13 year old boy shot 8 times by police for carrying a BB Gun?

1st I find it interesting that this story is almost a year old. July of 2011 is when it occurred. I have quickly searched the internet finding many articles about it but they all are written a day or 2 following the incident. No follow-up stories. What truely happened? He was charged with two felonies, aggravated assault to a police officer and criminal damage to property. But I do not know how those charges came out. There's alot more to this than what is written here.

Secondly I have to ask this question. What is a 13 year old boy doing at 11 o'clock at night with a BB gun in a populated area. The police were dispatched to "shots fired". They would have been pumped up andconcerned about their own safety, their partners safety and the publics safety.

In the dark, shots fired, and concerned about safety I do not blame the police. 8 shots can happen real fast when the target does not fall. No where does it say the cops shot him on the ground, so he was still standing.

At this point I'd say totally justified shooting.

This one caught my eye because of a similar incedent that happened in my State almost 10 years ago where a man that had already been handcuffed was shot 12 times for threatening police with a box knife.
http://www.thedenverchannel.c...
In that case it turned out one officer was new and they found he did overreact due to inexperience and he was disciplined for excessive force. I wondered if this was a similar incedent.

The amount of shots is irrelevant.

If the police are justified in shooting someone, they the shoot to kill and keep shooting till their target stops moving. I would do the same.

The definition of excessive force disagrees with you.
"Force should be used in only the minimum amount needed to achieve a legitimate purpose. Police brutality is a direct violation of the laws within the police force. The use of excessive force is also a direct violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S Constitution regarding cruelty and protection of the laws. "
http://definitions.uslegal.co...

Police are supposed to use only the amount of force needed to subdue the subject not keep shooting till they stop moving.

When they shoot, they shoot to kill, I support that policy.

But as I have pointed out that is not the official policy.
A citizen found to have used excessive force can be charged with manslaughter a police officer can be charged with excessive force in those situations.

I put that anser there for a reason. It is because I cannot totally rule out that it was justified. It just sounds 'fishy' to me.
The good news is the boy did not die. he may loose some motor control of his hand though.

I've seen those "BB Guns" that are now made to exactly look like military semi-automatic rifles and pistols. There are sold for PROFITS by unthinking and uncaring manufacturers who should be held liable and severely punished as they are the cause of this boy's death.
Just a few weeks ago I say one in a Sports Authority store that I thought to be a Mossberg Model 50 shotgun exactly like one I own, and only after I picked it up could I tell the difference. We can't expect police or armed citizens to expose themselves to a teenager armed with such an absurd replica. Damn you "Second Amendment Rights" freaks that block all reasonable attempts to control the production and sale of such trash - you are equally responsible as the manufacturers for this boy's death.

I support the Second Amendment and I bear zero responsibility for this death and neither does the toy manufacturer.

You obviously have no sense of moral compass or responsibility for your actions. That is pretty much the mind set of most who think only of themselves and packing around a pistol like Mr. Zimmerman, hoping to have a chance to shoot someone. That is also the mind set of those who could care no less that an innocent child died for a $2 profit to a Chinese plastic shop making "toys" that kill children in one way or another.

Do you hold me responsible for the death of this boy?

If you are among those who prevent sane persons from preventing the manufacture and sale of these "look alike" weapons, then, yes, you are a part of the culture that caused the death of this innocent child, and will cause similar deaths every few days until these absurd "toys" are removed from the stores and burned. This youth's death is no less your fault than it is of the one who sold the "gun" for a few dollars profit, or would sell a package of cigarettes to the child or a "joint" or a rock of "crack" to a child or juvenile. You can't be part of the problem and not stand up and take your share of the blame when things go wrong and the inevitable happens. Those who use the "Second Amendment" of the Constitution to prevent sanity from prevailing are, indeed, co-conspirators with all who use the weapons, real and immitations, to bring harm to others.

Do you hold the kid or his parent responsible? Or do I carry the majority of the responsibility because I believe in a free market?

All who participate in the lunacy that allows these absurdities need to stand up and accept their share of the responsibility for the inevitable results of their contributions. Had you given a child the matches with which he set fire to his bedroom curtains and died in the flames, you would be no less responsible than to defend the lunacy of making these "toys" and selling them in the "free market" where ignorance and lusts of every sort are found.

I've met persons who believe that children should be allowed to buy liquor, cigarettes, knives, heroine, and whatever the "free market" would provide, even pistols and gunpowder. Because you "believe" is not an excuse at all for a mistaken avoidance of your responsibilities for the inevitable results of your agenda. Were this dead boy residing in a casket in your living room today you would be rethinking your "belief" without my prodding.

You dodged the question.

Have a nice day.

I'm sure the parents know their mistakes without me elaborating to them. The child in their living room was once theirs, and they bought
the absurd "toy". They will never be able to free themselves of their
regrets and sorrow. You, on the other hand, have opportunity to avoid
a similar fate or contribute to even one more of these horrific events.

Hmm, I feel no zero responsibility for that kid.

Some people are like that - they don't see the results of their own actions and contributions to society. The UniBomber and Charles
Manson were like that, just focused on their own "beliefs" that justified whatever they did.

Wow, you are so full of hate, how do you sleep at night?

My life doesn't harm anyone, and I try to keep that in mind every day when I choose the things I advocate and support in any way.
Before you make the obvious mistake of judging my persepective, know that I own a modest collection of weapons and know the responsibility of them. They are not toys and not for the pleasure of children.

You don't seem to have any trouble judging the perspective of others.

Indeed, when they tell me about it, I can be quite conversant. Feel free to comment to my revelation.
I just wanted you to know that I am not one opposed
to having weapons in the hands of sound minds and
responsible persons.

You are quite intelligent an impressive, I bow to your greatness.

They probably thought he was armed with a bag of Skittles.

He was shot twice in the hand so most likely he had dropped the gun after the first one.
It seems excessive to me for a 'suspect' who was obviously not shooting back, why empty the clip?