Boy, 14, Shot and Killed by Police Officer

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Baked: What automaticaly makes an officers life more valuable than someone elses life? I don't think if I am attacked I should have the right to kill someone else. Why should an officer be any different?


Perry

Personally i think anyone attackes anoyone else with the intent of takeing there life it is justifiable to kill them.

the kid was trying to kill the officer. the cop defended his life with deadly force.

If i had a gun on me and someone tried to to hit me with a broom stick i would shoot them also. in a situation where i fear for my life or my familys i will use deadly force.

there is no reason for me to risk getting killed because some think that the the criminals life is more important then mine. I feel the criminals life is far less then the victims.

and i thought israel used excessive force 😛

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
BigJ: I wouldn't be a cop to be put in those situations. Perhaps more resources should be put forth to find alternate solutions for situations like this. This probably isn't the first time something like this has happened. Why is it that if mace dosen't work the next step is gun/deadly force? What about rubber bullets or some other device that will render a person harmless? That is why I think the pd should be sued and not the officer. The pd determines what force is to be used by equiping the police officers with the tools to carry it out.

Are you serious? You want all officers to carry "rubber bullet guns" with them to every call. What happened was unfortunate but sounds like the kid was a pile of ****** and it is better that he die than the officer die or even get injured.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
BigJ: I wouldn't be a cop to be put in those situations. Perhaps more resources should be put forth to find alternate solutions for situations like this. This probably isn't the first time something like this has happened. Why is it that if mace dosen't work the next step is gun/deadly force? What about rubber bullets or some other device that will render a person harmless? That is why I think the pd should be sued and not the officer. The pd determines what force is to be used by equiping the police officers with the tools to carry it out.

how much time do you think the PO had? how clear do you think his head was after getting a broom handle broke over it? how much equipment do you want to pay for with taxes?

I agree Police should have a tazer. but they are expensive and not all PD"s can afford them.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
BigJ: I wouldn't be a cop to be put in those situations. Perhaps more resources should be put forth to find alternate solutions for situations like this. This probably isn't the first time something like this has happened. Why is it that if mace dosen't work the next step is gun/deadly force? What about rubber bullets or some other device that will render a person harmless? That is why I think the pd should be sued and not the officer. The pd determines what force is to be used by equiping the police officers with the tools to carry it out.

There are three issues I can name: cost, encumberance, & time.

It costs a lot of money to have cops out there. Many (if not most) places are down to single occupant cars so that your backup may be minutes away. That means anything you encounter you have to deal with on your own quite often. It also costs money for equipment, and training. That money has to come from somewhere, and is already stretched thin. People would probably react negatively to being told their taxes just jumped to 50% in order to pay for vast increases to law enforcement (especially when that doesn't prevent crime, just punish for crimes committed).

All that equipment is tough to lug around. Even without tasers a cop is already heavily burdened. It slows him down, drains his endurance, and makes for having to watch more things that could get taken and used against him. If they're going to carry it in the cars then they have to have time to go get it and get it ready. Also, if they leave the cars then someone else may get a hold of the stuff. If they're carrying different weapons and ammo, there also gets to be a problem with training for quick selection and usage.

That brings me to the most important point: time. A fight takes 5-30 seconds. Tops. By the time you know you're being attacked you have only a split-second to decide what force to respond with and bring it into play. You usually get one, or at most two chances in such an environment. If you're wrong with the first choice, you may very well die. There is next to no thought in a fight, there is merely training and reaction.

 

[kt]

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
BigJ: I wouldn't be a cop to be put in those situations. Perhaps more resources should be put forth to find alternate solutions for situations like this. This probably isn't the first time something like this has happened. Why is it that if mace dosen't work the next step is gun/deadly force? What about rubber bullets or some other device that will render a person harmless? That is why I think the pd should be sued and not the officer. The pd determines what force is to be used by equiping the police officers with the tools to carry it out.

How many weapons do you want an officer to carry? You want the weapon selection to be as simple as possible. Non-lethal or lethal. The last thing you want to do when an attacker comes at you is digging through your tool belt.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Sounds like the cop did society a favor. Give him a medal I say.

 

[kt]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Baked: What automaticaly makes an officers life more valuable than someone elses life? I don't think if I am attacked I should have the right to kill someone else. Why should an officer be any different?


