If I were the local DA, that cop would be my Target For Today (like in those old movies about WWII bomber missions). I also see a big, whopping civil lawsuit in these morons' immediate future.

First off, you do NOT shoot unless you know where that bullet's going---and that it's safe. Particularly if nobody's in danger of death.

Second---a snake in a tree, in a rural area, is nobody's idea of a Real Live Emergency. Even if it was poisonous, there was no particular reason for this idiot to panic, or for the cop to start shooting. I strongly suspect that both fools suffer from snake phobia---which, God knows, is common enough, but I'd expect a sworn police officer to be able to handle this sort of situation, phobia or no phobia.

Sounds like a case of negligent homicide to me.

Shooting snakes with a pistol only makes sense if you use snakeshot. Only a moron would use ball amunition.

My condolences to the family of that little boy. And my sympathy to those police officers, this would haunt me if I was one of them.
As someone who grew up squirrel hunting and shooting up at critters in the trees I know that what goes up must come down unless you line up a backstop. Shoulda-woulda-coulda got their shotgun to dispatch that snake. I bet they'd give anything to try this over again.

I'm going to make a generalization about the police officer based on his actions in this situation. Ready?

He's a fucktard.

In that situation, the proper response to someone freaking out about a snake in a tree is: "(Sir or Ma'am), if this animal comes onto your property and becomes an actual threat, here's the number to animal control. As of right now, there's nothing I can do. Why don't you leave this area and try to calm down a bit, yeah? Chances are good that it will leave soon."

As with anything else, a gun should only be pulled out and used in the event of an emergency - a life-threatening event, or an event that, without the application of force, could *become* life-threatening. A snake isn't going to try to kill you unless you fuck with it.

People are so fucking stupid.

Yeah, that was stupid. I can hear the rumble of briefcases (of lawyers) from here...

There are four basic rules for safe gun handling:

1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot.
3. Don't point the gun at anything you're not willing to destroy.
4. Know what's behind and beyond your target.

My dad made me memorize these before I was allowed to touch my first .22 -- when I was TWELVE.

If this had been some bubba he'd be in jail right now (or at least out on bail). Being a LEO makes it worse.

"I was told that they tried several ways to get the snake down, but it was still hissing at them and firmly lodged," Wade said.

I can think of several ways that don’t involve firearms, or the police for that matter. Animal Control comes to mind.

Something important to take into account is that it was “hissing and firmly lodged”. I imagine both are the unsurprising result of trying to get it down in the first place. Unless Oklahoma has those nasty genetically mutated snakes that lodge themselves in trees and hiss at people, and occasionally drop down and mug passerby, it likely didn’t need to become a law enforcement issue.

Besides wondering about the bullet’s trajectory, this comment is somewhat vexing:

“We're pretty sure circumstantially that it is the bullet from the police officer's gun, but it might be a bullet from someone else," Wade said.

Yes, that’s logical. I’ve added in the rest of the statement just to give it some context:

“Yes, we’re thinking the officer fired at the snake, at which point the snake drew his weapon and fired back, killing the 5 year old boy.”

“We’ve had reports of this snake terrorizing the neighborhood for several weeks now and it’s believed to be responsible for at least 6 counts of armed robbery, 1 count of vehicular manslaughter, 3 counts of breaking and entering and multiple counts of aggravated assault.”
“We put pictures of the snake up around town and these folks saw a snake in their back yard that perfectly matched the description. The man confronted the reptile, at which point the snake assaulted him with a tire iron and then fled to a nearby tree. That’s when we were called in to deal with the situation.”

In a related story, 2 people were killed and 9 wounded when a Colorado police officer opened fire on a bee’s nest.

So there was potentially a second snake shooter? Where? On a boggy knoll? Good grief.

Yeah, but the second guy shooting at the snake had a harpoon gun. There was a third getting his truck mounted Browing .50 ready when they realized there was a problem.

