admit that it doesn't sound good, but until I see the shooting scene, there would be no way to know how "derelict" he was when he fired the shots. I'll also admit I'm just as guilty of making assumptions as everyone else. I assume he wouldn't have even thought about firing his gun if he knew there were people in the line of fire. I assume I'm not getting very many facts at all from the news media, much less enough facts to pass judgment on anyone.


God, that makes me madder than Jesse Jackson at the airport having to answer the white courtesy phone.


LOL...good one. :)

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]Ok. :)


I would guess you've not had a lot of experience firing a handgun. Hitting a snake wouldn't be easy, and if he only fired two shots, that doesn't make him
much of a "hot dog".

[B]To me hot dogging - means someone that is very inapt, impotent, etc. trying to show off. AND , this guy was a rookie - he had a year on the force.Quote:

This snake was in a birdhouse in a tree - was human life endangered?? [quote =sassyrunner]


Apparently so. A child was killed.[quote=Vilepagan]

Excuse me? the cop killed the child - not the snake.:rolleyes:

To me hot dogging - means someone that is very inapt, impotent, etc. trying to show off. AND , this guy was a rookie - he had a year on the force.

Odd, I had read he was on the force about a month, and one of the other officers present was his supervisor. I guess you can't believe everything you read. :)

Since you are so upset by people jumping to conclusions based on what they read I am surprised that you haven't taken Leper to task for the gigantic conclusions he seems to have jumped to. We are to assume that the snake in question is a water moccasin and that it almost bit a poor old lady. It is just as easy to assume that the snake was harmless and was threatening no one, not a little old lady and not the 'young' officer. It is more probable that like many people he is afraid of snakes and loathes them and decided to blow this one away.


Frog, I'm sorry but I've got to give you an "F" for reading comprehension skills on this response. It was a hypothetical. The point was that we have no idea what really happened and the facts may be much more innocent than what you are assuming.

No, being incapable of reasonable thought or unable to understand the things people are telling you doesn't mean you need to be in jail.

But that is why you want to jail the police officer...Because, at worst, he did something stupid.

People who are irresponsible with firearms and so kill children NEED to be locked up. This was no accidental discharge.

Interesting choice of emphasis. No one ever said it was an accidental discharge; it was an accidental shooting of a person.

why do people freak out over snakes? it is just a snake. even if it is poisonous. jeez.............






http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292168,00.html

I hope this idiot is FIRED FROM THE POLICE FORCE!!!!!!!

"The snake was still hissing" after attempts to *drag* it from the tree....ya' THINK? Morons. :eek:

But that is why you want to jail the police officer...Because, at worst, he did something stupid.No, at best he did something stupid; at worst, he did something negligent and lethal.

Interesting choice of emphasis. No one ever said it was an accidental discharge; it was an accidental shooting of a person.When you intentionally pull a trigger, you should be responsible for that bullet.

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


Apparently so. A child was killed.

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

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'e endangering the five year old.

The only dangerous one here was the cop.

Leper
Ignoring Partisan Blatherers Join Date: Jan 13, 2003
Location: TX, USA
Posts: 1,968


Since you are so upset by people jumping to conclusions based on what they read I am surprised that you haven't taken Leper to task for the gigantic conclusions he seems to have jumped to. We are to assume that the snake in question is a water moccasin and that it almost bit a poor old lady. It is just as easy to assume that the snake was harmless and was threatening no one, not a little old lady and not the 'young' officer. It is more probable that like many people he is afraid of snakes and loathes them and decided to blow this one away.



Frog, I'm sorry but I've got to give you an "F" for reading comprehension skills on this response. It was a hypothetical. The point was that we have no idea what really happened and the facts may be much more innocent than what you are assuming.


When we are talking about snakes and you start talking about a little, old lady almost getting bitten by a water moccasin you are doing more than setting up a simply hypothesis. You are setting up a possible scenerio for what happened in Oklahoma.


I'm not assuming anything. It is not an assumption that the cop shot and killed a five year old child.

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

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'e endangering the five year old.

The only dangerous one here was the cop.

