http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/06/boy.killed.ap/index.html




Okay- we all know the cop will do 0 jail time for this, the worst he can expect from the law is the loss of his job and maybe a lawsuit- certainly NOT punishment enough for his killing of a child.

First thing I thought of was "I would hunt him down like and animal and wear his skin to keep warm"- and do my jail time willingly for it, without remorse.

There will never be any justice for the family of the murdered boy

So my question is- is it okay for this policeman to never serve a day in jail for this crime?

What would be the appropriate justice in this case?

Would you take justice into your own hands if it were your child (this goes out to those with a child the most, since this is so visceral when you have kids)?

So my question is- is it okay for this policeman to never serve a day in jail for this crime?

He should serve time in prison for this blunder. Aren't police officers trained to secure the perimeter before using fire arms? If not, then the police department he works for should be investigated.


What would be the appropriate justice in this case?

You know, that's a tough question. Nothing is going to bring the boy back and nothing will ease the pain his parents are feeling and will continue to feel. It is the absolute worst and most devastating fear --- the loss of a child. How do you dole out punishment to fit such a misdeed. I guess I would look at his record and if there have been other gross errors, then I'd say he should serve 15 or more years.

Would you take justice into your own hands if it were your child (this goes out to those with a child the most, since this is so visceral when you have kids)?

I would be compelled to find justice with or without the legal system's cooperation. I don't know that I would attempt to take the man's life if he did not commit this horrible mistake on purpose.

It's very sad.

Could I just ask, could the snake have been mortally dangerous? How dangerous are snakes in the USA?

Cop shooting a sanke out of a tree? Who the Hell shoots anything out of a tree?

WTF? Not only should this idiot be in jail he should be reminded daily he's an irresponsible murderer. No he didn't intend to kill anyone but he's so bleeding stupid that his actions can reasonably be construed as negligent manslaughter.

This guy would wish he were in jail if he'd have killed my son because I'd keep him alive for weeks before I gave him the mercy of death.

No, the snake is was not poisonous. Besides, how many snake carcasses do you see in trees? I think the snake was capable of getting himself out of the tree.

BA- when reading this story- I had the same thoughts. I have two children, so I would probably not act on those murderous thoughts, in order to care for my surviving child. But if he made me childless, he would be much safer in jail.

The question is a tadbit presumptuous isn't it? Officers have been charged in instances like this time, after time, after time,and did I mention time again?



The appropriate thing to do would be to go through the legal system.



I can honestly say that I wouldn't. I would get my "justice" through the proper channels. The officer faces possible termination, a huge blight on his record for any and all future employers to see, not to mention a huge swipe at the city's tax structure when a wrongful death suit gives the family of this child millions. Just to "turn the knife" so to speak, I'd become an activist and encourage a police review board to be instituted in the city. They would come to hate me as I would encourage the citizens to watch everything they do. And I'd continue that to my dying day. Heck, I'd even invite Al Sharpton to help me.

Well, I have nothing but respect for you and the Quarkheads of this world- I can honestly say you are probably better men than me, because I don't think I could live with myself for NOT doing that dude in, if it were my only child.

So my question is- is it okay for this policeman to never serve a day in jail for this crime?

Let me say first of all that I have never been one to grant the police some sort of excuse for abuses of their enormous power over the rest of us. All law officers must be held to much higher standards than ordinary citizens. With that in mind, I think it is clear that in this case there was no malice whatsoever on the part of the officer. (As there has been in the many clear cases of abuse and unjustified use of violence.) The very worst one can say is that someone who should be extremely careful with the use of firearms acted with extraordinary foolishness. (It is another issue entirely whether the deliberate killing of an animal which was, apparently, not an immediate threat to anyone should be treated as a criminal act. Most Americans seem to feel an irrational hatred of all snakes, no matter how harmless, and want to kill them as soon as they see them. This tragedy demonstrates why our emotions should not be the basis of our actions without the tempering of reason.)

What would be the appropriate justice in this case?

