Brownville School Shooting: Suicide by Cop?
Had Jaime Gonzalez not brought a gun to school, he would still be alive. Instead, he assaulted another student for no apparent reason, and somehow people then became aware of his pistol.
According to the released audio, a female assistant principle called 911 and told police about the armed student in the hallway. Officers arrive at around 3 minutes, and she keeps telling everybody about the gun. At 4 minutes into the audio, she tells the dispatcher “he’s drawing the gun” repeatedly. You can hear cops in the background repeatedly yelling at him to “drop the gun” and “put it on the floor.” In the background, somebody says that Gonzalez told cops he’s willing to die. It isn’t until 5:56–nearly two minutes after cops engaged Gonzalez–she reports “shooting going on.”
Gonzalez was shot at least twice and fell. After securing the area, police determined his gun was a “CO2 .177-caliber pellet pistol” that “has the exact appearance of Glock,” according to Detective José Trevino. Brownsville PH Chief Orlando Rodriguez said Gonzalez wasn’t shot until he “pointed the weapon at the officers.”
His godmother was quick to blame police: “He wouldn’t hurt somebody. It was not right. … They didn’t give him a chance.” (Apparently, assault isn’t “hurting somebody” and two minutes of commands isn’t “a chance.”)
This was a sad experience for all concerned, but responsibility remains on the boy’s shoulders. No gun in school, no shooting. So the question is: Why did he do this?
Two rules of gun safety Mr. Gonzalez either never learned or chose to ignore:
1) Never point a gun at anything that you do not intend to shoot.
2) If you point a gun at a law enforcement officer, expect to get shot.
I’m horribly afraid it was suicide. How dreadful, and it’s possible that we will never know why; I’m sorry for his family, the grief must be overwhelming. It doesn’t excuse his godmother’s statement, obviously, but it does allow us to feel some compassion.
I have to say, I’ve read a couple of articles about this incident, with commentary from conservatives criticizing the godmother over what she said about the cops shooting the kid. Yes, I’ll grant you they were justified. It just seems a bit ove the top to expect a woman in her position to say “I’ll miss him but the Police were right to shoot him.” That’s not going to happen pretty much under any scenario, never mind that this is a teenaged high school student.
Whether this was suicide by cop or something else, it’s clear that it was a tragedy, and clear that the kid got himself shot under circumstances that justified the police shooting him…
“…with commentary from conservatives criticizing the godmother over what she said…”
So what does that make you, a liberal? If the rhetoric were true about liberals/Dems, they would be more pro-gun than Republicans. But of course, that’s the problem: it IS only rhetoric.
Nice try with the Alinsky, but trying to pull this into a political debate only calls into question your motive for posting.
No, actually, I’m a conservative. And I’m no Alinskyite, I never even read the damn book and don’t really care. I’m just saying, if you ask a woman, who regards herself as a child’s mother, whether her godson deserved to get shot in his school hallway at age 15, you’re probably not going to get a rational, reasonable, “Oh yes, of course, the police were only doing their jobs.” sort of answer. What the hell did you expect?
Note that I *did* say the cops were justified in shooting the kid, and if you think I’m in favor of gun control or something you’re projecting.
All I’m saying is this: the woman’s grieving over a young boy she knows who just got killed, shot dead by the police. I’d be surprised if it wasn’t a shock to all of them. Perhaps there were signs in the way he acted or whatever, but I seriously doubt anyone thought “Today the boy will go to school and get himself killed” or something like that. They’re not going to say anything rational for a day or two; let them grieve and get over it.
After school shooting, parents seek answers, police defend actions and a Texas town asks why
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/texas-police-kill-eighth-grader-who-wouldnt-drop-pellet-gun-at-school-parents-demand-answers/2012/01/05/gIQAp9s9bP_story.html
Sample:
“Brownsville interim Police Chief Orlando Rodriguez said the preliminary autopsy report showed the boy was shot twice in the torso. Family members initially thought he was shot in the back head, but that wound turned out to be a cut from a fall.
“It really doesn’t change anything at all,” Gonzalez Sr. said after being told of the preliminary autopsy results at the vigil for his son. “If it is a wound from his fall, why shoot him at all? Wound him. Do something else. Use another method.”
Can you say “lawsuit”? They’re very rational already. The kid’s worth more to the parents dead than alive, and that’s THEIR attitude.
You jump to declaring the kid worth more to the parents dead and you accuse others of being Alinskyite?
What a joke.
History will show.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/parents-hit-out-at-police-after-boy-carrying-pellet-gun-shot-dead-20120106-1pndb.html
“Why was so much excess force used on a minor?” the boy’s father, Jaime Gonzalez Sr, asked outside the family’s home. “Three shots. Why not one that would bring him down?”
“What happened was an injustice,” [mother] said angrily.
Speaking of Alinskyite, YOU qualify as one.
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. It also infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
When you had nothing positive to contribute to the conversation, you resorted to ridicule. But it’s obvious you’re already angry because I have some facts and you have only emotion. So instead, you tried ridicule hoping to get me off the facts and into anger, too. Backfired, dude. The facts indicate that the family is working itself up into a lawsuit. With contingency lawyers abounding, it’s only a matter of time…
By the way, pulling the topic into politics was an Alinsky rule:
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Here you want to cause, fear, confusion, and retreat.
I keep saying the same thing, and you keep ignoring me. Let me repeat: THEY JUST LOST THEIR TEENAGED SON IN WHAT HAS TO BE A SHOCKING INCIDENT, TO THEM. EXPECTING A RATIONAL RESPONSE IS RIDICULOUS.
Maybe the parents are looking to sue. If they do they’ll probably (from what I’ve heard so far) lose. But even if they don’t, their reactions are completely natural and reasonable. I don’t have children, but it’s impossible to imagine a situation where the police shot one of my children, and my *immediate* reaction was rational, reasoned, or calm. No, I don’t think several hours or a day gives you time to calm down…this is the sort of thing that takes weeks or months, at a minimum.
And the Alinsky-quoting thing is getting a bit old. There’s no reason to make this political, really. The kid got shot. His parents are upset and want answers (who wouldn’t?). Perhaps we should let the police explain, and leave it at that…
You brought up ” conservatives criticizing the godmother” first, making it a political topic for you. As for the rest, but you repeat yourself. You’ve also ignored my citations which support my concern that this is going to take a legal turn.
They’ll lose? You haven’t been reviewing similar cases here in Texas, that often reach well into 6 figure settlements. Sad but true, a dead teenager is often worth a lot of money to surviving family.
Here’s an example from anti-gun, anti-cop Austin American Statesman:
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/austin-settles-sanders-police-shooting-lawsuit-for-750-1791415.html
The Austin City Council settled for $750,000 a federal wrongful death lawsuit Thursday with the family of a man fatally shot by an officer in 2009, closing a bitter chapter in one of the city’s most notorious police shootings.
suicide for sure. I heard that this type (death by cop) have become more common.
@Howard
I think you got this one pegged.
On our local news last night, they had the father, Gonzalez Sr, on.
I’m not sure that I could have held it together at all, but he was very rational in blaming the police for the shooting. Sure, maybe the interview spliced up to only show this one line, but I’m not sure that I could have even gone on camera in such a situation.
The kid has a weapon that sure looks like a gun to me, he has already assaulted another student, and he refuses to drop the weapon. What were the police supposed to do, wait for the kid to fire the weapon? He was in a crowded school, with people hiding all around him.
Unless there is something else going on here, the police sound like they did their jobs in protecting the other people present.
I disagree, I think he wanted to show everyone how tough he is( or was) and expected to go off in cuffs. This was an effort to gain street creds.