What I'm trying to figure out is how short is this tree that not one, but TWO shots apparently fired at a snake up in its branches found their way to a boy and his grandfather fishing on a pond nearby, presumably not at an upward angle from the tree. Or was this one of those weird ponds where the water gathers at the top of a hill. Idiot.

I am originally from Oklahoma, and I know this town. And this does not surprise me one bit. My heart goes out to all involved, including the mentally defunct officer who deemed it a good idea to try to shoot the snake. Because he is going to have to live with the fact that his stupidity killed a child that was fishing with his grandpa.

But I promise you, do not be surprised if there is no legal action in this case. For one screaming example about how the Oklahoma legal system is the definition of "Completely Fucked Up", Google Kelsey Briggs. Short story: child was killed by blunt force trauma to the abdomen, neither of the 2 people who were responsible for her (step-dad and mother) were charged w/ murder. Both received child abuse convictions. Dad was serving in Iraq at the time. How's that for a welcome home present?

How terribly sad for that Granddad. I'm not so much concerned about the kid; I think God gathers to Him the little ones. But can you imagine seeing your grandson die?

That is such a sad story. Look to the left to use it to promote disarming cops.

G Fresh - it is entirely possible for a pond to be uphill from a tree, especially if it is man-made. Where I live (in Kentucky), many ponds are made by damming off a runoff gully so the cattle will have a water source. Often these are stocked with fish.

I have no synpathy for the cop in this case, because even at the age of 11 or 12 (don't remember which), when I was at "Conservation Camp" - kinda like 4H Camp - we were taught never to fire at anything if you weren't sure where your bullet would stop if you missed.

Incidentally, I got both praised and reprimanded when I tripped over a branch while we were practicing proper gun handling while hunting. I managed to keep my rifle pointed skyward while stumbling over the branch and nearly falling down. The instructor said I did well to keep from pointing it downward while I was trying to regain my balance, but that if I had been paying proper attention to my feet, I wouldn't have tripped in the first place.

@WayneB-gotcha, but the report said that the first bullet hit the water in front of them (the boy and his grandfather). If the pond was at an upward angle from the tree, how did the first bullet go up and then come back down to hit the pond?

BladeDoc, my dad taught me the same rules at about the same age.

I come from a family of cops and was a military police officer. First thing we were taught about discharging your weapon was to know what was behind your target because the bullet doesn't care what it hits.

This guy was negligent to the utmost extreme and so to echo bonnie B's remark - a real fucktard

This would appear to be another case of a police officer who knows next to nothing about gun safety. For the life of me, I can't figure out why policemen aren't consistently, continuously and rigorously trained and drilled in using their firearms.

That is shockingly stupid. I'm picturing that cop as Cletis the slack-jawed yokel on the Simpsons, or Cotton Hill. What. The fuck.

Technomad wrote: "I'd expect a sworn police officer to be able to handle this sort of situation, phobia or no phobia."

Well, I would expect a police office to be able to face a snake in a tree without freaking out, but the only way in which he should "handle" the situation is by calling the Animal Control people and then keeping the clueless citizen away from the snake until they arrived. Trying to deal with the snake himself was stupid, because that's not his job and he's not trained for it.

Police officers are supposed to enforce the law and investigate crimes. How does drawing your weapon and blasting away at a snake in a tree qualify as either one of those? Now, obviously, if a cop is faced with a situation where citizens are in imminent danger, he should do what he can to help them even if it's outside of the duties he was trained for. But if there's no imminent danger, it's stupid for the cop to try to do what is really someone else's job, especially if it requires specialized skills that he doesn't have.

If a unoccupied building is on fire and a cop is the first person on the scene, should he (a) call the Fire Department or (b) try to put it out himself? Only a fool would answer (b).

How bored was this cop that he even answered a call to 'save' this person from a snake?!? If my hubby got such a call he'd either tell them to call animal control or he'd do it himself. And he would never try to shoot it. Jeezalou. Maybe they have higher standards here. I don't know. It's just too sad a story!

