Jump to content

Home

Police and excessive force


vanir
 Share

Recommended Posts

This happened a few days ago in a suburb near me.

 

http://www.theage.com.au/national/teen-shot-dead-by-police-20081211-6wtt.html

 

I'm ex-security, mates are ex-cop or ex-con :D and we all reckon England had it right with no firearms for regular patrol cops.

 

Here's the reasoning. You've got a gun. Kid has knife. If you're going to arrest kid with knife and you've got gun, you have to shoot kid with knife to stop kid from getting gun.

 

Simple answer: you can't afford to have a scuffle with armed offenders when carrying a firearm. So don't bring a gun!

We say: the primary weapon of policing forces is the radio. With it you have instant numbers. Who cares about a knife when you've got thirty two-hundred pound blokes jumping the feller?

 

So. I understand many yanks love guns like women. They love cops with guns, girls with guns, they'd never stop laughing or loving life if furry animals carried guns.

 

Opinions. Are 23 year olds who get scared by teens with steak knives, really responsible enough, or commonly well trained enough, to carry guns?

Edited by jonathan7
Changed Title
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Geez mate, I didn't ask you to generalise, I made the generalisation in the vein of a simple communication. You can read between the lines and address the topic, if you want to that is, as to whether or not patrol cops, which is entry level straight from the academy are really qualified to carry guns, and secondly whether this is the most sound course of domestic policing?

 

Sure, give examples. Debunk. I'm all ears and take no offence :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez mate, I didn't ask you to generalise, I made the generalisation in the vein of a simple communication.

 

 

You're familiar with these sorts of situations, obviously, a person with a knife, with no training, can still kill a person. Kevlar doesn't do jack for a knife. Give 'em a little speed and they may go through half a dozen people before they're stopped. Heck you can put a few bullets into a guy on speed and it won't slow 'em down, and they might be armed with nothing less than their own two hands.

 

So, how many cops should I sacrifice to stop one kid without killing them? Honestly, there are lots of kids in the world, and there will always be more, people are pretty apt at making new ones, and pretty good at not teaching them jack so there will certainly be more kids who end up in situations like this.

 

There will not however always be more cops, cops are something the world takes for granted, yet they are not a given in life. Sure, there will always be people who want to protect others, and there will always be people who want take the law into their own hands. There will not however, always be people who are willing to undergo intense physical and mental training, and restrain themselves in most situations in order to protect the most amount of people the greatest amount of time.

 

At some point you tie the hands of the cops to the point where people no longer want to be cops, and situations like these are solved by me killing the kid for threatening me with a knife instead of a cop doing it. And ya know what, in most of the reasonable world, if I have a way to defend myself when somebody threatens my life, they're pretty OK with me doing whatever it takes to protect myself. In recent years, AUS, and a good deal of Europe+the UK, have failed to understand this as self defense is generally regarded as just a egregious a crime as unprovoked assault and battery.

 

In any case I digress, how many of my limited cop resources should I utilize to stop a kid with a knife? Should I lose one? Two? Six? Hey maybe the kid will get a bright idea and steal the cop car since the cops are only trying to stop him by running interference. Maybe he'll mow down some people, the emotional trauma to the cops could cause me to lose even more. The screwed up AUS court system would likly cost me some the higher ups, guys who've stuck with the system instead of quit early.

 

So, I'll ask one more time because repetition is good for learning, and I'll apologize for seeming to be rude but I'm tired of this attitude that any action cops take to stop a person is bad. And trust me, you say "shooting bad" I'll find you a dozen instances of "tackling bad" "hitting bad" "restraining bad" and so on. I, like you, know cops, ex-cops, military, ex-military, and everyone in between.

 

So, my question: how many cops should stopping one kid cost?

 

My opinion? None. One or two if the kid is heavily armed. But when it comes to armed and violent offenders, I prefer my cops to stop them cold rather than risk their lives on foolish measures that may kill them because the people they're protecting and the system they serve think that they're the criminals.

 

To your more specific question, since you're familiar with cops, you are clearly familiar with the intense training they go through. You or I with a little gun training are the danger, not guys who are forced day in and day out to learn how to use weapons properly. Is the average 23 year old trained enough to carry a gun? No. Is the average officer trained enough to carry a gun? Yes.

