Agreed.

I get it.  And that is what is so great about this country, you are entitled to your opinion.  BUT.  You are still forming an opinion based on the outcome.  Requiring the cops to wait until they are fired upon before engaging a bad guy would lead to a lot of funerals with bagpipes.  The "heat of the moment" was the point at which the person with the gun pointed it at the cop.  What would be your opinion if the gun had been real and a 15 year old had shot the cop?  Would you feel that it was the "right" thing to do?  I know that there are dozens of shootings every year that shouldn't have happened.  Here in the Swirling Epicenter we had a doozie a couple of years ago...man on something roaring around the neighborhood threatening people and pushing people around.  Cops came and the man reached into his pocket and came out with something shiny that he held like a gun.  Cops shot him about a dozen times.  It was a staple-gun.  Were the cops wrong?  I don't think so.  When you put yourself in those situations...you are responsible for the outcome.  You can argue diminished capacity...drugs, alcohol, etc...but you made that choice, too.  Cops are not psychic, they have to act and act decisively in a split second.  Any reasonable person will act for self-preservation. 

This didn't start with Columbine.  Columbine made the news because it was a white suburban middle-upper class school that had a fair amount of people getting shot/killed. 

Its been happening in inner-city schools.  I went to an inner-city school we had metal detactors and Police patroling the school way before Columbine happened, why well because Lepton's would bring in guns to school/shot people.

"Swat teams are breaking into peoples homes without ever sending regular cops in, shooting all dogs to death (standard procedure of swat team is to kill all the dogs) and beating the residents.. usually because someone called in and lied, or because they were following "leads" they know to be bogus (drug dealers mail drugs to random addresses, then their contants in the post office intercepts the package instead of letting it be delivered... the police KNOWS that and is tracking them... so what do they do? swat the people who were addressed on the package despite them never receiving it.)"

I'm not saying that the swat team never came before regular cops BUT the proper procedure is for regular cops to make the assessment if the swat team is needed.  If someone calls in saying that so and so has a gun and is shooting people the 911 dispatcher CAN NOT make the call for the Swat team to go to that area.

It is the Sheriff or Police Chief's call to send in Swat and usual they'll send them in after several officers make the assessment that the SWAT team is needed.  Also about shooting dogs, yes, it is standard procedure (but if its only if they can't get around the dogs or if the dogs have the potential at getting at the officers).  I love dogs some dogs can be very protective and get violent when they feel threaten.  Dogs do act differently when guns are being shot and loads of people are coming to their homes.  You can say well the SWAT team has body armor yet it doesn't protect neck, legs, and arms. After owning a part wolf whose bite was pretty vicious it is not fun to be bite by a dog nor is it safe to be attacked by a dog when you have an automatic weapon in hand. 

To my knownledge most SWAT teams now have started using tranquilizers for animals.

After reading the story the police did tell the kid to drop the weapon.  I am confused as to why he didn't compile.  Why did he point the gun at the police. 

Also as stated the officers shot him probably shot him in manner not to kill.  Again, police go through training and continual training on shootiing, so I'm certain if they wanted to with 2 shots COULD have killed him.

Charles I do understand what you are saying about society.  They did tell him to drop his weapon and the article doesn't say how much time elasped between them telling the kid to drop the weapon to them shooting the kid.  From reading it I could assumed they said 'drop the weapon' then the kid pointed the gun at them and the police shot him, they said 'drop the weapon' then the kid pointed the gun at them and the police could have waited a few minutes, or even how many times they said drop the weapon (usually it does get said repeatly).

Society doesn't corrode over night nor a year it happens over time.  Just like a tooth that has a cavity.  The cavity problem didn't start when you felt the pain it most likely has been doing damage to your tooth quite some time until the point you felt the pain and consequences of the cavity.

The series of events (from the officer's point of view) as described in the article.

1. Report made of "someone" riding a bicycle and waving a gun around.

2. Cop spots the rider.

3. He tells the subject to drop the gun.

4. The subject points the gun at the cop.

5. One non fatal shot was fired on the subject.

Okay, first of all you can't always tell that a 15 year old is indeed a 15 year old. Secondly, the kid didn't follow orders and the police had to take appropriate actions. Third, there is a lot of gangs that rise up in the L.A. area and there have been shootings known to involve kids as young as 10 years old. Four, the officer's job is to protect the general population from threats, if the officer hadn't fired on the suspect and it had been a real gun (which it looked like) there could have been many more lives endangered. It was his duty to not let the kid shoot anyone which is what he appeared to be going to do next.

If you want to blame someone, blame the kid and/or his parents. The parents shouldn't have gotten him a "toy" that could be mistaken for a real weapon. The kid shouldn't have pointed his gun at real cops. Don't blame the officer for doing his job, what's next suing the grocery store for bagging your groceries?

http://www.avpress.com/n/14/0514_s8.hts

http://www.avpress.com/n/12/0512_s5.hts

Posts from Palmdale's newspaper about the shooting, if anyone's interested.