45,000 snakebites a year, 8,000 of which are poisonous. Are snakes dangerous yet?

http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site1619/mainpageS1619P0.html

When we are talking about snakes and you start talking about a little, old lady almost getting bitten by a water moccasin you are doing more than setting up a simply hypothesis. You are setting up a possible scenerio for what happened in Oklahoma.

A "simple hypothesis" is different from a "possible scenario"?

Okay...

So can you at least admit that I didn't jump to any "gigantic conclusions" as you said in your earlier post?

But that is why you want to jail the police officer...Because, at worst, he did something stupid.
Isn't that almost always why people are jailed? Doesn't a DUI fall under the same category of stupid? They jail people for that, try them criminally, and usually, they lose their job, possibly their home, wife, and children - and for what? So some yahoo (whose identity, ironically enough, is being protected by the city manager (not that they'd EVER offer you or I that concession) :mad: ) can arrest people for their "negligence" and "stupidity" while they're sitting behind the wheel of their vehicle? The funny thing is - these people have an excuse; alcohol AFFECTED their judgment. Look, all I'm saying is - if officers AREN'T gonna be held to a higher standard (regardless of the fact that their occupation subjects them to precarious situations on a regular basis (remember - they TOOK the job in the fist place)), then we need to reevaluate who we're putting into positions of power here. Hey - I have an idea; maybe we should start pressuring local government to PROVE the average flatfoot possesses an IQ of 80 or higher. Hell, my guess is that'd cut the "force" in half right there.
Interesting choice of emphasis. No one ever said it was an accidental discharge; it was an accidental shooting of a person.
Kudos on that point.

45,000 snakebites a year, 8,000 of which are poisonous. Are snakes dangerous yet?

http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site1619/mainpageS1619P0.html

Not when they are simply sitting next to a bird house. Except to the birds that is.

No one has suggested that the snake was poisonous. I am pretty sure if it was a poisonous snake that fact would have been mentioned as a mitigating factor in the shooting.

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

Don't believe there's a rattle on that one.

"The Noble Police Department's Police and Procedures Manual says "firearms may be used to destroy an animal that represents a threat to public safety.”

-D'oh" --don't think a rat snake is a threat to public safety.

"The manual states "firearms shall not be discharged when it appears likely that an innocent person may be injured.”

http://newsok.com/article/3100915%7D

Brooks, I could be wrong but I think you have negligent and criminally negligent transposed.
If he perceived the danger and ignored it he would be criminally negligent. If he didn't perceive the danger he would be merely negligent.I agree with you that it sounds wrong but that's the way it's written.

"It is the combination of the defendant's conduct, that is, the creation of a certain type of risk, together with his mental state, namely his failure to perceive the risk when there is a legal duty of awareness, which constitutes criminal negligence."

http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/nyabbott.htm

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

Don't believe there's a rattle on that one.

"The Noble Police Department's Police and Procedures Manual says "firearms may be used to destroy an animal that represents a threat to public safety.”

-D'oh" --don't think a rat snake is a threat to public safety.

"The manual states "firearms shall not be discharged when it appears likely that an innocent person may be injured.”

http://newsok.com/article/3100915%7D

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

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

Don't believe there's a rattle on that one.

"The Noble Police Department's Police and Procedures Manual says "firearms may be used to destroy an animal that represents a threat to public safety.”

-D'oh" --don't think a rat snake is a threat to public safety.

"The manual states "firearms shall not be discharged when it appears likely that an innocent person may be injured.”

http://newsok.com/article/3100915%7D

This is such 20/20 hindsight. If you saw a rat snake, would you be able to identify it as such? I wouldn't, and I doubt most people would be able to do that. Not all poisonous snakes have rattles, including the most common poisonous snake in the south, which is almost surely the water moccassin (aka cottonmouth).

As for the "appears likely that an innocent person may be injured", SMW is all over that one. Personally, if I were shooting by a wooded area, I would probably think it unlikely that there were people in the wooded area.

Not when they are simply sitting next to a bird house. Except to the birds that is.

No one has suggested that the snake was poisonous. I am pretty sure if it was a poisonous snake that fact would have been mentioned as a mitigating factor in the shooting.