 

Also: your title of this tread is somewhat offensive. Cops are indeed "everywhere" and as are the people they end up killing. Cops are not however, randomly mowing down kids in the street, this isn't South Africa and this isn't Apartheid. You know this, I know this. You're not scoring any points here by making cops out to be violent maniacs. As someone familiar with "ex-cops" and "ex-cons", you should know that's not the truth.

Edited by Jae Onasi
deleted accusation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fact that criminals carry guns (at least in this country) kinda automatically negates any sort of philosophical discussion we could have as to whether or not police officers should have them.

 

I'm sure there are some young officers that probably should have them and some young officers that probably shouldn't. Since people are permitted to choose (or not choose) their own profession, I imagine that most police forces are required to select their candidates from those that apply. Sure, some screening can (and does) take place at this first step, as does additional screen occur if the cadets are incapable of successfully completing the training.

 

No doubt these one-off incidents are a great cause for concern and deserve our attention. However, I think that for the most part, police officers are highly-trained professionals that take their job (i.e. keeping us safe from bad guys) pretty seriously. I think we do them a huge disservice when we make suggestions such as "we're going to take away your guns so that you can get stabbed by bad guy with a knife or shot by a bad guy with a gun". These aren't automatons. They're men and women with husbands, wives and families that worry about them every day (or night) when they leave for work. Their job is hard enough as it is and making it harder by taking away the means to defend themselves seems silly in the extreme (to me anyway).

 

At the end of the day, we could make the entry requirement stricter. We can also make the training more difficult. However, keep in mind that law enforcement does not pay well in a lot of cases and is inherently high risk. At some point the risk/entry-requirement vs. reward scenario will dictate that recruitment efforts will drop off which equals fewer cops on the street. I can't imagine that anyone wants that.

 

To summarize my rather lengthy answer: there is no quick fix for this problem.

 

Before I step off my soapbox, I think that I should disclose that my father was a career police officer and I that I briefly majored in Administration of Justice with the intent to follow in his footsteps. Hopefully that will allow you to clearly identify any bias which may be present in my opinions as I have expressed them. Thanks for reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it has emerged that Tyler's rage may have been triggered by the anniversary of the death of his father, a date marked last week, a friend of the family said.

 

Assistant Commissioner Tim Cartwright said Tyler had been brandishing knives and had told one officer "'kill me, I'm going to kill you'.''

If this is true, then it's all I need to hear. The kid threatened the police with bodily harm and then failed to respond to commands. Done and done.

 

If this is not true, then that's another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is true, then it's all I need to hear. The kid threatened the police with bodily harm and then failed to respond to commands. Done and done.

 

If this is not true, then that's another story.

 

What he said. I can understand being upset about the fact that your father died, but picking up knives and threatening to kill a policeman with them is crossing the line. Major-league crossing the line. He probably brought it on himself.

 

 

And, BTW, not all us yanks are the type to love anything with a gun. ;)

 

Lastly, your title is misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're familiar with these sorts of situations, obviously, a person with a knife, with no training, can still kill a person. Kevlar doesn't do jack for a knife. Give 'em a little speed and they may go through half a dozen people before they're stopped. Heck you can put a few bullets into a guy on speed and it won't slow 'em down, and they might be armed with nothing less than their own two hands.

Absolutely yes, this is on my mind with no small amount of genuine concern...pain even you might call it. I do not wish for people hurt in any circumstance, any person hence my initial interest in security. I found myself...stepping in on things a few too many times and thought, you know I really should have a medical care benefit program for this just in case, plus it'd be nice to get paid for the things we do :D

 

So, how many cops should I sacrifice to stop one kid without killing them? Honestly, there are lots of kids in the world, and there will always be more, people are pretty apt at making new ones, and pretty good at not teaching them jack so there will certainly be more kids who end up in situations like this.

Valid point, can't deny it. Sometimes I just wanted to say, bugger it. Had this group of junkies, a mugging, it had nothing to do with me but hell, someone was going to get killed, well...I dunno, a lot was going through my mind. I was lucky being pretty well trained at the military and in martial arts, then you throw in the human factor and I was ten seconds away from all over the place. I think I was lucky, very lucky very many times. I always seemed to find a way (not always leaving with me looking all tough and whatnot, but who cares, right? So and so didn't get stabbed and now all the attention was on me, big deal, I got a little wound and nobody got a big one, I lived and it just uses up the next guy's concessions).