Lotta small departments out there that hire guys they shouldn't, Boyd. This is probably one of them.

G Fresh, you're right, if he was far enough away for the bullet to come down that far, there's no way the grandfather would have seen them when they left the scene. I didn't think of that at first.

Another note on the phobic nutjob who called the cops in the first place: This year, I have swerved my lawn mower to AVOID running over two blacksnakes, removed one from the road so it wouldn't be run over (I'd rather they catch rats and moles than be killed), and laughed at my dog barking at a garter snake, because she won't get close to it. Somebody in that story needs some psychological attention.

have you ever heard the squirrel on fire story?
very funny, starts at 19:50

I did hear about this story where I guy caught a mouse in his house and decided to throw it in the brush that he was burning out back.

The flaming mouse darted out of the fire and back into the house where it proceeded to start the curtains on fire. Ultimately the entire place burned down.

Snap traps are really pretty cheap. Makes you wonder why one would decide to burn a mouse to death.

If we can't have this guy locked up for manslaughter, Abby seems to have found at least ONE fitting punishment for the guy:

The Hello Kitty punishment

I envision Miss Kitty with a sad tear.

Rachel - you really need to buy a police scanner and listen to it. Only then will you realize that 911 is really nanny 911.

At least in my area I would say at least half of the dispatches are unwarranted. It doesn't surprise me in the least an officer was dispatched on this call. And the police have to go out to just shut the people up. But it starts creating a skewed sense of what is really urgent.

Not saying what the officer did was okay. It totally wasn't. But people shoot snakes in the South all the time. At least that is what I remember from living there.

Geez. And they want to take MY guns away?

@k2aggie07

The Left won't look to disarm cops. The Left wants to disarm citizens and heavily arm the police force. Look for this story to be ignored. This is the first mention of it I have found. Thanks Rachel.

I used to go drinking and driving with a State trooper in a State that will go un-named. When he wasn't using his off duty 9mm to shoot at stop signs (ever fire a gun in a VW Beetle? Ouch.) he was shooting at snakes.

Yet another example of why only the police should have guns, right?

Egads, this is awful; absolutely heartbreaking. I typically give every benefit of the doubt to the police, but this is inexcusable.

> Look to the left to use it to promote disarming cops.

I am in favor of disarming the cops. At least, disarming them to the point that they must comply with all the same gun control regulations as ordinary citizens.

Of course, I'd rather see the converse, whereby the average citizens would be equipped with the same arsenals as their local SWAT unit.

When police can outgun the citizenry, that's called a POLICE STATE.

DL...That blows my mind (so to speak). The standards for State Troopers in my state is super high. So high that we're having a hard time accepting candidates because they don't meet them (and hence there is a trooper shortage right now). Trooper's caught doing wrong are punished fairly quickly and dismissed (the institution isn't perfect because people aren't perfect so some bad seeds do sneak in). If my hubby has ONE drink he makes me drive...even if that drink was hours ago. And all the other Troopers I know are equally responsible.

Could be, Blake, but the media has a love affair with Britain's utterly failed gun situation -- and cops don't carry over there.

I think you're forgetting that in the mind of a liberal all guns are evil and should be treated with the same level of contempt that is normally reserved for icky bugs, Cheney, and conservatives.

Cops are like anyone else, and, yes, some of them are idiots. There is a nifty tool called a shovel that works great on snakes, if they have to go.

After doing some research, I found more info regarding this. It somewhat helps to clarify things, although I do agree the officer that shot the snake is negligent and should be punished:

Excerpts:

...one of the officers had fired two shots in the Crest Lane neighborhood, trying to kill a snake that had become lodged in a birdhouse on the back porch of a house just up the hill from [the grandfather]'s pond.