Perry

Personally i think anyone attackes anoyone else with the intent of takeing there life it is justifiable to kill them.

the kid was trying to kill the officer. the cop defended his life with deadly force.

If i had a gun on me and someone tried to to hit me with a broom stick i would shoot them also. in a situation where i fear for my life or my familys i will use deadly force.

there is no reason for me to risk getting killed because some think that the the criminals life is more important then mine. I feel the criminals life is far less then the victims.

and i thought israel used excessive force 😛

Oh no. I think it's time for you to move your agenda to P&N forum!

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
BigJ: I wouldn't be a cop to be put in those situations. Perhaps more resources should be put forth to find alternate solutions for situations like this. This probably isn't the first time something like this has happened. Why is it that if mace dosen't work the next step is gun/deadly force? What about rubber bullets or some other device that will render a person harmless? That is why I think the pd should be sued and not the officer. The pd determines what force is to be used by equiping the police officers with the tools to carry it out.

If mace didn't work then rubber bullets probably wouldn't either. Besides, reloading your gun with nonlethal ammo, ejecting any lethal round in the barrel, and chambering a nonlethal round seems like a process that you wouldn't want to perform before firing in this situation.

Something tells me that the officer might have gotten a broom handle plunged through his adams apple before he finished.

I'd say that the only non lethal option that makes any sense in this situation is a taser. The officer didn't have one, and that was too bad for the kid.

As for what level of force an officer SHOULD use...I've always thought that attacking an armed police officer with a lethal weapon is about as smart as jumping off a cliff with no parachute. He's a guy with a gun. if he thinks you're going to kill him he does exactly what you should expect a guy with a gun to do...

 

[mattpegher]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
BigJ: I wouldn't be a cop to be put in those situations. Perhaps more resources should be put forth to find alternate solutions for situations like this. This probably isn't the first time something like this has happened. Why is it that if mace dosen't work the next step is gun/deadly force? What about rubber bullets or some other device that will render a person harmless? That is why I think the pd should be sued and not the officer. The pd determines what force is to be used by equiping the police officers with the tools to carry it out.

There are three issues I can name: cost, encumberance, & time.

It costs a lot of money to have cops out there. Many (if not most) places are down to single occupant cars so that your backup may be minutes away. That means anything you encounter you have to deal with on your own quite often. It also costs money for equipment, and training. That money has to come from somewhere, and is already stretched thin. People would probably react negatively to being told their taxes just jumped to 50% in order to pay for vast increases to law enforcement (especially when that doesn't prevent crime, just punish for crimes committed).

All that equipment is tough to lug around. Even without tasers a cop is already heavily burdened. It slows him down, drains his endurance, and makes for having to watch more things that could get taken and used against him. If they're going to carry it in the cars then they have to have time to go get it and get it ready. Also, if they leave the cars then someone else may get a hold of the stuff. If they're carrying different weapons and ammo, there also gets to be a problem with training for quick selection and usage.

That brings me to the most important point: time. A fight takes 5-30 seconds. Tops. By the time you know you're being attacked you have only a split-second to decide what force to respond with and bring it into play. You usually get one, or at most two chances in such an environment. If you're wrong with the first choice, you may very well die. There is next to no thought in a fight, there is merely training and reaction.

I agree, given the nature of combat, your best response when attacked is to respond with the most deadly force available. The first to throw blows takes the chance and the responsibility that deadly force may be used on him. Your first objective is to stop the fight before you get injured barring that whatever it takes to take the offender down. If that was not a police officer we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

[Legendary]

Baltimore PD is one of the worst funded and least effective PDs in a city with ridiculous crime rates.
This fact is surely relevant in this case. Baltimore PD cannot afford rubber bullet guns or tasers. The cop did what he could with the situation he was given. Quite frankly, I would have done the same.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Baked: What automaticaly makes an officers life more valuable than someone elses life? I don't think if I am attacked I should have the right to kill someone else. Why should an officer be any different?


Perry

Personally i think anyone attackes anoyone else with the intent of takeing there life it is justifiable to kill them.

the kid was trying to kill the officer. the cop defended his life with deadly force.

If i had a gun on me and someone tried to to hit me with a broom stick i would shoot them also. in a situation where i fear for my life or my familys i will use deadly force.

there is no reason for me to risk getting killed because some think that the the criminals life is more important then mine. I feel the criminals life is far less then the victims.

and i thought israel used excessive force 😛

nope i just put my family above a criminal. you try to kill or harm my family then yes i will use deadly force.

violence for the sake of violence is never right or moral. protecting my family, friends or others in need then violence is justifiable.