Given the immense power which is given to the police, it is only appropriate that the legal system require them to act with much more responsibility than ordinary citizens. In this particular case, it would seem appropriate for the officer to be removed from service and not allowed to bear a firearm (since it has been demonstrated that the officer acted without the responsibility all those entrusted with deadly force must show.) In addition to this, a charge of involuntary manslaughter may be appropriate. I am not suggesting that legal action should not be severe; but one must keep in mind the enormous difference between an accident caused by terrible carelessness and deliberate malice. If we make use of the ultimate punishment for lack of caution, what do we do for those who genuinely choose to do evil?

Would you take justice into your own hands if it were your child (this goes out to those with a child the most, since this is so visceral when you have kids)?

In a sense, I cannot truly answer this question, having never experienced parenthood. However, I can say that the desire for revenge does not seem to make up an important part of my personality. This is not in any way to suggest that my position is morally superior; it is simply a fact, just as it is a fact that I am a coward in all ways (which may be related to my lack of interest in vengeance.) If I do seek revenge outside the law, I should be stopped.

Let me consider this question without regard for ethical considerations. Strictly from self-interest, I fail to see how seeking out revenge, particularly for an action which was inadvertent, is of any benefit to me. It does not bring back the dead, nor does it ease my grief in any way. In fact, it is difficult for me to imagine how it would not increase my misery, given the fact that I must now live the rest of my life knowing that I had done an act of violence.

Your first thought ' "I would hunt him down like and animal and wear his skin to keep warm"- and do my jail time willingly for it, without remorse.' is pretty close to my sentiment! I am not even a parent anymore of small children, but whenever I think of my grandchildren being harmed in any way by anyone, I make a like statement minus the skin part! I know that my husband and family think I don't really mean it, but I do! The family of the child will never get over this loss! I have a family full of cops and we live in Southern California! A heavy duty judgment call was required here on the part of the police officer; this is what they are trained for! A civil suit is definitely required plus an indictment of Involuntary Manslaughter! That poor grandfather; the remainder of his life is now ruined! My problem is that I have no faith in the justice system so I doubt I could stop myself from committing a crime that would ultimately send me to jail!

So my question is- is it okay for this policeman to never serve a day in jail for this crime?

I couldn't find enough information to prompt me to believe that jail time should be necessary. There are plenty of potential scenarios either way.

What would be the appropriate justice in this case?

Obviously, not enough info yet. Did the police officer honestly believe shooting the snake was the appropriate course of action? Does the law stipulate that law enforcement can shoot for these reasons? Was the outcome something that could not have been foreseen? The list goes on and on.

Would you take justice into your own hands if it were your child (this goes out to those with a child the most, since this is so visceral when you have kids)?

Absolutely not. Is it visceral for me (my eldest is my only son)? Yes. Would it hasten my own demise? Probably. I have a responsibility to the remainder of my family though. From so much outrageousness stands the chance of so much meaningful redemption for everyone. Taking justice into my own hands only compounds several fold an already tragic situation. Would I want to speak to the officer? You bet 'ya!

Did you listen to the grandfather from the clip? In so many words he recognizes what the ideal should be but confesses that this will take some time (take as much time as you need!) God bless this grandfather and the police officer...

So my question is- is it okay for this policeman to never serve a day in jail for this crime?

From reading the article, the officer in question has been put on administrative leave pending an internal police investigation. Until that investigation is complete, there is no reason to suppose this poor kid died as the result of a crime at all, rather than an unhappy accident.

What would be the appropriate justice in this case?

If it is deemed to be an accident, then it is not a matter for the justice system (or for vigilantism), since accidents are not crimes. Almost all accidents are caused by carelessness.

But, as has been said, police cannot afford to be careless. I doubt very much whether the officer in question should ever be put into a role which required the use of firearms again. He or she should be a desk jockey from here on in, if the force still wants them at all.

Then again, on the facts presented, we can't tell if a crime was committed. Bullets travel a long way - how far away from the creek where the kid and his gramps were fishing was the police "marksman"? For all we know it could've been a mile or more - farther than the officer could reasonably be expected to have checked (or depending on the terrain & vegetation, maybe even farther than they could possibly have checked).