 

you say "shooting bad" I'll find you a dozen instances of "tackling bad" "hitting bad" "restraining bad" and so on. I, like you, know cops, ex-cops, military, ex-military, and everyone in between.

 

So, my question: how many cops should stopping one kid cost?

Again can't deny, it's food for thought. I get tossed all around by the subject to tell the honest truth, one side or the other, somewhere in between. It is something I have a very strong sense requires some serious examination about this moment in world political development however. I think it may touch upon several rather controversial areas.

 

Also: your title of this tread is somewhat offensive. Cops are indeed "everywhere" and as are the people they end up killing. Cops are not however, randomly mowing down kids in the street, this isn't South Africa and this isn't Apartheid. You know this, I know this. You're not scoring any points here by making cops out to be violent maniacs. As someone familiar with "ex-cops" and "ex-cons", you should know that's not the truth.

In fact my industry professional circles and close friends, ex-industry and the other end of the gun so to speak, are all genuinely concerned about what is often politely referred to as an element of corruption. The assumption that whom essentially consider themselves a workplace industry no different to factory workers also consider themselves not only above the law, but beyond any regard in making the decisions of whom lives or dies among the public. Believe me, I've sat and bit my tongue about some of the most ridiculous assertions levelled by very high ranking, career police officers that, if had a tape recorder would have them in a court room. This is not at all unusual, and any career police officer in any country will tell you the same. I've developed a philosophy along the lines of absolute power and absolute corruption, etc.

 

I'm sure there are some young officers that probably should have them and some young officers that probably shouldn't. Since people are permitted to choose (or not choose) their own profession, I imagine that most police forces are required to select their candidates from those that apply. Sure, some screening can (and does) take place at this first step, as does additional screen occur if the cadets are incapable of successfully completing the training.

Unfortunately it is up to the democratic to examine the manner and matter of screening and appropriate qualification. In fact most police forces (which are regional by nature) hold ethics paramounts other than strict law enforcement. For example, the Victorian Police application pack states it is the primary objective to support the community, which is further outlined to amount effectively to mob rule before strict legality, and popularity before correctness. Secondly the Crown is an unquestionable authority, yet Parliament is not always benevolent in its legislative prowess, which may very well be whimsical at any given instance. Thirdly police are empowered under the Sherrif rule of Ye Olde England, as a representative of the Crown and therefore an unquestionable authority among the general public. The international human rights commission is somewhere, oh about forty places down the scale of something nobody ever thinks about, ever.

 

police officers are highly-trained professionals

VCE qualification, no criminal record in the last five years, reasonable health and a 12 week training scheme which concentrates mostly on obstacle courses and taking orders. A total of a couple of hours are taken with firearms, no celebrated industry professionals are used in hand to hand training which is generally gleaned from commercial sports rinks like the Samurai Karate School. Most instruction relates on how to level the Crimes Act such as Section 462(a) which governs the proportionate force rule and states that if a police officer may use at least one greater degree of force than any offender in the course of duty. Actual descriptions of proportionate force are taken from US and British publications written by ex-industry professionals, however are inherently subjective and poorly recognised in many courts. Generally speaking it is stated that a closed fist or aggrivated assault easily warrants the use of firearms.

No training is given in when a firearm might be a good idea to use, or when it can be used and probably legally justified, but is not strictly necessary or a good idea.

Edited by Jae Onasi
deleted comment to now-deleted previous comment
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, he made a threat and was holding a knife. But shooting him to death is a little excessive, don't you think?

 

Shooting to kill isn't well trained. You are trained to kill only if it is the last resort.

 

Where were the stun guns? The shots to the shin, knees, legs, even shoulder? The less than lethal bullets?

 

Unless he was charging them full run with the knife ready to go into his neck, I believe the officers overreacted to a situation that could have easily have been less than lethal.

 

Do some people pretty much ask to be shot? Yeah, but when necessary.

 

The officers overreacted to the situation, and chose the easiest route. I'm not too familiar with cop training, but I doubt the training manual says shoot to kill first. And if it does, that may answer a few questions.

 

Although the article is very vague on details, so that may just be speculation on my part. But still, 3 officers shooting him dead over a knife and a threat? I'm not all that well with a gun, but It isn't that hard to aim a foot lower and take out his ability to walk.

 

I'll suspend judgment until I see a better detailed article.