 

[Willoughbyva]

Princeofwands: If police officers were provided with a device that would render a person harmless and not kill them then they wouldn't have to worry so much about it being taken away and being used against them, at least not like with a gun. You can argue about cost, but life shouldn't be put to a dollar figure. If fewer people were killed by law enforcement then there would be fewer lawsuits.

I just think there should be other types of weapons besides guns. Also in this case there was another officer there and he left before the incident was over.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Baked: What automaticaly makes an officers life more valuable than someone elses life? I don't think if I am attacked I should have the right to kill someone else. Why should an officer be any different?


Perry

Personally i think anyone attackes anoyone else with the intent of takeing there life it is justifiable to kill them.

the kid was trying to kill the officer. the cop defended his life with deadly force.

If i had a gun on me and someone tried to to hit me with a broom stick i would shoot them also. in a situation where i fear for my life or my familys i will use deadly force.

there is no reason for me to risk getting killed because some think that the the criminals life is more important then mine. I feel the criminals life is far less then the victims.

and i thought israel used excessive force 😛

nope i just put my family above a criminal. you try to kill or harm my family then yes i will use deadly force.

violence for the sake of violence is never right or moral. protecting my family, friends or others in need then violence is justifiable.

no i'm with you on the family part...i was talk about the shoot someone if they tried to hit you with a broom part.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: kt

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Baked: What automaticaly makes an officers life more valuable than someone elses life? I don't think if I am attacked I should have the right to kill someone else. Why should an officer be any different?


Perry

Personally i think anyone attackes anoyone else with the intent of takeing there life it is justifiable to kill them.

the kid was trying to kill the officer. the cop defended his life with deadly force.

If i had a gun on me and someone tried to to hit me with a broom stick i would shoot them also. in a situation where i fear for my life or my familys i will use deadly force.

there is no reason for me to risk getting killed because some think that the the criminals life is more important then mine. I feel the criminals life is far less then the victims.

and i thought israel used excessive force 😛

Oh no. I think it's time for you to move your agenda to P&N forum!

😀

 

[KrillBee]

Originally posted by: Strk
It's a shame more cops don't have those taser guns (the ones that shoot out two barbs). They work great in situations like this; that is, where the officer runs out of options of restraint and needs to use his or her weapon.

i personally dont mind seeing a kind like this getting eliminated from the gene pool

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: Strk
It's a shame more cops don't have those taser guns (the ones that shoot out two barbs). They work great in situations like this; that is, where the officer runs out of options of restraint and needs to use his or her weapon.

you can thank copious amounts of lawsuits for the police not having more of those. People don't realize that when it comes to use of force, there is a scale involved...if we don't have a tool, we HAVE to jump up to the next one in line, hence the service weapon. A taser would have been ideal in this case, but I certainly don't blame the officer for his actions.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Baked: What automaticaly makes an officers life more valuable than someone elses life? I don't think if I am attacked I should have the right to kill someone else. Why should an officer be any different?


Perry

Personally i think anyone attackes anoyone else with the intent of takeing there life it is justifiable to kill them.

the kid was trying to kill the officer. the cop defended his life with deadly force.

If i had a gun on me and someone tried to to hit me with a broom stick i would shoot them also. in a situation where i fear for my life or my familys i will use deadly force.

there is no reason for me to risk getting killed because some think that the the criminals life is more important then mine. I feel the criminals life is far less then the victims.

and i thought israel used excessive force 😛

nope i just put my family above a criminal. you try to kill or harm my family then yes i will use deadly force.

violence for the sake of violence is never right or moral. protecting my family, friends or others in need then violence is justifiable.

no i'm with you on the family part...i was talk about the shoot someone if they tried to hit you with a broom part.

a broom handle is stronger then you really think. strikeing someone over the head with one can kill someone. while only maybe a inch thick it is still very strong.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Princeofwands: If police officers were provided with a device that would render a person harmless and not kill them then they wouldn't have to worry so much about it being taken away and being used against them, at least not like with a gun. You can argue about cost, but life shouldn't be put to a dollar figure. If fewer people were killed by law enforcement then there would be fewer lawsuits.

