779
California officer shoots and kills boy, 15, holding gardening tool
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
779 points (96.5% liked)
News
23310 readers
3443 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yea sadly the kid was an aggressor here
But the cops should be using tazers or something non-lethal to deal with this kinda altercation
FYI, tazers aren't "non-lethal."
Less lethal than a gun shot
Why not use tranquilizers? Field biologists use them to check up on wild animals, why can't they use them on "criminals"?
Tranquilizers aren't instant like they show on TV, most take 20-30 minutes to kick in.
Hoes are.
Wasn't there a case some year back where a police officer was attacked and they mistakenly grabbed their gun instead of their tazer due to panic? The details are murky.
She was charged.
https://www.npr.org/2021/12/23/1066012247/kim-potter-trial-daunte-wright
Something non-lethal... Like the "bare hands" they attempted to use on their arrival?
Tazers fail. A lot. You have one shot and if one of the two barbs don't both go in for a good connection it doesn't work. It's not something anyone would want to count on in a situation where you or someone else is being attacked.
If you have multiple cops at the scene though, you can easily have one go through the tool kit using tazer, pepper spray, etc, while the other one covers them with a gun.
But that takes like actual thinking and training.
Yes, exactly. They work through every less-lethal option they have, with an officer ready to escalate to lethal if the subject ever puts someone at imminent risk of death or grievous bodily harm.
If, for example, an atttacker is ever close enough and aggressive enough to attempt to stick a shovel in someone's head and neck, a covering officer can immediately stop the attack with lethal force.
So, officers could start with a less-lethal option, like a baton, or tazer, or bare hands, and only escalate to lethal force if the situation actually calls for it.
Still trying to ignore everything else about the situation I see.
That's not as simple as it sounds. Even if they somehow knew exactly what has happening and had pre-arranged a plan of action, by the time they knew the taser has failed, the partner is as likely to shoot the other officer as the assailant.
Tasers simply aren't effective in these situations.
Pre-arranged plans... Hmmm like Standard Operating Procedures? Or Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures?
They didn't need a football pre game huddle. It's as simple as one guy saying "cover me" while they choose a less lethal option. This is literally why they train. Why we give them so much money.
And just because you deploy a Taser does not mean you stop creating space. Likewise, there is no rule that the partner needs to take a shot from 10 meters away. Standard infantry practice for an engaged buddy is to get right up in there and shoot where you can be sure of it. Just make sure you call the shot so your buddy knows to turn away. Which is all also training.
These guys ran straight into an unknown situation and someone died because of it.
In the video, what was the time frame from first seeing the kid to the kid attacking him with the weapon?
You didn't watch the video. You are commenting based on an article written by someone with less knowledge and experience than you.
I did see the video. He didn't have to go straight in. He really should have waited for his buddy. But they train to operate individually and just go straight to guns. So that's what panic stricken cops are going to do. Insert themselves into situations and kill people until they can go home again. At which point people like you show up to defend them.
We don't have to accept this behavior. We can see better models of threat reduction in other countries.
The officer entered the house without a weapon drawn. Upon observing a threat, and was engaged by that threat before he was able to draw and aim his own weapon.
For the officers to have had sufficient time to engage him before he completes his initial attack, they would have had to have approached the door with weapons already drawn.
That's why I asked about the time frame. Meeting your expectation for this scenario
The only feasible way they could have feasibly de-escalated the threat or used a less-lethal weapon would have been to enter the home of a black family with tasers and nightsticks in their hands.
I am comfortable in assuming that you would have a giant fucking problem with taser-wielding cops barging into black homes with no indication of an active threat.
You want the officers to wait for backup? I am comfortable in assuming you would have a giant fucking problem with a cop sitting in his patrol car while an attack is in progress, just waiting around until his partner arrives.
No, there's no policy or standard that they could adopt that would actually make you happy, so there's no point in trying. Since you and people like you are going to be pissed off no matter what they do, they might as well ignore you completely, and focus on someone else.
You uh dance professionally or just when you're trying to miss the point so you don't have to accept things?
He should not have approached the house alone when backup was right there.
They should have approached with weapons drawn. The door was open and the caller reported an aggressive person.
One of those weapons should have been less than lethal.
There was an indication of a threat on the 911 call.
His buddy, the second camera angle, is a second away from linking up with him when he decides to follow Leroy Jenkins example.
There's plenty of policies that would make me happy. I don't ignore the existence of things just to score Internet points.
To safely employ a tazer in this situation, the cop would have needed body armor completely covering his head, neck, torso, arms, groin, and legs. Wearing anything less than full riot gear, that attack posed an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Striking the officer's head or neck with a bladed weapon could destroy an eye, sever the carotid artery, or cause a wide variety of maiming or permanently disfiguring injuries.
Employment of a pain compliance method is only feasible once that threat has been stopped, delayed, or mitigated.
Neither of the officers present appeared to have had any opportunity to use a tazer or less-lethal device to stop the attack.
You sound like all the cowardly cops. If you can't handle a non lethal situation like this with your tazer: find another job.
I see. And what training, instruction, or other expertise do you have to support your assertion that this was a "non lethal situation"?
I believe that I could cause a permanently disfiguring, debilitating, or lethal injury with any of the long-handled tools in my shed. I believe if a racist teenager swung one of these tools at a black man, you, too, would consider it to have been a use of lethal force.
I think a reasonable person facing a 15-year-old attempting to strike them with any of my gardening equipment would reasonably fear a threat of death or grievous bodily harm.
I reject your characterization of this as a "non lethal situation".
I don't know about him but I was an Infantryman who invaded Iraq. And no. You're wrong. You don't just shoot kids clearly having a mental health episode. Especially with multiple cops present. You only need one designated shooter while everyone else works the problem.
Also, pain compliance is to neutralize threats. If there is no threat then you're just torturing them. Where I'm from that's called a war crime.
Surely we're holding our police to a higher standard than a 19 year old scared shitless in a warzone? Right?
Kid tried to jam a shovel in someone's neck. That's not a "mental health episode". That's an imminent deadly threat.
There is no ROE that prohibits anyone from using lethal force in that situation. Never has been. Never will be.
Rules of engagement? Are you one of those cops who thinks they're a soldier in occupied territory?
Not at all.
I'm referring to an upvoted comment here that suggests soldiers wouldn't have been justified in shooting this kid in a war zone, due to ROE. The author of that comment pulled it straight out of their ass: there never has been and never will be an ROE that would have prohibited this use of lethal force.
You're right. A Soldier could have shot him in a war zone. I would very much like our police to perform better than a scared shitless 19 year old kid with 14 weeks of training and no sleep in the past 48 hours.
Jesus there is some hard cop-sucking cope here. A govt sanctioned gang member shows up and shoots a 15 year old. This self-aggrandizing hero kills a kid rather than retreating and licking his wounded ego. This is not public service. These are cowards who immediately soil themselves at the first sign of danger and then pat each other's soiled bottoms over how brave they are when they kill someone.
Big talk from someone who has never had a garden hoe swung at their head.
Please, continue criticizing the actions of someone who has.
He was 15. You're saying that two trained and experienced police officers couldn't deal with a 15 year old boy. Don't make me laugh. "Bladed weapon"? Was the kid a samurai?
They deal with hardened criminals and meth labs in San Bernardino. But a confused 15 year old was their arch nemesis? No one is going to believe that and they better not try to convince a jury with that story. Like the acorn guy, these cops are going to be laughed off the force.
Got it. You didn't watch the footage.