15 year old teen with Autism shot and killed by police.

reply to post by joyride0187


I can see that, the officers felt as if their lives were threatened and used lethal force. However I think the situation could have very well been avoided. This is a tragedy. I would also like to see major action done to improve the safety of others and the officers themselves in the line of duty.

Incredible news here:

articles.chicagotribune.com...

In Illinois, a little fewer than half of the municipal police agencies that responded to a 2007 survey reported they were using electroshock weapons, according to the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board, and more departments have since bought the weapons. Several suburban agencies contacted by the Tribune appear to have started using them in 2008 or 2009.
Taser International and police departments have faced lawsuits over safety. And though many fatalities following electroshock weapon use have been attributed to other causes, human rights group Amnesty International has counted 490 deaths after electroshock device use in the U.S. since 1990, said Debra Erenberg, Midwest regional director for the group. In some 50 cases between 2001 and 2008, coroners listed the weapons as a cause or contributing factor in a death, according to a study by the group.

This article was published a month ago criticizing police use of taser, and they even mention how tasers save lives. This autism incident also happened in Illinois. Looks like Illinois has plenty of justification for more tasers.

reply to post by filosophia


Here is an article published thursday updated today about the taser debate. I think people will be siding with the taser, although they shouldnt.

www.wane.com...

reply to post by CaptainNemo


The cops live in fear.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by filosophia

 

Here is an article published thursday updated today about the taser debate. I think people will be siding with the taser, although they shouldnt.

www.wane.com...

I'd take a taser over a bullet anyday. Infact I thought tasers were standard everywhere.! If I'd have to guess I'd say that the majority of stations that reported not having the technology in the first study were mostly located in rural areas. I live in Illinois and i'm quite sure almost every major metropolitan city and suburb has taser technology.

This boys death is the fault of whoever called the cops.

Once police are involved violence is pretty much a guarantee and death becomes a likely risk.

A similar thing happened here locally where a mother called the cops after an argument with her son. In the end a sobbing mother was hysterically wishing to undo what she had done.

The cops aren't some soft and fuzzy force to be thrown around willy nilly to every petty argument and domestic squabble. When you call the cops you are inviting death in through the front door. If you call the cops you better mean it.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by CaptainNemo

Do you think the shooting was justifiable.?

Absolutely. The 15 year old had a knife and cut one of the officers. Using a knife against someone is considered deadly force. The police, citing common sense, are trained to confront deadly force with deadly force.

The police department had knowledge of the boys handicap, and previously have dealt with the same situation, using tasers to subdue him.

Just because the police had previously dealt with the individual or previously responded to the residence does not mean that ALL officers are familiar with the individual. Everytime the police are dispatched to a location, only a short previous history is given and a more in depth history requires the dispatcher to search for it which is not practical for EVERY call for service.

How long had the officers worked in that area? An officer new to the area would have no idea of the previous history.

The article also says the lead officer did not have a taser on him, Why.?

Every officer is not equipped with a tazer. Larger departments cannot afford to train and equip every officer with one. Also, if the police did tazer him, you still would have raised the question of "why did the police tazer a 15 year old autistic child?" This is a clear case of damned if you do damned if you dont.

A loaded weapon on a kid with autism .?

A kid with autism can kill you just as dead with a knife or gun just as fast as a grown adult with no mental handicap.

I just don't understand that with all the training and ways to subdue a person NON-lethaly, you still fire two rounds into a kid who allegedly had a butter knife.?

First, no police department trains it's officers to subdue a person non-lethally when they are confronting you with a knife, gun or other deadly weapon. Police officers are trained to confront deadly force with deadly force. The police are trained to shoot to stop the threat.

Was it unfortunate that the child's parents did not take adequate steps to place the child in an environment more condusive to his mental capacity? Yes.

Was it unfortunate that the child's parents routinely relied on police involvement to get their child under control? Yes.

Was it unfortunate that these police officers were forced into shooting a 15 year old autistic child and now have to live with that for the rest of their lives? Yes.

Was the shooting justified? Yes.

reply to post by goldcoin

How many of these stories are going to have to pop up before the Police Department looks at their recruitment process!

The police were justified in shooting. Unless you have a REASONABLE argument that they were not. The police acted within normal police training, policy and common sense. It seems they are recruiting the right people for the job.

A 15 year old kid with a butter knife can be disarmed, this was murder.

Attempting to disarm someone with a knife is absolutely ridiculous. Police are paid to take reasonable risks but attempting to disarm anyone wielding a knife is just plain stupid.

And it seems to me that your law degree is failing you. Murder requires specific intent. This is plainly self defense.

