Wisconsin police kill student who came to middle school with a gun

MicroWave@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 188 points – Wisconsin police kill student who came to middle school with a gun
theguardian.com

Authorities described the student as a juvenile male but did not provide further identification or specifics pending an investigation

Wisconsin police shot and killed a student who officials say came to a local middle school with a gun. The student never got into the school, but as a precaution the entire district was put on a lockdown late Wednesday morning.

Students have since been reunited with their parents, some of whom waited up to five hours for their children to be dropped at a bus storage center in Mount Horeb, a village about 20 miles south-west of Madison, the state capital, according to WMTV 15 news.

No other students or staff were injured in the shooting, Josh Kaul, Wisconsin’s attorney general, said during a Wednesday news conference.

64

The kid just had a gun and didn't shoot it or anything…? Was there no intent to do a "shooting"?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-fatally-shoot-student-wisconsin-middle-school-responding-report-rcna150308

Not a ton more detail, but it sounds like a kid has a visible gun that some students reported seeing. Then they tried to enter the school, but the school had a video doorbell/door buzzer type setup. There were five or so shots in quick succession that must've included officers.

Have to wait on more info, but it sounds like at worst they failed to deescalate. At best they showed up and the kid started shooting and they returned fire.

No innocent kids died, so that's a win in my book.

While it's good news not to have a fresh school shooting, how hard is it to detain a middle schooler without murdering them...?

A tragedy of firearms is it makes children just as dangerous as anyone else. If the child was using the gun, they were the most dangerous person in the school.

This was still a school shooting. Justified or not, a child was still murdered.

You must be confused about the definition of murder.

Here's a hint: if it's a justified shooting, it's not murder. Murder requires premeditation.

Murder doesn’t require premeditation. That’s a specific kind of murder.

Murder is a specific kind of homicide which is defined as the "unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."

MURDER
Murder is when one human being unlawfully kills another human being. See Homicide. The precise legal definition of murder varies by jurisdiction. Most states distinguish between different degrees of murder. Some other states base their murder laws on the Model Penal Code. Contents:

  • Common Law Murder
  • Pennsylvania Method of Classifying Murder
  • Model Penal Code
    Overview
    Background: Common Law Murder

At common law, murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a legal term of art, that encompasses the following types of murder:

  1. "Intent-to-kill murder"
  2. "Grievous-bodily-harm murder" - Killing someone in an attack intended to cause them grievous bodily harm. For example, if the defendant fatally stabbed the victim, even if the defendant only intended to wound the victim, the defendant would still be liable for murder.
  3. "Felony-murder" - Killing someone while in the process of committing a felony. Note that at common law, there were few felonies, and all carried the death penalty. For example, at common law, robbery was a felony. So if a robber accidentally killed someone during a robbery, the robber could be executed.
  4. "Depraved heart murder" - Killing someone in a way that demonstrates a callous disregard for the value of human life. For example, if a person intentionally fires a gun into a crowded room, and someone dies, the person could be convicted of depraved heart murder.

And that's just the Cornell Law School page. It's actually much more complex than what's linked above. You're out of your element, son.

I was more so responding in regards to the original posters comment regarding the lack of justification as distinguishing this act from murder. If the police officers were allowed to kill him under the law, it is not murder. Murder, by my sources (which show the English-language definition) as well as yours (which show the legal definition), is a legal term that applies to a subset of acts of homicide.

If the child shot or even aimed at police, the police shoot back. That's how it works in this country.

Should be any country. Cops deserve to go home to their family too

Here is the question though. Does this rule apply to just them? Does it apply to others with respect to them?

If not, how do you deal with the police abusing the power this gives them?

If yes, how do you avoid constant bloodbaths of people shooting each other because they all had guns?

Seems like dishonest questions from you here. You responded as if I implied scenario that solves all problems ever in policing because you jumped right at it with some "well what about ..." comments.

At the heart of what I am saying is cops have families and deserve safety like any other worker. I would expect anyone with a job who goes into dangerous situations are kept safe. Cops are unique in that their safety is threatened by other people. There are so many problems with police, right now this "on killing" attitude that infected police forces needs to be purged. Doesn't negate what I said though.

If the child shot or even aimed(emphasis mine) at police, the police shoot back. That's how it works in this country.

You agreed and expanded, saying this is how it should work in every country and treated it as an issue of police safety, bringing up their families.

cops have families and deserve safety like any other worker.

We can agree on this. Everyone worker has a right to be reasonably safe. There are definitely workers whose jobs regularly expose them to situations that can be dangerous.