...Police had gotten a call of a snake complaint from a woman on Crest Lane, whose 16-year-old daughter saw the snake hanging about 3 feet of its body outside a neighbor's bird house.

The woman, who would not identify herself, told The Oklahoman she called the police station to see if animal control could respond and take care of the snake, which she believed to be a diamondback rattlesnake.

She was told that the city, which lost its only animal control officer recently, would send a police officer over to help.

"This was just a freak and tragic accident,” the woman said, "and I just feel really bad for everyone involved.”

...Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation agents were told that officers decided to shoot the animal after being told there was a field behind them, said Jessica Brown, bureau spokeswoman.

"The first shot grazed the snake, and the second killed it,” Brown said.

Let me start by saying that, from the information I have (which comes exclusively from the post here), this police officer never should have been a cop in the first place. Shooting at a snake in a tree... my goodness, how stupid can you be?
However, several comments in this section seem to be criticizing the police officer for not calling animal control, and several more seem to criticize the officer for even responding to the complaint in the first place.
Let me take the second criticism first. At the department that I work for, and I feel safe saying that 95% of departments (at least) across the country would be similar in this respect, I am required to respond to any and every call for service. Failure to do so will result in discipline and likely termination. I don't get to pick and choose who I will help or when I will help them. I have responded to an incident where a mother wanted her 12 year old daughter arrested for taking too much time in the bathroom, to an incident where a man thought he was being robbed by elves wearing Christmas tree lights, and to an incident where a woman was worried because she believed that someone moved her rake from one side of her lawn to the other. And these are just within the last month or so. But I go because my department, and, by extension, my city expects me to go, and requires me to go (and because some of them make very good stories over a beer later on). I have responded to animal calls of all types - rabid kittens, raccoons, bats in the house, loose dogs, and yes, even snakes in the yard.
Which leads me to respond to the first criticism. I work in a rural area. We do have animal control officers (2 of them for the whole county), who, in addition to responding to animal complaints, also have to run the puppy jail, all on about 50 hours (combined) per week, due to lack of funding. If you have an animal problem, Monday through Friday, 9am-noon, or 1pm-4pm, you might be in luck. Any other time, no animal complaints allowed, or we have to send a police officer (mostly because the fire department wastes too much water trying to dislodge the raccoons from trash cans - although it is a hoot to watch).
The point I'm trying to make here is that the police officer in this case (again, using the facts I have seen) was very, very wrong. This situation never should have happened. It is truly as my chief says to me on nearly a daily basis, "What the &^$@ did you do now? I guess I can't put brains were God didn't." But it is striking to see the number of people out there posting who have absolutely no idea what we do as police officers or why we do it.

What really enrages me about this incident is the way the law treats police officers differently from ordinary citizens. If I had shot at a snake and killed a child I would be sitting in prison right now. About the worst thing that will happen to the cop is that he might lose his job. I seriously doubt he will do time for this.

Some states have laws mandating the death penalty for killing police officers, but not for killing ordinary citizens. I resent the implication that my life is worth less than theirs. That smacks of a police state.

I agree with David Gulliver that police should have to obey the exact same gun laws that regular citizens do in the same jurisdiction. In other words, the police would face the most restrictions in the highest crime areas in the inner cities! Just like ordinary people do. Try that for awhile, and more people would realize how counterproductive, and downright dangerous, restrictive gun laws are.

This story pisses me off.

I know that's obvious and redundant, but I just felt it should be said clearly. Out of respect for the many rural readers of Rachel, I'll refrain from unsheathing my full semantic wrath on rednecks and varmints and the slaying thereof.

"Am I missing something here?"

Yeah, the semicorrupt fraternity. The cops know it was their guy who killed the snake but if there's a chance- any chance- to get him off, they're going to explore it.

Basically, what they're saying is, in perp speak: "I want to talk to my lawyer."

Not more than a month ago, my daddy came across a sidewinder in a wood pile he was moving around. He took a hoe and picked it up and moved it to the more wooded area on his ranchette.