Once again, how the hell is the officer supposed to know if it's poisonous? I don't think there's a "snake identification" class in police academy.

And a home owner may very well perceive a snake living in his yard as dangerous.

Not all poisonous snakes have rattles, including the most common poisonous snake in the south, which is almost surely the water moccassin (aka cottonmouth).
Which most certainly won't be found nestled in a tree.

Once again, how the hell is the officer supposed to know if it's poisonous?
"Poisonous"? Hell, I'd be surprised if he knew how to solve a linear equation. That said, I don't think anyone here expects that he possess the ability to classify snakes - what WE expect is that he use his fuckin' head if he decides to discharge a weapon into the AIR.

That's gun control lesson No. 1 right there.

Which most certainly won't be found nestled in a tree.

Au contraire, darlin... near water, cottonmouth's are often found in trees. They like to hang around and surprise people walking under them by suddenly dropping to the ground. Nearly all the snakes I've ever shot were in trees. Too hard to hit 'em in the water.

;)
SMW

"The only good snake is a dead snake."

Au contraire, darlin... near water, cottonmouth's are often found in trees. They like to hang around and surprise people walking under them by suddenly dropping to the ground. Nearly all the snakes I've ever shot were in trees. Too hard to hit 'em in the water.
Regardless (and being "near water" aside), it was an indefensible move on the officer's part (whose identity is being protected unfairly, IMO - but that hardly comes as a surprise....I mean, it reflects poorly on government, so I guess the moral here is - if you're not an officer, and you use a firearm injudiciously (and it just so happens to result in a child's death), then I guess you're shit outta luck in the anonymity dept....).

I'm soooooooooo goddamned sick of them getting away with everything. Motherf%^@6kers!!!

Regardless (and being "near water" aside), it was an indefensible move on the officer's part (whose identity is being protected unfairly, IMO - but that hardly comes as a surprise....I mean, it reflects poorly on government, so I guess the moral here is - if you're not an officer, and you use a firearm injudiciously (and it just so happens to result in a child's death), then I guess you're shit outta luck in the anonymity dept....).

I'm soooooooooo goddamned sick of them getting away with everything. Motherf%^@6kers!!!
I hear ya, Prae. But admit, I'd be more upset if something like that happened in a big city instead of a small town that probably only has 3 cops... and this one was new.

Somehow, I just keep picturing Barney Fife.

;)
SMW

Somehow, I just keep picturing Barney Fife.
Barney Fife??? Hell, no! They're extinct. Here's a "real" cop for ya:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/wangoconnor/cops_6.gif

And when they're tired of fucking with people, they can be found......
http://revart.blogs.com/minister_of_rants/images/yoohoo1_cops.jpg
Still on the clock, of course....

And when they're tired of fucking with people, they can be found......
http://revart.blogs.com/minister_of_rants/images/yoohoo1_cops.jpg
Still on the clock, of course....

Awww, dumplin. You've just been burned and now you're down on all cops.

Kinda like Nappy. Ya know, a little birdie told me he's been dumped by so many women, he turned gay. Shhhhhh, he ain't out of the closet yet. Bless his heart... he's not tall enough to reach the knob. (um, door knob that is)

;)
SMW

Awww, dumplin. You've just been burned and now you're down on all cops.
Logic dictates my situation isn't all that unique. In their defense, I've met a few good ones. In my experience, they represent .00000001% of the force.
Kinda like Nappy. Ya know, a little birdie told me he's been dumped by so many women, he turned gay. Shhhhhh, he ain't out of the closet yet. Bless his heart... he's not tall enough to reach the knob. (um, door knob that is)
Ouch....:eek:

ON EDIT: (not that being gay is a bad thing...)

NOBLE — The first shot was so loud it made the hair stand straight up on Jack Tracy's arm. The bullet hit the water just a few feet in front of the boat dock where he was standing.

Instinctively, he pulled his 5-year-old grandson, Austin Haley, close to his left side and began yelling that there were people down by the pond.

Then came the second shot, and the unforgettable thump of a 9 mm bullet penetrating a young boy's skull.