If it was, perhaps some more target training is in order. Maybe I've got an overly high opinion of rural Oklahoma police, but I doubt even the dumbest policeman would shoot a harmless snake out of a tree, with the agreement of the tree-owner who called them out in the first place. Therefore, some danger must have been posed by the snake. Think of it this way - if it had been a different sort of dangerous wild animal - say, a bear or cougar - and he'd missed and shot the kid who was (let's assume) hidden from view, would anybody reasonably be able to interpret this as even carelessness?

Would you take justice into your own hands if it were your child (this goes out to those with a child the most, since this is so visceral when you have kids)?

I would probably want to. But if I acted on it and took the law into my own hands, I would be committing a more obvious and more heinous crime than anything that happened here (based on the available information in the linked article, you understand).

Just for the record, I have two boys and a third one will be here Aug. 31st. There isn't anything I wouldn't do for them and questions like this really put one in a bind. The unspoken implication seems to be that if you don't kill the perpetrator, then you don't love your children. That isn't the case. Yes, the brainstem primal urge would be to rip another person from limb to limb, but the frontal lobes also point out the folly of such extreme actions. If I end up in prison, then who really benefits? Who really comes out on top? The children would still be dead and I'd be in prison and my wife would be alone. Pyrrhic victory don't you think? Nothing could bring my children if such a terrible thing would happen.

Again, I would look for a more productive outlet. Look at Mark Klaas who founded the Klaas Kids Foundation and who helped pass Megan's law into the books around the country. He could've taken the law into his own hands, instead, he helped create laws that lessen the chance for other children to be harmed as his was.

No, I don't mean to imply that at all Neb- I really do admire you and quarkheads ability to still find peace and not act out violently, if there weren't othere kids to consider- I would only be held back by my obligation to my other kid. I think that would be the only thing to hold me back.

What really chaps my fanny- and makes it worse- is that this guy that did the killing will never see a day on jail.

So my question is- is it okay for this policeman to never serve a day in jail for this crime?

OK, what the hell is up with Oklahoma, anyway? Have these people never dealt with snakes before? I find that difficult to believe. And my first call wouldn’t be to the police department, for god’s sake. That’s why there’s animal control! Leave it to a gun-happy state like OK to try to shoot a snake out of a tree. Lord have mercy.

This is a tragic accident resulting from an incredibly stupid use of a firearm from a person who should know better. I just love the police dept.’s comment:

Whew. Mind-boggling. Like WHO?!? Is everybody out in their back yard shooting guns? Jeez, and they say L.A. is dangerous.

What would be the appropriate justice in this case?

I believe the officer should be dismissed for irresponsible use of his firearm, serve time in jail, and the family of the boy should sue him and the department both for their collective stupidity.

Would you take justice into your own hands if it were your child (this goes out to those with a child the most, since this is so visceral when you have kids)?

No. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Would this have been your only child? If not, why wouldn't you think about what your violent act would do to your remaining child/ren? What is the point of continuing to escalate the violence? Nothing will bring this child back to life, and satisfying one's blood lust by killing the other person would be fleeting, and I'd have to imagine, unfulfilling.

Thankyou for this post. I agree with everything stated above, and it all bares repeating (so I requoted it ).

Consider CR, if the offending officer in question has children? According to what I read, there were two officers at the scene and we don't even know which one is to blame. Would you kill both of them to make sure you got the right guy? And afterwards, would any surviving children in turn be justified in killing you?

I wish I could say that I wouldn't be drawn to kill in such a situation. As a mother, I would want to kill whoever killed my child (even inadvertently). But I do hope that some sort of rational thought would overcome that primal instinct (or someone would stop me). If so, the person intervening to stop me, would be doing the right thing.

Wow, conservatives would offer there children to the system, how bizarre

They cop was a flagrant idiot. If I was shooting at a snake in my front yard and killed some kid do you think I would get house arrest pending an investigation. Such ridiculous double standards really, pretty muck makes being a cop a get out of jail free card if society will shoulder such acts as a necessary evil. I have to agree with CR on this one, that guy should really meat some horrible and slow ends in a dark ally somewhere if any real justice were to exist, but then again life is not fair, beautiful or elegant and that’s why we all need to read the bible, JK. Really thought just write some politician with money and see if he or she will help you.

