Oklahoma Police Kill 5-Year Old Boy While Shooting at Snake

I know there are officers of the law here on fauna, are you able to tell us if you are under the same guidelines for Discharging a weapon in a public place such as this? ( are you under the same guidelines that a weapon is not to be discharged within 500 Feet of a dwelling as well? if it was in fact near a home.... )

Not that it makes any difference (not to the kid and his family at least), but the pond they were fishing at was in a remote area, not near homes or businesses, at least that it what I read. I'll try to find the article that stated this. What a senseless tragedy.

What a DUMB A$$! He must have been shooting at one of those dangerous Bull or Rat snakes I hear they have in Oklahoma. Has anyone heard what kind of snake the cop was shooting at? I would think at the very least he would get manslaughter for his actions. I truly feel bad for the family.

Scott Sweeney
Sweeney's Serpents

You know the worst part for me that comes out of all this? The guilt that Grandfather will have his whole life. The fact he put his grandson in that exact position, at that exact time, and now his family won't ever see him again. These police and co. deserve everything they get, and then some more. All for a snake hissing in a tree. What a god damn shame.

Originally Posted by KelliH

Not that it makes any difference (not to the kid and his family at least), but the pond they were fishing at was in a remote area, not near homes or businesses, at least that it what I read. I'll try to find the article that stated this. What a senseless tragedy.

Cool cool, i was not sure, it would be interesting to know though.

With ponds in my area ( not saying all are the same! lol ) there are houses near and around them, some even on. so thats where my general thought for that came in. If anything, it would have at least helped the case somewhat in pushing it to be put into action, and would have made the officer whose fault this was, at fault more easily.

To me, and this is simply opinion not law, anyone be it cop, citizen, whomever, should be responsible for all that arrises out of the discharging of a weapon, period. Now I understand cops have to use their guns in situations at the blink of eye and alot can happen, but that is not the case here. The cops tried several methods to get the snake down to no avail, and turned to fire power. With more than one officer present and no emergency on their hands it seems to me a responsible person, especially a police officer would have checked the area and made sure that this was a reasonable solution before discharging his gun, which would have included warning the people in the area to move or be aware of whats going on. At the end of the day nothing that is done is going to bring back this little boy who died over someones carelessness and lack of responsibility, and it's a shame that stuff like this has to happen. Dan M.

As an avid hunter, outdoorsman, herper, a man with a good amount of firearms training (legal and practical), a father and grandfather, this is just sickening.

That cop is a moron. People that stupid should not be allowed to OWN firearms, let alone BE A COP. Who fires BULLETS at a snake in a tree? JESUS H!

My teenage daughter knows better than that!

Now a boy, on a fishing trip with his grandpa is dead. Some things are accidents, and are nobody's fault. This is not one of those cases.

Outrageous.

Originally Posted by jsrocket

As an avid hunter, outdoorsman, herper, a man with a good amount of firearms training (legal and practical), a father and grandfather, this is just sickening.

That cop is a moron. People that stupid should not be allowed to OWN firearms, let alone BE A COP. Who fires BULLETS at a snake in a tree? JESUS H!

My teenage daughter knows better than that!

Now a boy, on a fishing trip with his grandpa is dead. Some things are accidents, and are nobody's fault. This is not one of those cases.

Outrageous.

And some things are accidents that are clearly somebody's fault... but no less of an accident.

I have a rough time these days with the end effects of competition between news sources. With papers and television not having to throw down against the web, all too often there's an emphasis on sensationalistic writing styles and speed, churning out the most interesting story in the shortest amount of time, rather than the most accurate after a thorough fact checking process. I have yet to read a report that wasn't immediately and automatically condemning the police officer. Everything I have read has made it seem like there's no doubt about the events and even though it seems quite obvious what the series of events was, the department hasn't finished conducting an investigation or deciding if charges will be pressed, which to my mind means there's at least a *little* room for some small doubt.

That aside, accepting the events at the face value of the reports I have read, each one subsequent to the first has added a little more mitigating information. First it was just a cop who was firing into a tree. Then it was noted that there were no longer any animal control officers in the county- a mitigating factor when looking at the decision of the officer to act... and that the minimal information that was given to officers allowed for the use of firearms in dealing with nuisance animals. Since the grandfather is quoted as saying that he couldn't see the shooter, it's probably safe to assume the shooter couldn't see the people- foliage is my guess but I haven't seen anything written down to verify that. The area sounds like it *seemed* clear.