Cops are unique in that their safety is threatened by other people.

I dispute the uniqueness claim. I would agree that their profession places them in situations where people may be dangerous more often than the average profession, for sure. They are not, however, unique in this. What's unique to them is that they are issued a firearm, granted qualified immunity, treated as heroes by default, and dropped into a union often willing to sacrifice public safety as a "bargaining" tactic.

The current mentality resulting from police "warrior" training and support like you espouse is 1) Anyone and everyone could be a threat 2) An officer's first duty is to themself and their own safety.

I think it is pretty obvious that obsessing over officer safety and exaggerating the danger they are in has led to the police violence that we see today. If an officer believes a civilian is dangerous and has a gun they follow the logic and kill them. They get pats on the back from their buddies and are defended vehemently by their supervisors and peers who often cover for any holes/inconsistencies in the story of why lethal force was necessary.

A cop doesn't need to be an abusive, racist, hateful, violent psychopath to kill an innocent kid. They just need to be hyped up and afraid for their life. All it takes is for the kid to reach into their pocket for a cell phone.

Yet we're discussion an instance where a kid brings a gun to school and is killed and sounds like you're assuming the cop is automatically wrong.

They are not, however, unique in this. What’s unique to them is that they are issued a firearm, granted qualified immunity, treated as heroes by default, and dropped into a union often willing to sacrifice public safety as a “bargaining” tactic.

Agreed on that as well. The police union is out of control. I also have issue with stories of police harassing and terrorizing anyone that comes at them and holding them accountable. Even lawyers at time sound like they are afraid to do this because the work with police often in courts and doing so would put a target on them.

I think over time the job probably affects the brain in a way most people don't sympathize with. Its something I don't understand. I laugh and get angry at all the same videos you all do. I go through phases where I hate cops and phases where I understand its not easy what they do. I just don't feel like the current sentiment is accurate.

Yet we're discussion an instance where a kid brings a gun to school and is killed

Last I understand it, there is no additional context. No shootout, nobody held at gunpoint, etc. Just "a report of an individual with a weapon" or "a report of a person with a gun". No injuries reported other than a dead student. Other articles I've read never explicitly state the student had a gun. Not saying they didn't - it's just not clear to me.

It sounded like you are assuming the cops were automatically right and that the student was a clear and present danger. The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was a minority kid with an airsoft or squirt gun.

While I admit that police work can be stressful, it's often because they refuse to let it be otherwise. "Defund the police" was a movement to ensure police were only called when needed and that other types of emergency responders who are trained to handle domestic situations or unstable individuals... but the unions wanted the money.

Overtime isn't exactly because they are short staffed... it's often because it pays well. I've heard of officers fighting to get more overtime or being denied it as a form of punishment.

The whole system is fucked and it has gotten to the point where being a cop means you haven't been ostracized and kicked out for trying to fix it or left in disgust. It means you are part of the problem. That's why ACAB.

So all he did was illegally have a fire arm and he was executed for it and that's a win in your book? Sick fuck

It's not clear if possession of a firearm on school grounds was his only offense.

Maybe don't jump to conclusions before all the facts are known.

Something else happened, kids bring guns to schools all the time and don't get caught if they don't flash them around. It's gotten to the point where some schools have metal detectors at the entrances.

Shortly after Columbine, my school banned backpacks and if you brought a lunch box to school, they would want to search it.

That's a wild thing to say

Depends how you think about it. Out in the more rural parts of America there's gun safety education and target practice shooting where guns are provided to kids under supervision for extra circular activities and no one even questions it. Those are generally not the schools that make the news though. All provided within the public education sector and at schools.

Yes, if your an American your taxes may have supported teaching some country kid out in the Appalachian Mountains how to hunt with a gun, it's not very uncommon. You have to take the good with the bad. How does the saying go " I would rather let 99 murderers go free than convict one innocent person".

.

We need more information. The fact that the details about the victim are currently lacking is a bit of a red flag here. There is a marked difference between "police observed a 17 year old approaching the middle school with an automatic weapon and several bandoliers of ammunition" and "an 11 year old tried to sneak a handgun into the building in his backpack." Neither of those children need to be let anywhere near the school, but one of those situations you might be able to deescalate--maybe both. More pertinent to the subject at hand, if the case were the former, I would expect the police to be extremely forthcoming about it. The fact that those kinds of details are, to my understanding, yet to be revealed leads me to suspect that the cops want some time to get their story straight first.

