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

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.

    • Xhieron@lemmy.worldEnglish
      684·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • Mouselemming
        91·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • Xhieron@lemmy.worldEnglish
          112·
          7 months ago

          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.

    • quindraco@lemm.ee
      157·
      7 months ago

      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?

      • smackjack@lemmy.world
        1·
        7 months ago

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

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        311·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • quindraco@lemm.ee
          155·
          7 months ago

          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.

        • havokdj@lemmy.world
          26·
          7 months ago

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

    • zaph
      91·
      7 months ago

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

      • Captain AggravatedEnglish
        12·
        7 months ago

        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…”

    • Lmaydev@programming.dev
      83·
      7 months ago

      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.