I'm not sure how failing to hunt down and kill a police officer (or in this case two) in cold blood would be "offering my children to the system". Yes, the policeman acted incorrectly, likely idioticly. No, he did not gun down a child maliciously in cold blood. And no, he should not be gunned down in cold blood himself to avenge the death of this child.

Edited to add: To answer moif above, there are several varieties of poisonous snakes in the US. In Oklahoma there are rattlesnakes and cottonmouths that I know of, maybe a few more.

Because the question I think goes on beyond simple personal philosophy into what would you do? CR put that he would like to obtain justice should that have been his kids, and I see that as a very real response someone might have. I mean this guy pulled out a gun to kill a snake, fired shots and instead ruined very easily a family while killing a five year old child, and yet what do we have for it, not much currently. I would instantly like to suppose what would have happened if a regular Joe had done that. Recently a story involving a mom who left here eight kids in a van for twenty minutes why she went into the store, she got arrested for that and probably charged with who knows what, yet a police officer, obviously a very stupid one who should not have been a cop, fires and hits and kills a child gets what? Its like priests that rape children compared to regular homo sapiens that do such. I mean what it comes down to is basic human ignorance if I may be so blunt about it. Kind of makes justice little more then a corrupt joke really.

As for the snake bit, killing snakes is not that hard, I managed to kill a full grown cotton mouth with little more then a stick and a pocket knife and never was really under stress personally while doing such, they are simpler animals that can easily be outthought. The danger they pose is from ignorant people that just go wondering around with no environmental awareness going on.

Well, a surgeon cuts people open for a living. If some "regular Joe" cut people open we'd call that "serial killing". But a surgeon can make a mistake, due to stupidity or poor training or bad judgement, and kill a person. Usually this is considered malpractice not murder. Same concept.

No its not. A person goes in fully knowing that the surgeon is capable of making a mistake, heck don’t you even have to sign forms related to that anymore? The kid was down with his family when a slug ripped though him ending his life, I think its a big difference. A police officer drew his gun and fired it with the results being a dead five year old. A surgeon does not randomly on a civic bus somewhere decide to conduct brain surgery because someone on the bus might have a condition.

Mrs P- there is an expectation, however slim, that even going under from anesthesia could kill you. It is an assumed and informed risk.

What this cop did goes beyond even incompetance like when you speak of a Dr and malpractise. Yes, I would like to see Drs that kill through extreme negligence (like operating while drunk, it has happened) go to jail- just like this cop.

The cops actions SHOULD deprive his children of a father- just like any other criminal that has kids that either sits on death row or spends life behind bars. The criminals family should be of no consideration for the punishment at all. This defense is used in sentencing all the time by mothers that offend. There was a mother here convicted of murder in a drive by, and she tearfully asks for leniancy in sentencing because she has 3 small children and no father for any of them- they had all been locked up themselves. So what? She deprived those kids of thier mother- NOT the judge!

Same with this cop- the minute he shot off so stupidly (and if the other cop didnn't stop him, he deserves equal punishment for standing by and not stopping this idiot.) he became an accesory to murder as far as I am concerned. The lack of pre-meditation on where his bullets were going to me is just as bad as the guy who plans a murder in cold blood.

IF that were my only child, and I had no responsibilities outside that child, ya, I don't think I could overcome my primal need to "go mediviel on his butt"

Cue the dueling banjos music from Deliverance and you've hit the nail on the head. Having lived there for six years, I can testify of the fact that things are very different down there. This is simply a case of downright stupidity. Not having enough IQ points to know how to settle the issue without pulling out the firearms-unreal.

This comes under third degree manslaughter, the moron's murder. It's not illegal to be stupid, only when it causes death from carelessness.

No, it's not right to let a police officer off the legal hook in this case. Trial by jury, 5-15 I imagine.

Sure, if this were my kid or step-kid, I'd be out for blood. That's why we make that illegal too. Remember the Hatfields and McCoys? The police officer has family too.

The home owner may have liability here, if said owner insisted the police shoot the snake in the tree.

The question of another shooter should be investigated. Seems unlikely, but you never know until you look.