I find it very amusing that your avatar is Common Sense by Thomas Paine when you are not exercising any in this particular situation.

reply to post by olliemc84

That still doesn't excuse the trigger happy police officers to put two slugs in a handicapped boy.

I was agreeing with everything you said right up until this point.

Trigger happy is a term normally used when an excessive amount of ammunition is used or when a shot is fired too hastily.

It seems in this situation, "trigger happy" would not accurately describe the actions of the police.

The officers only fired one shot each, totaling two shots. Two shots is no where near excessive under the circumstances. If the officers fired a total of 24 rounds, then yes, but two shots? No.

And clearly the officers were not too hasty to fire at the child either. The article clearly states that an officer was cut in the arm BEFORE the shots were fired.

These cops knew the situation they were going into and should've made an effort to keep they're weapons holstered, or at least come prepared with a taser/pepper spray.

How do you know the officers knew the child had a knife before confronting him? In the quoted text just above your comments, it clearly says:

Police say 15-year-old Stephon Watts was in the basement and apparently had been fighting with his father. When two officers went downstairs, police say the boy lunged at the officers with a knife.

It sounds to me like the officers only had a report that they were fighting and no mention of the knife was made until the officers went downstairs and confronted the child.

reply to post by joyride0187


Possibly, but this is another reason to not call police for assistance. If officers want to have respect in their community they should not go shooting mentally handicapped children in their own homes, because they are having a tantrum. I have a child with autism and stories like these makes me never want to ask the police for assistance. They are too trigger happy. Not all police are this way. But there is a great majority that wouldn't hesitate to take a life over the perceived possibility a person has an implement that they COULD justify as being considered a deadly weapon. I don't care if its an 80 year old grandmother with a butterknife and poses no significant threat to officers. A butterknife cut is not going to kill someone, nor would it likely penetrate clothing of an officer in any vital organ. We train police on defensive techniques and restraints, but I rarely ever see them use proper techniques in stories such as these.

reply to post by AzureSky

I agree, i'm sorry, but you do not raise a gun to a child unless you have justifiable cause.

Again, a 15 year old with autism can kill you just as dead as an adult with no mental handicap. This was clearly illustrated when the officer was cut on the arm.

A butter knife is not justifiable cost.

I am going to assume you mean justificable cause. You dont think a butter knife is a deadly weapon? Here, lets take a look:
Butter Knife Murder Weapon
Butter Knife Pierces Woman's Head
That is just two articles. I am sure you could find more if you looked.

Police wear bulletproof armor...

Police wear bullet RESISTANT armor. There is no such thing as bullet PROOF armor that is issued to police officers. AND just because armor is BULLET resistant does not mean it is STAB resistant. Also, your stomach, legs, arms, groin, NECK and HEAD are not covered by armor resistant to anything.

...guns should only be used against other guns. Otherwise they have other methods of detaining people.

Incorrect. Deadly force should be confronted with deadly force. Whether that is a gun, metal pipe, ninja sword, handgrenade, bazooka, nuclear bomb or butter knife deadly force should always be confronted with deadly force. Period.

Whatever happened to all of that firearm training cops were supposed to be getting on how to NOT fire a lethal shot to take down a perp ?

Like shooting someone in the shin versus blowing their brains out ?

reply to post by eNumbra

This is, if I'm not mistaken, basically one of the types of scenarios that the use of Tazers was implemented for.

A tazer CAN be used in this situation but does not HAVE to be. If an officer is equipped with a tazer and has the opportunity to use it in a situation like this, then great. But if not, then deadly force must be used. Even if they had deployed a tazer, training dictates that a deadly force option still be available. Meaning having a gun drawn on the subject as well as a tazer. That way if he charges at you with a knife and the tazer is ineffective, the next officer can confront the guy trying to stab them with shots fired.

Non-criminal but potential danger to self and others given circumstances.

What exactly are you trying to say here? Are you trying to say charging at someone and cutting them with a knife is non-criminal? It is some form of assault in any state which is a crime. Just because the suspect is not necessarily criminally responsible does not lessen the severity of their actions.

And there is no POTENTIAL about it. The child was a danger to others BECAUSE THE POLICE OFFICER WAS CUT IN HIS ARM.

reply to post by CaptainNemo

But they'd responsed to similar situations almost a dozen times. They came grossly underprepared in my mind

Underprepared? Do you know how much stuff an officer would have to carry around on their backs to be prepared for EVERY situation they could find themselves in? Well lets see, the standard patrol officer should carry around his handgun, two extra magazines of extra ammunition, pepperspray, two pairs of handcuffs, an asp baton, two flashlights, a radio, a ticket book (just in case someone commits a traffic offense), a warning book (just in case you dont want to give out a ticket), some traffic cones and flares (just in case they have to direct traffic), a shotgun and a patrol rifle (just in case they need the extra firepower), a fire extinguisher (just in case there is a fire), a notebook, a report folder (just in case you have to write a report), a finger print kit (just in case you have to dust for prints), a jack (just in case someone breaks down) and many many more items that I am not thinking of right now.