 

So. I understand many yanks love guns like women.

I called a group of people "backwater rednecks" once in a gun thread, and quickly realized that it made me and my argument look plain ignorant.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee

 

From your speech, I'm going to go under the assumption that you are not American (Correct me if I'm wrong). The term Yank is often a derogatory word, even if it is not meant to be. I know it is a common word for Americans outside the US, but the word has a history of bad taste and while it may be normal speech for you, it is derogatory term towards Americans.

 

I could care less about it, but I'm just pointing this out to you so you don't discredit yourself further by purposefully, or mistakenly placing insults in your posts.

 

Also, work on your thread title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, he made a threat and was holding a knife. But shooting him to death is a little excessive, don't you think?
Congratulations on your promotion to moderator. <snipped>

 

No, it's not excessive. He had a weapon and threatened to kill an officer (allegedly).

 

Shooting to kill isn't well trained. You are trained to kill only if it is the last resort.
Shooting to kill is precisely well-trained. If you have to shoot, shoot to kill.

 

Where were the stun guns?
This is actually a good question. Being that it took place in Australia, there is no guarantee that they were available.

 

The shots to the shin, knees, legs, even shoulder?
In the movies where that kinda stuff takes place.

 

The less than lethal bullets?
Another good question but again, might not be standard issue or part of the weapons training in Australia.

 

Better question: Where were the parents that should've taught their kid never to threaten to kill police officers?

 

Unless he was charging them full run with the knife ready to go into his neck, I believe the officers overreacted to a situation that could have easily have been less than lethal.
IIRC from the article, the incident took place in a stairwell. Anything less than 7 yards is considered an eminent threat. The police had no way of knowing if the kid was on drugs, etc. Yes, it's a shame that a young man died, but he seemed to go into this knowing that would be the outcome. Let's not absolve him of his role in this incident.

 

Do some people pretty much ask to be shot? Yeah, but when necessary.
Like when they threaten to kill you?

 

The officers overreacted to the situation, and chose the easiest route.
:rolleyes:

 

I'm not too familiar with cop training, but I doubt the training manual says shoot to kill first.
"Shoot to kill first" as in shoot to kill before doing anything else? No. "Shoot to kill first" as in when you shoot, shoot to kill? Yes. Well, technically it says something to the effect of "aim for center of mass" (i.e. the center of the torso).

 

And if it does, that may answer a few questions.
Cool.

 

Although the article is very vague on details, so that may just be speculation on my part. But still, 3 officers shooting him dead over a knife and a threat? I'm not all that well with a gun, but It isn't that hard to aim a foot lower and take out his ability to walk.
That only happens in the movies and television shows. Edited by jonathan7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations on your promotion to moderator.

Ah, that answers a few questions. Well, sorry if my posts aren't worth your time then.

 

Quality problem, or do I just fit into the stupid and useless category?

 

Shooting to kill is precisely well-trained. If you have to shoot, shoot to kill.

On after thought, that makes a bit of sense. Again, I'm just curious for more details regarding why it went that far.

 

Better question: Where were the parents that should've taught their kid never to threaten to kill police officers?

Well, that seems to go without saying. But while the government cannot fully control parents, I'd think more effort would be placed into less than lethal methods of taking down a threat.

 

In the movies where that kinda stuff takes place.

Upon reflection, shoot to kill makes sense, especially if the attacker is drugged out. Again back to my less than lethal quandary.

 

IIRC from the article, the incident took place in a stairwell. Anything less than 7 yards is considered an eminent threat. The police had no way of knowing if the kid was on drugs, etc. Yes, it's a shame that a young man died, but he seemed to go into this knowing that would be the outcome. Let's not absolve him of his role in this incident.

I am in no way absolving him of his role. He was certainly asking to be put down in some way, and it isn't all too surprising that he was shot for doing so.

 

And you're right, hadn't thought of drugs at the time of writing. Sorry about that.

 

Like when they threaten to kill you?

Like I said, when necessary. I'm sure criminals say dumb crap like that all the time, but it doesn't always give a green light to put them down. But I'm sure I'm just preaching to the choir here.

 

Considering the situation, proximity, and possibility of drugs, it seems like a reasonable thing to do with the limited resources available to them.

 

:rolleyes:

I retract my statement against them and instead aim it at the Australian government for not properly arming them for less than lethal situations.