I totally agree with HitNRun and Ricki. Immunity, including sovereign immunity breeds lawlessness among the police and government minions.

The cops involved in this have already circled the wagons as is evidenced by the grandfather's comments that they withheld information after coming out of the brush--even as the child was dying.

@k2aggie07

Good point, but Britain is very different than the U.S. (I know I just blew your mind...)

Seriously, though, it's different in that there exists a very small amount of firearms in Britain, whereas in the U.S. I think there are some 350 million guns (that we know about). That terrifies the Left, and so they will do their best to ensure that the police force can outgun the masses (because the masses are stupid, and cops never are, right?). You raise a valid point in that the Left would love for there to be no guns at all, but even they aren't idealistic enough to think that they can ever remove the guns from all of the citizens, so they will do their best to make sure the police force (working for them, the only humans capable of real thought) is heavily armed.

I'm not forgetting that Liberals hate guns, but perhaps you are forgetting that Liberals think most Americans (including those who vote for them) are not capable of making their own decisions, and that we need Big Brother to help us through life.

In short, they're Elitists. And that's why they want cops to have guns. Lots of guns.

Awww...this reminds of the gun threads we had on my old blog back in the day. Except a lot less cussing and zero trolls. Cool!

"But people shoot snakes in the South all the time. At least that is what I remember from living there."

Um . . . what?

I've lived in the South for 47 years, and I've never seen anyone shoot at a snake.

"I've lived in the South for 47 years, and I've never seen anyone shoot at a snake."

Well.. what can I say. Maybe you are more civilized than the crowd I was hanging with. It was a bit of a culture shock for me.. but then, lots of things were. The people were fantastically nice. But.. they'd shoot at anything.

I'm probably going to regret wasting my time trying to argue this point, but a couple of you are going to make blood shoot out of my eyes, and I'm looking at you rickl and David Gulliver. I am about as right leaning as they come, and I whole-heartedly support the second amendment. But there are many reasons why police officers are not subject to the same gun laws that civilians are. First off, at least in my state, the average citizen with no felonies or obvious mental disorders can obtain a concealed weapons permit with an 8 hour training course and a demonstrated proficiency of not putting holes in the feet of themselves or their instructors on a gun range. This grants them the right to carry a handgun concealed on their person in most places. Gun free zones (where they can't carry) include courts, hospitals, bars, schools, daycares, etc. As a police officer, I can carry under the authority of my badge (no CCW) in all of these places, even off-duty (the only places I can't carry off-duty are a federal court or active military installation). Of course, I had to go through two years of training for this, not to mention the frequent re-qualifications with day and night shoots, stress shoots, and rapid entry and shoot/no shoot scenarios. If my scores are too low, I don't get to carry anymore. Any of you actually qualify (shooting at the empty beer cans that you just drank from 10 yards doesn't count as a qualification, just fun) on some kind of standardized course four or five times per year? Further, if my department deems me a liability, I lose my carry authority immediately. CCW holders have to commit and be found guilty of a crime involving weapons or a felony in order to lose their carry privileges. Further, I actually know the laws in my state - I know the use of force continuum, my departmental policies and procedures, what elements must be in place for utilizing lethal force, and what criterion I will be judged by if I do choose to use force, lethal or otherwise.
Second, I'm not sure what you do for a living, but people have targeted me and my family simply because I wear a uniform and a badge. Does that happen to you because of your work? Don't give me that crap about it coming with the territory of being a cop. I knew what I was getting into when I signed on, and I am willing to make the sacrifice - the only upshot is that when the rubber hits the road, I have the ability to protect my family AND be on the right side of the law at the same time.
Third, I am on duty 24/7. I am expected by society at large to help if I can. Sometimes that means just being a good witness, and sometimes that means taking an active role in an escalating situation.
I could go on and on...
You may think that citizens will only achieve true freedom when the cops are out-gunned. With all due respect, pull your heads out of your asses. If you want to know what that looks like, look at south-central L.A. Sound like a place you want to move to sometime soon? You assume that if I have superior firepower, somehow you lose your freedom. You may have a weak argument there (although I assume that you are not posting from a prison cell, and yet you are still arguing that cops do, in fact, have more firepower than you). On the other hand, I assure you that when the police officers in America are consistently out-gunned, you will have only anarchy.
Your argument rests in the tacit assumption that police officers are tools of big brother, and are corrupt. I realize that I'm not going to change anyone's mind (hey, if your head is that far up your ass, I don't have the equipment to pull it out), but that is the typical stinking bullshit I expect to hear from the Kos kids. Police officers have a few bad eggs, just like any profession. But the number of officers who misuse their authority or shame the badge is less than 1/2 of 1% - a far better rate than doctors, teachers, or clergy. I'm sick and tired of armchair quarterbacks carping about the lack of integrity, courage, and honor in police officers these days. Those of you who could even think such a thing have obviously never met too many police officers, and you would absolutely shit your pants the first time you tried to scream code to a man with a gun call or bank robbery in progress.
If you really want to see what police work is all about, sign up with your local department to do a citizen ride-along. Until you have at least seen what we do, don't try to tell me you know how we should do it better.