"It went right through the back of his head and came out the front,” Tracy said. "He was just bleeding severely and I knew, right then, he was most likely dead, right there.”

Tracy thought he and his grandson were under attack by someone trying to kill them both, so he threw the boy into 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 said. "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.”

Much later, Tracy said, he found out one of the officers had fired two shots in the Crest Lane neighborhood, trying to kill a snake that had become lodged in a birdhouse on the back porch of a house just up the hill from Tracy's pond.

‘I just feel really bad' Police had gotten a call of a snake complaint from a woman on Crest Lane, whose 16-year-old daughter saw the snake hanging about 3 feet of its body outside a neighbor's bird house.

The woman, who would not identify herself, told The Oklahoman she called the police station to see if animal control could respond and take care of the snake, which she believed to be a diamondback rattlesnake.

She was told that the city, which lost its only animal control officer recently, would send a police officer over to help.

"This was just a freak and tragic accident,” the woman said, "and I just feel really bad for everyone involved.”

Other neighbors weren't as sympathetic.

Crest Lane resident Kara Johnson said there was no excuse for shooting a gun at a snake in a residential area. "It's a shame that someone had to lose their 5-year-old child over a snake,” Johnson said. "And that's their only child. They'll never get their kid back.”

Neighbor G.W. Henderson said his wife heard a woman screaming within minutes of the shots.

"She was shouting ‘You shot my boy! You shot my boy!'” Henderson said.

Second shot hit snake City Manager Bob Wade said rumors of overeager Noble officers are inaccurate. "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.”

Wade refused to identify the officer suspected of firing the shots but said the officer has been placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation.

Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation agents were told that officers decided to shoot the animal after being told there was a field behind them, said Jessica Brown, bureau spokeswoman.

"The first shot grazed the snake, and the second killed it,” Brown said.

Wade said he is 90 percent sure that the same bullet that killed the snake also killed Austin, but due to the trajectory of the shot and the fact that Austin and his grandfather were downhill, investigators have to be 100 percent certain.

"This is so bizarre it has to be fully investigated. ... 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,” Wade said.

Tracy has little doubt about what happened.

"I was standing right beside him when they shot him in the head,” he said. "There just wasn't anything I could do for this baby. He was dead. And he was just the finest Christian boy. His mother just bought him a Bible not a week before this — he wanted one that was camouflage because he was in the Lord's army.'”

Tracy said that when he saw the news reports and heard the police chief saying it was an "unfortunate accident,” the remark seemed too trivial and dismissive.

. "I'm not saying the cop shot him on purpose,” Tracy said. "It was an accident. 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. ... There was no reason for him to kill my grandson.”



Police cars have shotguns in them. Why in hell didn't the cop use the shotgun. The pellets would have traveled only forty or fifty yards at most. You never, ever fire a pistol or rifle in the air and you never, ever fire a gun in a residential area. This was not an emergency where shooting was called for. It was a simple snake in a birdhouse call. If the cop wanted to kill the snake a pair of hedge clippers would have been better than a pistol. He could have used a hoe or anything else to kill the snake. Instead he pulled a John Wayne and drew his pistol and shot it into the air. Any idiot would know that even if he hit the snake the bullet would continue to travel for a long distance. Remember, he was in a residential area.

Any person who uses such poor judgement should not be a cop. He should not be allowed to own a gun. Hell, the idiot should not even be allowed to own a butter knife.

If I had one of my grandchildren in my car, not in a seat belt and I had an accident in which the child died I would be tried for negligent homocide. What the cop did is much worse than driving with an unseatbelted child.

There is no excusing what he did.

If I had one of my grandchildren in my car, not in a seat belt and I had an accident in which the child died I would be tried for negligent homocide. What the cop did is much worse than driving with an unseatbelted child.


Where do y'all get this crap? I've never in my life heard of someone being charged for negligent homicide for their kids (or grandkids) not wearing a seatbelt in an automobile accident. Even if someone were, I would not support it or try to use that to justify doing the same injustice to a third person.

I'm beginning to think screwed up perceptions like this must be the product of the media.

This is a freak accident. Stop trying to hang some rookie cop over it.