It was obviously negligent to discharge a firearm without at least taking the time to check behind where the shot was being aimed at. It was clearly a mistake and an error in judgement and, unless they have a really bizzare police force, probably the single worst mistake of that officer's life. However the way it's being villified by people isn't sitting right with me, especially given the lack of an agressive modifier. There are plenty of human life ending "mistakes" that include, at some point, a decision which seems to maliciously affect the likelyhood of a negative outcome and I'm just not seeing that behavior here.

Originally Posted by Seamus Haley

With papers and television not having to throw down against the web,

That should read "noW having to"

Seamus, I'm not exactly sure what your point was. Regardless of the media coverage, the basic facts are simple: cop fired his weapon and killed a 5 year old.

Should he be villified? Perhaps not. But he should absolutely be held responsible for his actions.

As I said before, he violated one of the basic rules of firearm safety, he did NOT know what was behind his target. Whether there was foliage blocking his view or not is irrelevant. Foliage does not stop bullets.

But the even more basic fact is this: Anyone who fires a weapon is responsible for where that bullet ends up. Period. End of Story.

That Cop's bullet ended up in a 5 year old's head. The cop is responsible for that.

Doesn't mean the cop is a horrible person, but he did make a horrible mistake.
One that should result in criminal charges of negligent homicide.

And I'm not saying that because I have anything against the police. I'm saying that because I have been around firearms my entire life basically and my outrage is based the obvious breach of firearms safety. ie: the cop, more than anyone, should have known better.

Originally Posted by monkeywrench133

Seamus, I'm not exactly sure what your point was. Regardless of the media coverage, the basic facts are simple: cop fired his weapon and killed a 5 year old.

That's not simple at all. It's a pronouncement of guilt before an investigation has concluded, before an arraignment happens, before a plea is entered one way or the other and before the outcome of a trial, if it comes to it.

Should he be villified? Perhaps not. But he should absolutely be held responsible for his actions.

That was pretty much it, yeah. I've seen this story reported on about five different sites that I frequent and the responses have ranged from "It's a tradgedy, he does deserve to be charged if the facts bear out though." to some of the rabid internet warriors making their own threats of physical violance or passing moral judgements on an act which didn't have any moral motivation.

As I said before, he violated one of the basic rules of firearm safety, he did NOT know what was behind his target. Whether there was foliage blocking his view or not is irrelevant. Foliage does not stop bullets.

And while, should the evidence all come in solidly to verify that the initial media sensationalist halfassed reporting is accurate, the above is true... I don't see any specific act which made the reported action particularly reprehensible. Given the nature of the extremely rural and secluded area and his intention of hitting a target he was standing next to... There was no act which I can qualify as maliciously negligent, as there would have been firing in an urban area or in the case of say... drunk driving homicides.

That Cop's bullet ended up in a 5 year old's head. The cop is responsible for that.

That bothers me.

Here's a quoted passage by Robert Anton Wilson, he wrote it in the nineties and about an event in the eighties... but it... Well, it's pretty self explanitory.

[quoteBack in the 1980s, when I lived in Ireland, a murder occured in Phoenix Park and the police started looking for a suspect named James MacArthur. They found him living in the luxury pad of the Attorney General, which led to great scandal and outrage. The Attorney General was a bachelor in his 40s and MacArthur was a young man of about 20. Even in puritanical Ireland, they have heard of homosexuality and certain inferences were discussed widely in the pubs,although not in the media. The AG resigned and the Prime Minister, Charles Haughey, had a press conference, in which nobody mentioned the innundoes going around, but the tension still got so great that Mr. Haughey accidentally had a slip of the tongue. None of the media repeated what Haughey had said,but the defense attorneys asked for a dismissal anyway because (they claimed) some prospective jurors might hear what the Head of Government had said and be prejudiced by it.

The judge ruled that there was no evidence of enough gossip to taint the jury pool, and MacArthur stood trial and was convicted. A year or so later I met a few reporters and learned what none of the media had dared to tell us:namely, that Haughey had inadvertently referred to MacArthur as "the murderer" instead of "the accused."

You see, the Irish media never pronounces on the guilt or innocense of accused persons. They consider that contrary to the ideas of fair trial and fair juries.

The same events could have happened in England, and perhaps in other civilized countries, although not in the U.S., where the media would have all proclaimed MacArthur's guilt from the day the coppers started hunting him as a suspect, and would have used banner headlines to announce that the head of government agreed with them that the guy really committed the murder.

I much prefer the rules governing criminal cases in civilized countries to the rules in the United States.

No, this is not another comment on O.J. -- at least not in particular. I just don't like the lynch-mob stink that our media always emits when somebody is accused of a major felony.[/quote]

He's a professional writer somewhat noted for his tendency towards dissent, coming out of the sixties... explains some of the attitudes and some of the hyperbolic eloquence... but there's a point in there that I think is very valid.