About the only dangerous snakes I can think of in OK are the rattler and copperhead, and I'm not sure they have them either. We've got the timber rattler, and in certain areas they are thicker than prairie dogs. Tourists get hit regularly in the Garden of the Gods. Up here I've never seen one, but a kid got struck not far away, about 1,000 feet lower. I've heard of more lightning strikes on people than rattler bites, and if you survive lightning, you're messed up for life. Rattler bites are nothing by comparison.

But geez, a stupid, say, rattler in a tree? Of what danger is that? Ever hear of a sling-shot? Pellet gun? But still, who cares about a rattler in a tree. I'd be taking photos. Then I'd be ignoring the poor beast and keep the cats (maybe dogs in this case) inside. Everyone knows a rattler has to coil before it strikes, and then it gives warning (sometimes). They do in the movies anyway.

Rattler, copperhead, coral, cotton mouth -- think that's it for the US. This would be real stupid if it were a gopher snake, or worse, a crummy little garter. Or did the homeowner think it was Satan? Was it an apple tree? Was there a naked couple nearby? A Bible? Meth?

Well, shouldn't joke about a 5-year-old getting killed. Yeah, I'd be bloody-eyed over this if it were my kid. Except I don't think the skin part would be very warm. Has someone been reading Aztec?

Here's another thing that gives me pause -- how the heck unlucky is it to be hit by a stray bullet in the head, and to be hit in a deadly manner? The odds of this seem way high. Maybe it was a .357 magnum, that'd do it with paper cutters. But say a 9mm? .38? Gives me pause.

Is it okay for this policeman to never serve a day in jail for this crime?

That depends on the outcome of the investigation. This sounds like a tragic accident arising from gross stupidity. As AM has pointed out, stupidity is not, of itself, a crime - though it can certainly figure in manslaughter charges. We are apparently talking about a local cop who should have known that there was a boat dock in the direction in which he was firing. As he clearly did not make sure that there were no bystanders in his line of fire, this sounds like a case of criminal negligence and recklessness. Both constitute involuntary manslaughter, which does carry penalties, including jail time (usually in the neighborhood of five years). If the evidence indicates that this was a case of manslaughter (and on the basis of the article that seems to be the case), then the officer should, of course, serve time. Indeed, as a law enforcement officer with - presumably - a greater amount of responsibility and a better capacity for handling firearms safely, he should serve the maximum time possible.

I wish there were a penalty for the hysterical idiots who called in the police because a damned stupid snake was hissing at them. This accident was actually their fault - and I hope they never sleep again. Were I of a vigilante bent, it's those fools I'd be going after.

What would be the appropriate justice in this case?

Trial by jury and punishment based on the civil code.

Would you take justice into your own hands if it were your child (this goes out to those with a child the most, since this is so visceral when you have kids)?

No, I would not. Would I want to? Hell, yeah. Almost any parent would. And that is exactly why trials are conducted by impartial judges and juries and not by the victims of crimes - or their relatives. Vengeance is not justice.


moif: There are four types of venomous snake in the US: several varieties of rattlesnake, three types of coral snake, the cottonmouth moccasin, and the eastern copperhead. Rattlers, cottonmouths, and copperheads can all be found in Oklahoma. None of them are particularly aggressive - and their bites, while often painful, are seldom fatal.

So my question is- is it okay for this policeman to never serve a day in jail for this crime?
Yes, unless you can demonstrate that the policeman showed a reckless disregard for the safety of others. The article does not suggest such is the case.

What would be the appropriate justice in this case?
Appropriate based on what scale? Perhaps a life for a life? Undoubtedly, we should frogmarch the cop down to the town square and string him up by his neck until dead. Or perhaps, assuming that the cop managed to kill the snake, we should parade him down to the town square and throw a party in his honor?

You say there will "never be justice" for the family. If by that, you mean something that will assuage their pain and grief, you are correct. Not even slaughtering the cop, and his family, and his friends, and everybody else in his department, and the homeowners who okayed the snake shooting, and the local PETA chapter for trying to protect snakes from murderous humans, and, etc, etc, etc, no, not even vengeance taken on a scale that would make the Golden Horde recoil in horror, not even that would deliver justice.