I just think there should be other types of weapons besides guns. Also in this case there was another officer there and he left before the incident was over.

I agree, there should be. But there isn't. You invent a system that addresses all of my points, prove that it's as reliable as a handgun, and I'll head the campaign to make it the primary law enforcement weapon. Until such a weapon exists however, I back the police killing every threat they encounter and I'll keep packing my .40 24/7/365.

I'm not the one complaining about taxes to equipe law enforcement (though I would because there are much better ways to spend the money), society will. You have to convince the voters to approve the tax increase.

You are correct that the other officer might have made a bad choice in leaving. However, if the situation looked controlled and another call came in for one that wasn't, then how do you choose?

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
BigJ: I wouldn't be a cop to be put in those situations. Perhaps more resources should be put forth to find alternate solutions for situations like this. This probably isn't the first time something like this has happened. Why is it that if mace dosen't work the next step is gun/deadly force? What about rubber bullets or some other device that will render a person harmless? That is why I think the pd should be sued and not the officer. The pd determines what force is to be used by equiping the police officers with the tools to carry it out.

You realize you would have to train every officer on that department with a the "less lethal" weapons, right? You then have to make sure they can get deployed...tell me, what chance would the officer had in trying to get his less than lethal option out?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Strk
It's a shame more cops don't have those taser guns (the ones that shoot out two barbs). They work great in situations like this; that is, where the officer runs out of options of restraint and needs to use his or her weapon.

you can thank copious amounts of lawsuits for the police not having more of those. People don't realize that when it comes to use of force, there is a scale involved...if we don't have a tool, we HAVE to jump up to the next one in line, hence the service weapon. A taser would have been ideal in this case, but I certainly don't blame the officer for his actions.

yeap i was going to mention tazers have been under attack lately. PD's have been sued for using them as recessive force.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Princeofwands: If police officers were provided with a device that would render a person harmless and not kill them then they wouldn't have to worry so much about it being taken away and being used against them, at least not like with a gun. You can argue about cost, but life shouldn't be put to a dollar figure. If fewer people were killed by law enforcement then there would be fewer lawsuits.

I just think there should be other types of weapons besides guns. Also in this case there was another officer there and he left before the incident was over.

I agree, there should be. But there isn't. You invent a system that addresses all of my points, prove that it's as reliable as a handgun, and I'll head the campaign to make it the primary law enforcement weapon. Until such a weapon exists however, I back the police killing every threat they encounter and I'll keep packing my .40 24/7/365.

we should have more duels, like back in the old days.

 

[kt]

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Princeofwands: If police officers were provided with a device that would render a person harmless and not kill them then they wouldn't have to worry so much about it being taken away and being used against them, at least not like with a gun. You can argue about cost, but life shouldn't be put to a dollar figure. If fewer people were killed by law enforcement then there would be fewer lawsuits.

I just think there should be other types of weapons besides guns. Also in this case there was another officer there and he left before the incident was over.

You know the money to fund all those equipments would be able to save MILLIONS of kids around the world? Wouldn't the money be better used to save MILLIONS of lives around the world instead of funding equipment that PROBABLY will only save a life here and there. Don't you think?

 

[Willoughbyva]

Fallenhero: Probably about the same reaction time that it took to get his gun out and kill the kid. If training police officers is such a problem then why train them at all?

Killing someone shouldn't be simple.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Princeofwands: If police officers were provided with a device that would render a person harmless and not kill them then they wouldn't have to worry so much about it being taken away and being used against them, at least not like with a gun. You can argue about cost, but life shouldn't be put to a dollar figure. If fewer people were killed by law enforcement then there would be fewer lawsuits.

I just think there should be other types of weapons besides guns. Also in this case there was another officer there and he left before the incident was over.

I agree, there should be. But there isn't. You invent a system that addresses all of my points, prove that it's as reliable as a handgun, and I'll head the campaign to make it the primary law enforcement weapon. Until such a weapon exists however, I back the police killing every threat they encounter and I'll keep packing my .40 24/7/365.

we should have more duels, like back in the old days.

haha...everyone should carry around a white glove to slap a person with.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: Strk
It's a shame more cops don't have those taser guns (the ones that shoot out two barbs). They work great in situations like this; that is, where the officer runs out of options of restraint and needs to use his or her weapon.

agreed

its more a shame that a kid like that would be stupid enough to continuously attack a police officer.