 

"Shoot to kill first" as in shoot to kill before doing anything else? No. "Shoot to kill first" as in when you shoot, shoot to kill? Yes. Well, technically it says something to the effect of "aim for center of mass" (i.e. the center of the torso).

Makes sense I suppose.

 

That only happens in the movies and television shows.

Kind of a shame, in some ways.

Edited by jonathan7
Quotes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On after thought, that makes a bit of sense. Again, I'm just curious for more details regarding why it went that far.
Hopefully, we'll learn that it was because the kid failed to respond to commands and that the officers only applied lethal force when it was necessary. I can very much see how that might sound like a cop-out, however that's the threshold for that decision. It's a judgment call. Hopefully the police acted with good judgment.

 

Well, that seems to go without saying. But while the government cannot fully control parents, I'd think more effort would be placed into less than lethal methods of taking down a threat.
Indeed. However keep in mind that in close quarters, you don't have time to go to Plan B if Plan A fails.

 

Non-lethal is preferable in open areas where someone with a lethal weapon can back you up should your weapon prove ineffective.

 

And you're right, hadn't thought of drugs at the time of writing. Sorry about that.
No apology necessary. :)

 

Like I said, when necessary. I'm sure criminals say dumb crap like that all the time, but it doesn't always give a green light to put them down. But I'm sure I'm just preaching to the choir here.
Understand that officers have no means for determining which threats are serious and which threats aren't. You go into every situation expecting the worst case scenario and then do everything in your power to prevent that from happening.

 

For example, a traffic cop may pull over a dozen or more cars every day for weeks, months, or years on end. He or she has no way of knowing which cars are going to be driven by a whacked out cop-hater with a gun and no scruples. He or she has to approach every vehicle worried about being greeted by gunfire. No exception.

 

Side-note: best place to put your hands when you've been pulled over is on the steering wheel. Digging through a purse or the glove box (i.e. places that might contain a weapon) is a bad way to start things off.

 

So if someone with a knife threatens to kill you, you don't assume that he's only looking for attention. You try to get him to respond to your commands, however if he doesn't, you don't risk anything. A cop just wants to go home at night.

 

Kind of a shame, in some ways.
Indeed, but bad guys don't hold still so you can shoot them. Trying to hit a moving arm or leg is very difficult. Hence, the "center of mass" thing.

 

FWIW, I know there is a lot of non-lethal technology being developed which will hopefully help to minimize the need for lethal force, however I don't foresee us ever being at a point where it will go away entirely. This is one of those occasions where it would be very nice to be wrong. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vast majority of police interactions do not involve deadly force. In our town, we have somewhere around 10-20-ish police calls listed in the newspaper on any given day (not including traffic stops for speeding or blowing stop signs or things like that). We have had 1 incident in 3 years of a cop having to resort to deadly force, and that situation was wholly justified (guy waving agun running through a park filled with kids, threatening to kill people). There was zero option to 'shoot to wound' in that situation, because if the guy was merely wounded, he might still have been able to shoot others. The cop had to stop him immediately, and shot the man with the intent to kill him. The man died shortly thereafter. Note also that this was one incident in 3 years. I don't know if that's a higher or lower percentage than in other places, but I did want to make the point that the vast majority of police interactions are not the 'shoot to kill' variety. Those don't typically get reported in detail, however, because they aren't sensational newsmakers.

 

UK may have 'had it right' with their police force not carrying firearms, but they have different and much stricter gun control laws for citizens, too. Guns are very common in the US, and as someone who pays for the police force with my tax dollars, I don't want them to be handicapped against the enemy. I want them to have the necessary legal tools to do their job to the best of their ability. Their lives and all the lives of those they serve may well depend on them being armed and using those weapons in an appropriate fashion if the situation requires it.

 

If someone was wielding a knife within 7 feet of me and telling me he was going to kill me, I wouldn't be asking myself if he's lying. I'd assume he's telling the truth, because if I guessed that he's lying and I guessed wrong, I'm dead. Assuming the facts of this case are as reported, the cops were completely justified in shooting the kid.

 

And, BTW, not all us yanks are the type to love anything with a gun.
Agreed--I'd appreciate it if I wasn't lumped into the 'love anything with a gun' category myself just because I'm American. Edited by Jae Onasi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't get much of a problem with Police shooting people... but our main police force isn't armed (which some would say is a problem, but that's another matter).