Off the soapbox now.

My goodness, 'nosubhomine', you'd think all these commenters were on your case ... and I sure didn't read it that way.
I understand, mostly, how you feel ... but I think you're showing a bit too much seige mentality there. The vast citizenry that values the Second Amendment isn't interested in outgunning the cops or abusing the CCW laws of their state. In general, the folks willing to go to the effort of getting a CCW are law abiding (that's why they bothered). The guys that want to outgun the cops are the bad guys.
And ... I'd have to say that you could turn your diatribe around and apply it to folks in your profession as well. I've never experienced cops from the wrong side of the law - except for a couple of speeding tickets spread over 40 years ... but my brother-in-law is a retired Houston cop; I was engaged to the daughter of an Alberta cop for several years; and I've known a great many cops over many years in northern Canada. I ride (motorcycles) with a few here in Michigan. They all have/had one thing in common - they're people. Not gods. Not superhuman. People. With ordinary foibles, ordinary dreams, ordinary skills. Some join the police force to serve and protect. Some join to make a living. Some (and any are too many) join because of the power that the badge gives them. I thank God the shrink that interviewed my brother red-flagged him when he applied for a big city force ... bullies are not an asset on the force.
(aside ... it just struck me when I started reading the comments ... Police FORCE)
The papers locally have a story a week or so about drunk cops. About rapist cops. About cops caught with their hands in the till. Of course, these stories are few compared to the many showing how human cops are, how tough their job is, how dangerous their job is. In other words, they're people ... not Robocops. Which probably is a good thing.
Question for you, once you get your hackles back down. Maybe in big city forces the ordinary cops have as much gun handling as you indicate - although that doesn't seem to be the norm outside of SWAT-type members ... but are you trying to say that a deputy in Podunk has to qualify that way?

As far as the snake story ... I must've missed that nature show on National Geographic where poisonous snakes started infesting trees in the USA. Or was this another mutant escaped boa constrictor that escaped from under Little Johnnies bed? My take was just another instance of an opportunity to shoot at a moving target and getting un-bored for a half hour or so. Which turned out very badly for several families. It's bad enough having to live with shooting someone in the line of duty ... I can imagine what this will do to that cop and his family.

nonsubhomine:

[responding]to an incident where a man thought he was being robbed by elves wearing Christmas tree lights,

And...did you get the elves or what?

and to an incident where a woman was worried because she believed that someone moved her rake from one side of her lawn to the other.

It was the elves. It's all connected man!

Seriously, I'm inclined to agree with most of your points. For those worried that they are somehow not free if they don't have a bigger gun than a police officer, that's nonsensical.

