90lb schizophrenic 18-year-old with screwdriver

[Rachel Bronwyn]

tased, restrained by two cops, then shot dead by a third.

Very sad.

[qzar9999]

There are always two sides to these stories--typically the family offering a version of events painting the deceased as harmless, and the police stating they posed a clear threat and deadly force was a last resort--and the unfortunate fact is that nobody other than the people who were actually there will ever know the whole truth. I'm always reluctant to take either side's word 100%, especially when the family says something like "the cop murdered him in cold blood." (Not saying that's impossible, just that they may be a little biased.)

That said, I do agree that it's very sad this happened, and I sincerely hope that if the officer's actions were unjustified that he's punished accordingly.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

I don't know what's true either. What I do know is the information given thus far begs questions. I look forward to the officer in question justifying their use of deadly force because we haven't seen justification for it yet.

[OhZone]

Even if he was a threat, couldn't they have aimed to wing him? :/

[TF-Viewer]

Originally Posted by OhZone

Even if he was a threat, couldn't they have aimed to wing him? :/

It was point blank apparently. Aiming wasn't really a factor if the story is to be believed. If you shoot someone at that range while they're already restrained...

I want to believe that the story is exaggerated in some way, because anyone who'd do that should be locked up for life, and he's not going to be.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

This is why I'm so very interested to hear their justification for use of deadly force.

[qzar9999]

Originally Posted by OhZone

Even if he was a threat, couldn't they have aimed to wing him? :/

The legal climate these days being what it is, cops generally shoot to kill. If you wound them and leave them alive they'll often try to sue.

[BillPratt]

Originally Posted by qzar9999

The legal climate these days being what it is, cops generally shoot to kill. If you wound them and leave them alive they'll often try to sue.

"They'll have relatives. THey always do."
--The Old Man in Robocop 2.

The logic is a touch simpler than that. It's not so much shoot to kill as it is shoot not to miss. Center of body mass is a much easier target to hit and much, much more likely to stop the bullet. This keeps the collateral damage down. As hard as it is to explain why a police officer shot anyone, it's got to be worse explaining why a bystander got whacked because the officer was trying to be fancy. This makes shooting weapons out of hands a non-starter.

This case, as described, strikes me as one where the police could have just hit the kid with a nightstick and has me thinking of the old saw where if you have a hammer all problems are nails.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

There is one sufficiently large target in a fluid situation to shoot at where the likelihood of accomplishing rapid cessation of actions is reasonable: "centre mass", in the upper torso. Anything else is fantasy cop show stuff.

That being said, the reason you shoot someone is to prevent them from committing further harm. Dude's going to have to prove the restrained kid was committing or even capable of committing harm whilst restrained to justify shooting him.

[obviousagent]

Ok, I will try to answer the big question from an armed Police point of view, I admit it is a UK cops point of view but from what I know use of force is similar across the pond.
There are several laws and legislations governing the use of force and paperwork will always follow any use of force. Use of force is a scale with tactical communication( that's talking) at the bottom and lethal force at the top. It is interesting that in the UK lethal force does not actually have to be capable of killing, it represents a "high" level of force; i.e. a baton strike to the kidney area or the groin can be classed as lethal force.
Now in the UK only specially trained officers carry firearms routinely and their use is very limited, usually requiring higher authorisation. However officers can use the firearms without this if certain criteria are met.
As in all cases though the decision to pull the trigger lays with the officer, it's their shot to justify.
So has anyone heard of perceptional distortion?
You can experience a traumatic/stressful episode as a group and not one recollection will be the same. Everyone will see things differently. Also this entire conflict could have lasted seconds, things can slow down under stress they can speed up, the slightest movement can seem massive. You get tunnel vision, that famous pinpointing of focus. He may not have seen the other officer going for his taser, he may not have known the background to the incident, he may have thought or seen something the other officers were not aware of, things could have gone so quickly he may have used his firearm the same time the officer used his taser as he saw things differently. I know from experience The officer involved shooting will have to justify his actions to all and sundry.
I truly hope that what has been said by the family of the youngster is wrong and is grief and wanting to apportion blame, but the bottom line is they called Police for a reason, a reason that had an episode that can give the human body strength and aggression beyond the norm, also that reason had a weapon.
If he is found to be in the wrong then he should face the full power of the law in your country; if not it is something that will stay with him for the rest of his days.
I hope I don't come across as being one sided that wasn't and isn't my intention, just trying to illuminate from the blue side of the house.