Perhaps simply suing the county's socks off, and, of course, the cop. Bankrupt the county, then see how many people suffer and perhaps even die because the county can no longer afford to staff the hospital, maintain the fire department, heck, even maintain the roads properly. Hunt down and kill the cop, only do it with lawyers, and the media and all the more "civilized" methods we have today of destroying a person. That surely will bring justice, won't it?

Perhaps simply locking the cop away for the rest of his life. Too bad about shattering his family, after all, they deserve it because the cop is such a lowlife, less human than the snake he was attempting to deal with, and they're related to him. Would that be "appropriate justice"?

It wouldn't, because the cop made a tragic error, he ran afoul of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and as frequently happens in such cases, somebody else suffers. Nothing more, nothing less. As Forrest Gump said to a journalist while out on his legendary run, "--it happens."

Would you take justice into your own hands if it were your child (this goes out to those with a child the most, since this is so visceral when you have kids)?
I would not take "justice", as you loosely toss the term around, into my hands in this case based on the info in the CNN article. If I had reason to believe that a cop did murder my child, i.e. deliberately, with malice intent, killed my innocent child, then if the legal system did not hold him to account, I would very, very seriously consider doing so myself. We delegate our authority and power as citizens to the government to act on our behalf, we do not surrender our authority and power.

My reaction, upon reading the story, was somewhat different from yours. Mine was "man, what a tragedy."



Define "secure". Given that the cop was likely firing up into a tree, how's he going to secure "up"? In rural country (wooded, btw), how is he going to "secure" hundreds of yards out, when its unlikely he can see more than 50 yards in any direction?

Sorry, but I think most, if not all, of you are dead wrong. The cop was doing his job, which includes responding to dangerous animals, helping funeral processions down the street by stopping traffic, and giving clueless travellers directions, none of which are "law enforcement." He wasn't "stupid", unless, as CR asserts without any proof, that the snake was harmless, and he knew it was harmless. The cops didn't pull up to the place, see the snake, and start blazing away at it like BC's Fat Lady on crack. It was a decision made after due consideration. Did they consider whether or not anyone was likely downrange and at risk? I don't know, and neither do you! My guess, based on my law enforcement training, is that they may have simply evaluated what they could see, and failed to account for the different trajectories they were facing. A bullet fired ballistically into the air is going to carry a lot farther than one fired flat, into brush, and pistols have much shorter ranges than rifles. Criminally negligent? No, because neither omniscence nor perfection is a standard by which we should judge.

I'm probably closest to agreeing with you, Bikerdad (put that down in your diary!), and we really don't have enough information to labor this much further, but I suspect that there was at least an element of recklessness involved here. Unlike some, perhaps, I'm not out to pin blame on the guy just because he's a cop, but let's apply a little deduction here.

We know that there were two shots fired and that the bullets struck within a few yards of each other (or closer). This suggests that the shots weren't fired straight up into the air since, as you doubtless know, a difference of even a fraction of a degree in the aim would place the shots well apart - perhaps hundreds of yards. To get that sort of grouping from firing straight up would require a marksman as good as Lee Harvey Oswald or better. It sounds as though the shots were fired more laterally, though this is admittedly speculation.

We also know that the man and his grandson were fishing from a boat dock. Now, to me, this suggests a structure from which people might likely go fishing and to which they might even dock boats. This further suggests a certain amount of human activity in the vicinity. Now it is possible that this was some old abandoned dock that hadn't been used since the 1940s and that the officer in question had no reason to believe that it might have been in use by some crazed old man and his hapless grandchild, but I suspect that this spot wasn't all that removed from civilization. But, again, this is speculation. If it was a spot frequented by boaters or fisherman, then the policeman had no business firing in its general direction without first checking for possible bystanders - even to protect hysterics from so ferocious a beast as a measly snake.

It's been quite a few years since I've gone hunting, but I do recall that one of the cardinal rules is that one doesn't discharge one's weapon in the direction of houses, businesses, recreation areas or anywhere else that one might reasonably expect other people to be lurking. I'm not expecting omniscience, just a bit of caution.