~

David Gulliver:

When police can outgun the citizenry, that's called a POLICE STATE.

That's extremely over-simplistic. How many times have the storm troopers come to houses in your neighborhood with nv goggles, kicked open the door and dragged people off in the middle of the night for only barely perceived offenses?

Of course, if you want to see more civilian deaths, a good way to achieve it is over-arm the citizenry...there will be a hell of a lot of shooting first and asking questions later by law enforcement.

As mentioned, we have the second amendment. Besides the fact that it's constantly under attack from the left, we still have the right and the ability to carry within the law.

rickl - I originally thought that having tougher punishments for attacking police was wrong, but after thinking about it, it has merit. If you attack the police, then not only are you attacking a person, you are, by extension, attacking the mechanism in place which is intended to apprehend criminals and thereby make the public safer. In that case, you are doubly contributing to the lessening of safety for the public.

Also, regarding police and gun control laws: From what I hear, most of the guys actually in the field support the Second Amendment and people taking care of themselves. It's the administrative types who don't want the average citizen to take matters into their own hands.

So sad.

I'm sure if that snake is found to be even semi-endangered, the cop will be in for some serious reprecussions!

And, speaking of endangered, have you heard that the Bald Eagle is OFF the endangered species list? YAY!

I seriously disagree with the idea that cops should be held to the same standards vis-a-vis shootings, accidental shootings, etc. as regular citizens.

The difference here is that your job as a citizen will (likely) never result in your untimely death should you hesitate or make a wrong decision -- or just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Cops can't be burdened with the "oh crap, if I shoot this guy and miss am I going to go to prison forever and ever" thought when someone is trying to kill them or someone else. They need to have the ability to react, and that comes with a little bit of leeway because reactions are not always correct. This is tempered by requiring training on their part.

Mistakes will be made, and tragedies will happen...but the idea that a cop should be held to the same level in accidental shootings is wrong.

..This case being the exception as there was no reason for him to be firing his weapon. He should be fired. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with jail time, but I wouldn't be vehemently opposed to it.

This reminds me of a story...

Once upon a time, there was a man who grew marijuana plants in his backyard as a hobby. The man took very good care of his plants and they soared to a spectacular height.

One day the man's telephone range. It was the police. They told him that someone had spotted his illegal marijuana plant and called the cops to complain. The man swore that he meant no harm, that he was not selling drugs, and that the marijuana plant was for his own personal use. Since this man had no prior offenses and there had been no other complaints against him, the cop told the man that if he simply brought the plant down to the station and turned it in, he would be let off with a warning this time.

The man agreed to the terms, dug up his prized marijuana plant, brought it down to police headquarters, and turned it in. Whereupon he was promptly arrested for drug possession.

Turns out the phone call was a prank.

My 2 cents about the actual story here:

1. Many people seem to be puzzling over how a stray bullet fired into the branches of a tree hit the bank of the pond and the little boy. Some have speculated that the pond was at a higher elevation relative to the tree or the officer, but perhaps it was in fact the officer who was at a higher elevation relative to everything else. It seems reasonable to me that, if one was to shoot a snake out of a tree, the best course of action would be to find a way to shoot at a horizontal or downward angle rather than an upward one. It keeps the sun out of your eyes and prevents the light from the sky from washing out your vision. Without getting a look at the terrain I can't say for sure, but I would bet the officer fired while standing on a hill (or something) adjacent to the tree and the bullet, traveling on a horizontal trajectory, eventually found its way to the pond where the little boy was hit.

2. I don't have much experience with snakes but it seems to me that the more obvious solution to the problem would be to call Animal Control. I don't know what they teach police officers in Oklahoma, but I bet snake handling isn't on the police academy curriculum. IMO, the officer should have gotten someone with the proper training to handle the snake.

3. The biggest problem I see here is the apparent carelessness of this particular officer in regard to firearm safety. As BladeDoc said, one of the most important rules when dealing with firearms is to know what is behind the object you are shooting at.

