The situation is this you are a police officer responding to a 911 call where there is a history of violent disturbances. when you arrive the mother of a teenage boy has been assulted and is in tears and the teenage boy is aggresive towards you despite attempts to calm him down. he brandishes a blunt object and threatens to kill you and his mother. you unholster your weapon and warned him several times to drop the weapon, he charges at you. The object is a old fashion iron with the tip made of metal conforming to a sharp point and weighs around 9 lbs. (it is a weapon that can do serious damage) you shoot and end up killing the teen. are you wrong??
2007-10-10 11:13:54 · 10 answers · asked by James 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
please keep in mind this isn' t a drill this is in real time things go down alot faster so your intentions are all well and good when you say taser or peppers spray if you seen someone pull a heavy blunt object with a point in a aggresive manor. not diminishing anyones answers just being realistic.
2007-10-10 12:05:53 · update #1
cop shot 2 times or maybe just 1. i hate the use of violence myself. i don't believe the situation was escalated to a 41 rounds fired cop murder on a perp.
2007-10-10 12:10:35 · update #2
Was there no other way to subdue the son? Why didn't the officer use his billy club? I assume that the officer felt he had no choice.
It is hard to judge this scenario without actually seeing it. The officer pulled his weapon and warned the boy to drop the iron...when this happens, there can only be 2 outcomes...either the boy drops the iron or the weapon is fired.
I have to side with the police officer here. He arrived at a known problem area, and was threatened with a deadly weapon. He responded with equal deadly force.
Wrong? Of course he feels wrong...a young, human life was lost and that is always tragic. But that family's violent history is not the officer's responsibility, nor was it his fault that the boy gave him no choice but to draw his weapon.
2007-10-10 11:27:51 · answer #1 · answered by artistagent116 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
One would have to be in the situation. However, if I were the chief, I would council the officer on the use of deadly force with a gun. Perhaps he could have used a taser or side-stepped the teen and disarmed him. The baton would have been more appropriate since the iron could not project anything.
Assuming that the officer had more physical training, he could have man-handled the teen. Hindsight is always 20/20 though.
2007-10-10 18:36:46 · answer #2 · answered by armani.lamar 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on where the officer shot the kid if it was excessive force. If an officer life is threaten he has the right to defend himself. The protocol should be to disarm the person or take a non fatal shot to drop the suspect. If the officer shot the person in the face or heart otherwise a kill shot that would be excessive or he shot the person in the back.
2007-10-10 18:25:52 · answer #3 · answered by Johnnykickass2007 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would pull out a taser if I had one. But other wise I would unholster my gun and shoot. Now depending on the situation I may not shoot to kill.. But I would need to protect myself, my fellow law enforcement officers, and more importantly the public.
2007-10-10 18:19:43 · answer #4 · answered by Gophier 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I think he's an imminent threat, if the officer didn't shoot, the teenager, probably would have seriously injured/killed the officer or the mother.
The officer could have possibly used another form of defence, but if the gun is all he has, then I don't think there's anything else he could have done.
2007-10-10 18:34:02 · answer #5 · answered by elin j 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Um, no, there is no sane jury or judge in the world who would find fault with an officer, or any private citizen for that matter, using lethal force to protect his life against a clear and present danger of an armed assailant.
2007-10-10 18:22:41 · answer #6 · answered by theseeker4 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is what tasers were developed for. But in this case the subject would be shot. Am I wrong, He provides a potential lethal threat to not only me but the mother; I would be completely justified in the lethal force that I would have to use.
2007-10-10 18:19:10 · answer #7 · answered by empd 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You didnt attempt to use non lethal solutions before shooting him. Most cops would have tased or peppered him. To the press, his mom and everyone else second guessing the situation there would questions on your decision to go lethal.
That is provided you didn't shoot him 41 times.
2007-10-10 18:23:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Im not a cop but my brother in law is, and has had to use deadly force before.
Clearly its only used as a last means. But I would say that was appropriate use of force. If a cop has a gun pointed at you, you kinda do what they say. Even if you dont agree with them.
They have judges and jurys for a reason.
2007-10-10 18:19:09 · answer #9 · answered by financing_loans 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
huh..?
2007-10-10 18:17:41 · answer #10 · answered by Jay09Jay99 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