But overall, I agree with you. My reaction was also "Man, what a tragedy" rather than "This bastard should hang!". This sounds more like a tragic accident than anything else, though I do feel that there may well have been a certain amount of negligence. Again, there's not enough information to know one way or another, but if this was a reckless act, then the officer should be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter. If it turns out that he had no reason to imagine that anyone else might have been in the vicinity, then, yeah, the officer is blameless. Well, apart from using deadly force against a legless reptile that was likely posing no real threat to anyone - even if it was one of those rare tree-climbing cottonmouths.

According to this site, there are 7 varieties of venomous snakes in OK: Copperhead, Prairie Rattlesnake, Timber Rattlesnake, Western Cottonmouth, Western Diamond-backed Rattlesnake, Western Massasauga Rattlesnake, and the Western Pygmy Rattlesnake.

There are also a boatload of harmless snakes. I wonder if police officer even knew which he was dealing with; venomous or not. Are police officers qualified to determine the type of snake? I doubt it. The officer should have called in animal control. That was his first mistake. His second mistake was firing up at an object that was probably less than 2 inches in diameter, not once, but twice. Extremely poor judgment, imho. That sort of thing is what drunken revelers do on New Year's Eve. What goes up, must come down. Isn't that what the police departments around the country keep telling us?

I don't understand the blood-lust of those who want vigilante justice. Isn't our country violent enough?

Secure would mean to look around before you decide to use a firearm. Take ample measures to at least make sure no person is within ear shot.



They obviously DID NOT consider if anyone was downrange. That's why a child was killed. A snake it a tree, of all places. Who's the snake going to hurt in that tree? Are there people up in that tree? The officer should have called animal control.

A typically snake in America as in regards to getting bit by one is not something you would want to engage in. Typically if you have not receive treatment in at least a half hour as an adult your chances of dying from the venom actually kick in. Regardless you are going to be dealing with lots of nasty stuff like cell necrosis on a rather large scale, as in over time the venom basically destroys tissue period in your body, akin to something that dissolves really. This can vary based on the snake of course and if the snake is in adult form or not or where the bite in located and of course the individual that is bitten. If you are for instance bit, your best bet is to actually calm down the best you can and evacuate the area. Try to do something to slow the spread of the bite down if for instance you cant in a reasonably short period of time get to a hospital.

Most snakes that happen to be poisonous in America as pointed out need education to be defined. For the most part though looking at the skull structure or even the "teeth" if you can of a snake will give you a good heads up on it. Most poisonous snakes if you look at them have a certain "style" if you will to the shape of the head. As for behavior no snake in America as far as I know is aggressive to the point in which it will attack on site. There are exceptions to this as in one type of snake in Africa will chase you even, and its venom is seriously lethal, as in it kills animals much larger then humans. Typically though if you apply some basic education before say touring some place the odds of getting bit by a snake go drastically down, its simple common sense like shaking your shoes out before putting them on if you go camping.

Again, I have dealt with a cottonmouth. For all intensive purposes I managed to deal with the snake using little more then a stick and a pocket knife. I don’t see why a veteran police officer would get in such a fuss over this animal to the point of drawing a firearm, not to mention firing it on a roughly flat trajectory in a direction that without verifying could have had a concert going on to whatever because obviously the officer did not know. This is not some punish the cop for being stupid, this is a person used a firearm in a very dumb fashion resulting in the death of a child and any other related pain that comes from that. If it were a regular person that did such on that day, its my money they would already be incarcerated.

I would venture to guess that the "shooting at a snake in a tree" excuse is a lie. Typically, cops will lie to hide nefarious reasons. "No, I pulled you over because we got a call there was a car that looked like yours that was in a hit-and-run. Not because I wanted to check out your girlfriend's ****." Shooting at a snake? In a tree? Many posters in this thread know this is ridiculous. Chances are, there was no call, and they were just shooting their guns off being stupid. When do cops respond to calls about a snake in trees, in the woods? Who called? Where were the callers when the cops came out to shoot the snake? Was the description of the location of this snake over the phone so informative that the cops knew right where to go? Why not call Animal Services? Why call the cops? This is clearly a lie.

With that said, what would I do? Bloodshed....and lots of it.