4. This incident absolutely SHOULD NOT be viewed by anyone as a condemnation of police in general or guns in general. The only one at fault here is the police officer who fired the shot.

BTW Rachel,

I think you are wrong about this incident occurring in a "rural area". The article clearly says that this incident occurred in a neighborhood, and the City Manager made a reference to a "homeowner" so one might assume that this snake was in a tree on or near someone's private property.

Mighty: Re. #1, that's easy - projectiles follow a parabolic path, thanks to gravity.

Unless one is shooting down or relatively flat, it's easy to shoot a bullet a very long distance indeed.

Mighty: Re. #1, that's easy - projectiles follow a parabolic path, thanks to gravity.

Except that the grandfather said he saw two officers coming out of the brush only moments after the bullets struck. If the bullets had been fired from far enough away for them to fall back to Earth on a parabolic trajectory, the officers could not possibly have gotten there in time.

And besides, no police officer would ever intentionally fire his weapon upward for exactly that reason. Not only is it dangerous, it's illegal.

Pete in Midland: Actually, I am not that far from you - just a couple of counties away. Let me respond to you by saying that I agree with your statements. As an aside, the fact that the local paper is reporting on the bad cops shows how few and far between they actually are (the paper isn't running a front page story on every citizen caught drunk driving, are they?). Further, I recognize that police officers are fully human and capable of mistakes - we all make them. And I am fully aware that there are bad cops out there, and nobody hates them more than the good cops. My diatribe is simply leveled at those who want to take the exception and make it the rule precisely without realizing that police officers ARE human. This is a difficult job, and one that I absolutely love. But it gets frustrating when people who have no clue start to criticize...
In respect to firearms training requirements for police officers, well, in Michigan at least it is largely up to the individual departments. In fact, MCOLES (Michigan Council on Law Enforcement Standards) which is the governing board actually has no requirements regarding the amount of range time required for police officers to maintain their certification. They are changing that currently. However, I work in Podunk USA and those are the requirements for our department. I am sure that there are some agencies out there who require far less due to budget issues. But with the threat of terrorism and the school shootings in the past 10 years, the state and feds are kicking some money back to the local agencies to help them gear and train for mass casualty incidents. Ten years ago, my department probably only required qualification 2 times per year, because that was the mentality back then (I wouldn't know, it was a little before my time), but now, we train better and smarter and more often. It really comes down to liability issues - it is cheaper for the department to spend the money training cops than it is to defend against a law suit brought because you have officers that haven't fired their weapons in three years. Again, the point I was trying to make is that, on the whole, police officers are typically better trained with their firearms than the average citizen, so reducing authority of police officers in regards to firearms will typically be counter-productive.

Alexander - No, I never did find the elves. Apparently even seeing them, let alone apprehending them, requires ingestion of a certain chemical to... um... enhance your vision, and, alas, I was fresh out. And so, I think, was he, by the time I arrived on scene.

nonsubhomine:

I wasn't seriously suggesting that the police should have to obey the same gun laws as citizens. My last sentence was:

"Try that for awhile, and more people would realize how counterproductive, and downright dangerous, restrictive gun laws are."

In other words, I wasn't arguing for more restrictions on the police (that would be crazy), but fewer restrictions on law-abiding citizens.

I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer. And I don't blame you a bit for getting angry if you thought I said what you thought I said.

(I still don't like the whole "soverign immunity" thing, though.)

OMG,

I have tried TWICE to enter a lengthy comment on this post. Each time I went to preview, I lost the whole damn thing. I will post a comment tonight when I get home and can use MY computer. I have much to say on this as you might imagine. This time I'll try to post without previewing it for errors, so forgive any typos please.

It's important to remember that the United States Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that police departments are allowed to exclude smart people from being police officers.

It's not polite to remind cops of that to their faces. But we all still know it's true.