This story in Philadelphia where I live has been on the news almost everyday for the last week. To sum it up, a police officer responds to a domestic dispute between a 15 yrs old male and another person (I think another family member). When an officer arrives, the 15 yrs old attempts to hit the officer with an iron, however the officer makes the split second decision to fire a round before he was hit by the iron and kills the kid. Now the family of the 15 yrs. old is suing the department for the officer's use of "excessive force". Am I missing something here? I am pretty sure an iron is considered a deadly weapon, and the kid was 15 yrs. old so he could really put some force behind it. Am I just being biased being that I am training to be a police officer or do you feel that this was in fact excessive force. FYI...only police supervisors carry a tasing devices in Philadelphia.
2007-10-13 14:39:29 · 9 answers · asked by Phantoms 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Officers are trained to shoot for center mass...not a certain part of the body. Honestly, put yourself in the situation with someone trying to kill you with an iron... would you run and tackle them?
2007-10-13 14:48:41 · update #1
Suing is common practice. It would be impossible to comment on the situation with out all the facts.
Edit. I researched the article, and apparently, the 15 year old refused to stop, and continued to go after 2 Officers before he was shot.
2007-10-13 15:18:08 · answer #1 · answered by CGIV76 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Now this is going to sound bad, but you need to think of it this way. Only one was going to survive - either the 15 year old kid or the police officer. Now go into the future with the police officer living. More lives will be saved. Now if it had gone the other way and the 15 year old kid lived I am sure this kid would have killed some innocent person and ended up in jail. Also the police officer was in the right as he was trying to help. In Australia they have tough laws for anyone killing a police officer - life in jail. Probably because there is no death penalty. Also it was a split second decision which had to be made. People would think he should have shot him in the leg but in an emergency things don't always go to plan. He didn't have time to line the shot to a leg. I think the police officer was in the right.
2007-10-13 22:52:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have read up on this, and Domestic calls are the WORST. Not only do they always happen at the end of the shift, but you are ALWAYS the bad guy. If someone swung a large iron at me, you better be ready for a gunshot wound. I think the officer(s) will be cleared of any excessive force claims.
Moral of the story: Swing heavy and deadly objects at police, get a .40 cal tap to the chest.
Everyone can nitpick his decescion to shoot. hindsight is always 20/20. But in the end, the officer and his partner get to go home.
2007-10-13 22:50:09 · answer #3 · answered by Kevy 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the 15 year old was willing to assault a police officer, the person he was arguing with stood a good chance of being killed, as well. It's sad the 15 year old made the choices he made... but a couple of lives were also probably saved that day.
2007-10-14 00:03:26 · answer #4 · answered by scruffycat 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hindsight is 20-20......its tough because we can all sit here and make decisons after KNOWING what happened and actually thinking about it. Thats why some people aren't cut out to be a police officer, you have to make decisons as fast as they are presented...and they're not always going to be the right ones, but you have to learn to move on. I'm sure that Officer can articulate the use of deadly force......
2007-10-14 00:36:53 · answer #5 · answered by gonzo735 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Although the iron can be considered a deadly weapon by some, I don't agree with that split second decision of his to shoot the kid... that was a bit unnecessary, but this is just my opinion.
2007-10-13 21:45:47 · answer #6 · answered by tisashell 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I am no expert on police issues but does stepping out of the way, ducking, rushing and tackling the kid not cross your mind? I can see maybe shooting kid in the leg or someplace not fatal also, but why would fatal force be needed in this situation?
2007-10-13 21:45:08 · answer #7 · answered by Wilkow Conservative 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
domestic disputes are the hardest
for Police to deal with.
Although this Officer probaly is justified
by Law ? -I believe that Police in general are
way too trigger happy.
Are they not taught other methods of defence
of are they scared?
If he/she couldn't disarm a 15 year old kid-
they didn't have to shoot to kill.
Would they shoot a rampant 15 year old
if it was their kid?
If you are training -good luck -be brave
and never lose your integrity or your ability
to treat human beings
with respect and without
predujice.
2007-10-13 21:48:18 · answer #8 · answered by Sandy 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
There's no case there. It looks to me like a clear-cut case of self-defense. If someone swung something heavy at me, I would not hesitate to use potentially deadly force to subdue them, protecting myself and everyone around. Watch what you swing, where you swing it, and who you swing it at.
2007-10-13 21:45:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