When confronted with someone attacking you with a knife you only NEED a few things. A handgun, ammunition, training and the will to use it. The police brought all of those neccessary items with them.

reply to post by SteveR

The cops live in fear.

I dont quite know what you are getting at with this one but I am pretty safe saying that everyone has the fear of getting stabbed to death.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I agree but your wording is a little harsh.

Yes, the police should only be called in an emergency and not over every single petty argument or issue.

Should the parent of this child have attempted to subdue their mentally challenged child, who was wielding a knife ,alone?

I dont know, thats a tough call.

The potential is there for the next time the police come to the house it is to chalk off the father's body because his mentally challenged son stabbed him to death.

But what you said is correct.

When you call the police, you are inviting other PEOPLE (who have families and want to return to them at the end of the day) into your house. These PEOPLE want to end the situation peacefully but if they are confronted with life threatening shenanigans, they will respond with deadly force. Because the police are PEOPLE who have the right to LIVE and go home to their FAMILIES too.

reply to post by olliemc84


I have a 15 year old autistic son, this could have been my child.......I am stunned and heart broken
by this story.

I understand you have a 5 year old son? It is easy to say your son wouldn't do this or blame the parents as irresponsible, until you find yourself in their shoes. Dealing with a 5 year old autistic boy, your methods
would work. However, at 15, there is quite a difference.

I've. got. 10 years on you and a 15 yr. old teen is a whole new ballgame. You have the disability plus hormones, plus puberty, plus peer pressure, plus an inability to understand and regulate emotion, equals a time bomb.
Never say never! I used to make that mistake often. Do not be so quick to judge the parents.

No, the police are to blame no one else!! They were ill equipped to handle the situatuon! There should be a full investigation and they should be brought up on charges.

This kid was terrified and should in no way be held responsible for what happened.

Pax

reply to post by ExPostFacto

Possibly, but this is another reason to not call police for assistance.

No one forced the man to call the police for help. He made that decision on his own as well as when he called the police 10 times before. If one would like to take the risk of dealing with their mentally handicapped child, who is wielding a knife, on their own then so be it. After the child is calmed down or subdued, call the police for documentation, so the parent is not accused of child abuse, and possibly an emergency evaluation at the hospital. But that parent should know that if THEY are killed during the altercation, it will do their mentally handicapped child zero good.

If officers want to have respect in their community they should not go shooting mentally handicapped children in their own homes, because they are having a tantrum.

Excuse me but this is FAR from a TANTRUM. The child had a knife and was willing to use it on another human being.

A butterknife cut is not going to kill someone, nor would it likely penetrate clothing of an officer in any vital organ.

I have already provided two news articles where a butter knife was used to kill one and seriously injure another. Go back and read. So your argument that a butter knife is not a deadly weapon is null and void.

Also, even if a butter knife was not deadly (which it has been proven to be), if you had someone charging you with a knife, do you think that you would be able to identify what type of knife or how sharp it is in the time it takes for them to close the distance and stab or cut you. And then after the time it took you to identify the knife as a threat, do you think you would have the time to draw your weapon and shoot the person that is trying to kill you?

Nope.

21 Foot Rule

Read up.

reply to post by CranialSponge

Whatever happened to all of that firearm training cops were supposed to be getting on how to NOT fire a lethal shot to take down a perp ?

Like shooting someone in the shin versus blowing their brains out ?

What happened to it? No police department in the United States trains police officers to shoot someone any where other than center mass.

In a stress reaction, like having to shoot someone, accuracy can be diminished. Attempting to shoot someone in a moving arm or shin in nearly impossible. So, the police officer either misses and hits something they were not intending to (like a bystander) or hits the extremity and fails to stop the person resulting in a better chance that person has at killing the officer.

Stop getting all of your police information from bad television and movies. The only way to have a reasonable chance at stopping someone is aiming at the largest part of their body which is center mass in the chest or abdomen. This provides the best chance at striking the target and causing enough blood loss or damage to the central nervous system to incapacitate the attacker.

reply to post by CaptainNemo


Are the cops in here justifying this yet?

Of course it isn't justifiable. These are the exact situations that things like tazers and pepper spray were invented for. Did the police have pistols drawn the whole time or were they holstered and then drawn. It would give an idea of the distance/amount of time. Either way it's wrong.. way wrong. This is why people shouldn't rely on cops to solve problems/family fights etc. You could be sentencing a family member to death if things are heated.