It is not possible to know when you are confronted with coming at you holding a tool in a threatening manner whether or not he's autistic or "having a mental health crisis." An officer cannot afford to sit and wait to see if the attacker strikes him in the skull first.
I'm not saying this couldn't have been handled better and it should have been - but I can understand how it happens. Taking a reasonable amount of risk has to be balanced with instantaneous assessment of whether this person who's on a rampage is about to strike you or a family member in a lethal way. This may not be the happiest outcome, but people need to stop instantly criticizing every move the police make.
If YOU were the officer standing there having to make a snap judgment, you very likely would do the same thing, even if you think you wouldn't.
Then use a fucking taser and stay out of range of the potential melee weapon. Or bait him into taking an errant swing and grab him when the opportunity arises. Or just fucking talk to him while keeping out of range.
There are so many ways this could have ended without resorting to guns.
This is a tragic story and I’m against police brutality as much as anyone, but it feels a little sensationalist to word a news article title this way. “Holding a gardening tool” makes me picture someone who was just minding his own business and planting flowers, but a quick google search shows him trying to attack the officers with a garden hoe.
Shame on The Guardian for muddying the waters to try to farm clicks from a terrible situation.
Agreed. It’s a serious problem, but the discussion gets so muddied by websites with low integrity running headlines that are intentionally dishonest, just for clicks. They know they’ll get more outrage and $$ by wording it this way, and it’s gross behavior.
How many people across the web do you think saw this headline and assumed, like I did before looking into it, that this was another case of police mistaking some harmless object for a gun? Probably lots.
Thanks. It’s rare that I even comment on stuff that I know is going to be a divisive topic, because people get so worked up and it’s hard to have a human conversation.
It was a hula hoe - basically a stick. It was not the kind of hoe with a blade. They killed a kid that they knew was in a mental health crisis for running at them with a stick.
They could have tackled him. They could have tased him. They could have pepper sprayed him. They could have tried entering the home more gently and used de-escalation practices like most medical professionals use. If a patient in crisis picks up an IV pole and threatens hospital workers with it, their response is not to shoot the patient three times.
I think shooting someone trying to attack you with a hoe generally counts as self-defense, but I don’t understand why
“The use of a Taser in this situation with the amount of time or the use of pepper-spray would not have been something we would have been able to react to quick enough. Ultimately we have to stop this problem … law enforcement officers are not required to be hit over the head with something. What happens when they get incapacitated? … The deputies followed through with what their training protocols are.”
This seems like exactly the situation tasers are meant for. Even if attempting to use a taser would have been riskier for the deputies, IMO accepting a reasonable amount of risk is part of their job. “Take the risk of confronting an aggressive teenager, but not the further risk of attempting to subdue him non-lethally” isn’t where I would have the line drawn.
And if this were a story about some random person defending themselves I might agree, but it’s not. It’s about a police officer who supposedly has the physical fitness and training to take the extra risk of using less than lethal options.
They say that tasers are not reliable. Plus police also have guns, so if a person with a hoe knocks you out (because taser failed), it can get possession of the gun and can start killing others.
I've seen your other posts, that you wouldn't be being intentionally dehumanising to a marginalized person is not at all obvious
I have no idea how you get this. And in what way this person is marginalized?
Why were police even there?
I think you are completely miss reading my post. I am making a general statement that police should have tasers available to them, that they can use instead of guns in some situations. I do not know details of this case as in why exactly police were called.
Oh bull fucking shit, a taser would so have been effective against a 15 year old. Its a child you monster. The police shouldn't be shooting first in any situation unless the assailant has a gun themselves and they can be sure. Its ridiculous how the police escalate force so ridiculously quickly. Anyone defending that rapid escalation is an animal whose opinion should be instantly discounted. These are children that are being killed. Shut all the way up.
That statement also admits that this is in line with protocol, Idk who in their right mind would call a protocol acceptable where 3 guys show up to a distress call with guns and can’t manage to deescalate one kid with a hoe without loss of life.
Add comment