 

But, when our Armed Response Units do shoot someone, it always causes a furore, but i've always reasoned that the officer wouldn't fire unless they needed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why tasers are good, they dont kill the person usually, and they can be fired from outside of stabbing range. But unfortunately since you can win any court case by whining enough no matter how absurd your argument is, they arent used as much since they hurt the person who gets shot with them. Oh no, god forbid someone whose trying to knife someone else feels some pain in order to stop the attack, oh no, call the lawyers quick!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why tasers are good, they dont kill the person usually, and they can be fired from outside of stabbing range. But unfortunately since you can win any court case by whining enough no matter how absurd your argument is, they arent used as much since they hurt the person who gets shot with them. Oh no, god forbid someone whose trying to knife someone else feels some pain in order to stop the attack, oh no, call the lawyers quick!

 

That has been a serious problem for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It's one of the few forces in the UK that is still armed as a matter of course (for obvious reasons), but they are trying to phase firearms out in favour of 'non-lethal' alternatives. And y'know what? Both of the alternatives have been criticised. First, officers were given CS spray. But now that is being discouraged because someone that was sprayed with it took an allergic reaction. Then tasers - they are being discouraged before they are even issued, becaue there is a chance in the realm of possibilities that at some point some person might possibly react badly to it and may possibly be badly injured. (The overuse of conditionals is intentional ;))

 

The fact that there is an incredibly easy way for a person to avoid having a taser, etc. used against themselves doesn't seem to occur to many...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then tasers - they are being discouraged before they are even issued, becaue there is a chance in the realm of possibilities that at some point some person might possibly react badly to it and may possibly be badly injured.
FWIW, I live in the state where Tazers are manufactured, therefore they are in the news just about every time one is used anywhere in the world (slight exaggeration). Based on what I've heard (and nothing more) I'm lead to believe that there is some serious health consideration that the company has been to court over due to failure to publicize the risk. Whether there is any truth to allegations or not is not for me to say. Just thought I would throw that in there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, he made a threat and was holding a knife. But shooting him to death is a little excessive, don't you think?

 

Where were the stun guns? The shots to the shin, knees, legs, even shoulder? The less than lethal bullets?

I agree. The first thing that entered my head was, where were the tasers? Ya the kid had a knife, but a taser would stop him in his tracks and give the police officer enough time to restrain him.

 

I also agree that he could have shot him in the leg instead of killing the kid.

 

I would like to say that the police officer didn't make the right decision, but I was not in his position. The police officer must have deemed it nescessary to shoot to kill....:/ (OBVIOUSLY ;))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm lead to believe that there is some serious health consideration that the company has been to court over due to failure to publicize the risk. Whether there is any truth to allegations or not is not for me to say. Just thought I would throw that in there.

There's dangers to electric shocks? Hot damn! Call the media! Of course there's dangers to them, thats the point! Not to mention that there's also dangers to speeding bullets and sharp knives, both of which are a lot more likely to kill the person instead of give them discomfort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. The first thing that entered my head was, where were the tasers?
Already addressed. There is no guarantee that Australian police even have Tazers. Even if they did, they wouldn't risk using non-lethal weapons in a enclosed, close-quarters situation.

 

Ya the kid had a knife, but a taser would stop him in his tracks and give the police officer enough time to restrain him.
Again, based on the info we had, a Tazer would have been inappropriate for that situation.

 

I also agree that he could have shot him in the leg instead of killing the kid.
Do you think the kid would have sat still so the police could shoot him in the leg?

 

I would like to say that the police officer didn't make the right decision, but I was not in his position. The police officer must have deemed it nescessary to shoot to kill....:/ (OBVIOUSLY ;))
We certainly hope so. If not, then the public has every right to be outraged. I suspect we'll have to wait until the investigation is over.

 

There's dangers to electric shocks? Hot damn! Call the media! Of course there's dangers to them, thats the point! Not to mention that there's also dangers to speeding bullets and sharp knives, both of which are a lot more likely to kill the person instead of give them discomfort.
There's a huge problem when the manufacturer says the product will do one thing but the consumer finds out that it does something else. The problem is further exacerbated when the faulty equipment results in the death of a member of the public at the hands of a public servant who was trying to utilize non-lethal means. But then again, maybe I'm just being too soft here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...