It's always a good thing when a school shooting doesn't happen, but that doesn't change the sad reality that police in the United States are not to be trusted. This is still a story about a child killed by police, and that deserves scrutiny. Hopefully the action was well justified, but I think anyone would be forgiven for exercising skepticism given the dearth of details about what happened.

There are laws specifically against reporting information on children under 18, so in both your cases you would see an information delay. That doesn't NECESSARILY mean they're covering something up. Or rather, they may be covering up for the sake of the family rather than the cops. So the way they learn about it isn't on TV or from a mob of reporters pounding on their door.

It's entirely possible (and common) to reveal details about an incident without revealing personally identifiable information about a minor. There are good reasons not to--but unfortunately when police are involved, Occam's razor cuts in favor of agency self-preservation.

How do you know he was a bad guy with a gun? What if he was a good kid with a gun?

If you have a gun are you a bad person?

Because he wasn't wearing a hall monitor vest, of course kids are allowed to bring guns in that case

Would you prefer the police wait for the kid to shoot someone first?

So you'd prefer to be put in prison now, rather than having society wait for you to actually commit a crime?

If someone is running towards your wife with a knife, are you going to wait for him to stab her before you shoot him?

My wife? I'll sit back with some popcorn and watch him get dismantled.

It’s a crime to carry a firearm without a carry permit in Wisconsin. It’s also a crime to bring a weapon to a school in most states.

Edit: No, it’s not ok that the police shot the kid. I’m just saying there was a crime committed.

A capital crime where we can skip the trial and just execute you without due process? Without you entering the school?

It’s a crime to carry a firearm without a carry permit.

That's next-level false, partly because it's state specific. You know this incident happened in Wisconsin, right? They let teens hunt deer with rifles, and while they need a hunting permit to do so, they don't need a carry permit.

In fact, if the rifle was unloaded - and there is no evidence it wasn't - it can legally be carried on school grounds in order to reach a hunting area.

Under Wisconsin law, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm, also subject to certain exceptions. As discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/information_memos/2022/im_2022_04#:~:text=Under%20Wisconsin%20law%2C%20a%20person,to%20carry%20a%20concealed%20weapon.

I’m not justifying the response, but simply saying there was a crime. Shooting at the child was a failure of the police, with horrible repercussions.

You don't need a carry permit in the vast majority of states unless you conceal it in a holster on your person.

So we're just going to start shooting everyone in the US who has a gun?

Hey there's an idea.

To own a gun, you must be shot with it first. "Okay sir, your background check is in order and the payment has cleared, now if you would please step onto that pile of kitty litter there in front of the backstop and hold still..."

I mean, hey, why not? Some places that do tazer training make you get hit with the tazer as part of it. Same with pepper spray in some self-defense classes. And if you do martial arts, you're gonna get hit and thrown while in the dojo. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Context is very important.

If the kid had no intention of using it and didn't brandish it at the police then shooting him doesn't seem like the correct course of action.

If the police told them to drop it and they refused it is a different story.

The point is we don't know so it's impossible to say whether it was justified.

Don't bring guns to school, kids. If the staff have to choose between their establishment potentially becoming the next Columbine or Uvalde, and filling the chest of someone who really didn't mean any harm up with 80 pounds of lead, they're going to choose the later, without hesitation

Hey, here's an idea; keep firearms out of the reach of children?

People are stupid so I prefer to drum out the idiocy with better, not necessarily stricter, gun laws. The less dumb people with guns, the less kids are likely to get ahold of them.

Cool, when you evolve past the 18th century you'll find "stricter" works everywhere else

In the meantime enjoy your medieval shitehole 😂

Stricter can also mean smarter. Just like you probably bitch about shitty drivers and wonder why they have a license, I feel more intelligent testing should be required for firearms.

Be harsher on safety. Maybe provide free small arms gun cases after passing actual firearm classes and certs. Amongst others. NOT stricter as in take away rights. Stricter as in make the fools earn it, whereas the rest of us who are not idiots and leave shit like that out or easily accessible without some form of key would easily pass and secure that right. If done correctly the people most impacted would be the same ones most likely to be dumbasses in the first place.

Anyway, I'm rather neutral on the subject and am mostly idea dumping. So whatever.

I don't bitch about shitty drivers because in my country, the driving test is strict, it doesn't involve simply driving up to the drive-thru and verbally abusing another human being 😂

So what you're implying is intelligent and stricter testing has created drivers who you don't have to complain about. Is that right?

someone who really didn't mean any harm up

That doesn't generally fit the description of someone who intentionally takes a gun to school.