Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
The cop should have retreated to his car (if out) and called for special backup. If that was not possible then he could have manuevered around the
car and used a taser or baton as a last resort. The kid didnt have a samauri sword and didnt need to be killed. The protocol for killing
"threatening" dogs has now been applied to people.
Fall back and do what... wait for the police to arrive? People called 911 because they were in danger, and his job was to protect them. In doing so
he found himself facing an armed suspect who approached him, refused to drop his weapons, and refused all orders to stop and get on the ground.
The guys posed a danger to the deputy, and he left the deputy few options. You don't need a samurai sword to pose a deadly threat. If someone
whacked you with a hammer, with intent to kill, or swung a pair of sharp hedge clippers at you, the results can very well end up being fatal.
Originally posted by MisterFister103
I don't care if the kid had a friggin broad sword, the cop was called to help manage the young man, and all he did was shoot him. Even if the kid had
throwing stars and was throwing them at him, it would still be no excuse to shoot to kill. Taze him, throw one of those rubber ball grenades in the
room, subdue him in some way, but you don't need to kill. The fact that a seizuring person starts walking toward you with hedge clippers is no reason
to murder, especially when your duty is to protect and serve.
Since when has it become the duty of the police department to "manage" behavior? The most qualified people to do that are actually the assailants
parents, who were assumingly unable to control the situation. He had seizures, but he wasn't having one when this incident occurred, so that point
is moot. You point to "protect and serve," but I'd argue that he attempted to "protect" by order the suspect to disarm, and again when he
ordered him to the ground. The suspect refused.
A tazer may have been effective if the suspect was disarmed, or if it was possible to control his distance to prevent him from rushing up on you, but
when the suspect remains armed and dangerous, and is closing in on you, I'd suspect that officer safety comes before the safety of a dangerous and
willfully unresponsive suspect.
Originally posted by paxnatus
reply to post by samkent
I have a 15yr. Old autistic boy whom becomes violent at times, especially if he feels cornered. These kids when upset and not understanding,
literally feel their life is in danger. I would bet anyone this was not the first time the police had been called and so the officers knew the child
was autistic and I am quite certain the mother reported this on the phone. He was 18yrs. old, she has been stating her child is autistic to many
people for many years.
There were many ways to deal with this situation that would have saved this boys life!! For starters you call for back up!! You don't shoot to kill
a child with a known disability!! Only a trigger happy inexperienced coward would do that.
As we have seen a huge increase world wide in the number of autistic children, every officer should have at least 2 hours of training in how to
diffuse this type of situation!! You know how easy that is? The art of distraction is all it takes. Ask the mother what the boy loves, then you
begin asking him questions about it....
Most police officers know that children on the Autistic spectrum are very afraid of them.
Again, the "kid" was 18 years old. He was big enough to pose a credible threat, regardless of actual mental faculty. He was enrolled in a regular
high school, and held a job in the community, which leads me to believe that his case was less severe. Regardless, you know as well as I that persons
afflicted with autism can become violent at times, and when they are in such a state, they can very well be dangerous. Of the people involved with
this case, his mother should have known how to bring him down, but even her efforts were ineffective, as she was one to call for police assistance
after sustaining injuries that left her hospitalized afterwards. I'm sure officers receive training for special needs situations, but they can't
possibly be expected to know how to control every unique situation.
My question to the members of ATS is: If he was armed with a handgun, would your view of the tragic outcome change? If he has a loaded firearm,
would the officer have been justified in using deadly force after orders to drop the weapon and get on the ground were ignored and the suspect
continued to close of the officer? Why or why not?
A violent man with a hammer is no different, and I'd dare say that a single hard blow to the head with a hammer would be capable of killing faster
than a 9mm shot in the abdomen. A swipe with sharp hedge clippers can likewise be extremely deadly considering blade length.
Originally posted by Xaphan
Even if he was going to use the hammer as a weapon, why should they kill him? Why not just use a taser or pepperspray? I could understand shooting him
if he had a firearm, but he didn't.
Tasers and pepper spray would just piss him off or slow him down, not stop him. In a life threatening situation you can't afford to take that