kyw.com - Family: Teen Armed With Iron Killed By Police

So, we taser unarmed people for simply being uncooperative, but in a situation where using a taser might actually be appropriate, they gun the kid down, instead. Nice.

Does the story say whether they had a taser with them? It wouldn't have been appropriate anyway according to any escalation of force protocol. The suspect was wielding a deadly weapon. I predict you'll laugh, but you probably haven't been struck in the head with an iron before.

While we're playing coulda shoulda whoulda, how about the guy could have surrendered to the police peacefully and cooperated with the arrest?

If the kid didn't "mean no harm" why did his mother call the police in the first place?

I'm sure he had mace, if not a taser. As it so happens, I've seen what a steam iron can do to a person. It's not pretty, true, but I'd hardly consider it a "deadly" weapon.

How many people have been rendered dead with one? I can't find an example of it happening, but I'll keep looking. I'm sure there is someone out there that has, somewhere.

Should the kid have surrendered. Well, of course, but last time I checked, it was pretty common for 15 year olds to do idiotic things.

It's also common for police officers to use excessive force on people who pose little real threat to them or others.

It's also common for the police to be called to non-violent domestic disbutes. Don't worry, though. I'm sure she'll think twice before calling them again, for anything.

You're on the fence about whether being struck with five pounds of metal can be life threatening?

In a fight to the death, I'll take the iron as my weapon of choice over mace BTW. How about you?

I would take a spork

i would take a rpg

No, I'm skeptical as to the threat an emotionally unstable 15 year-old, armed with a common steam iron, presents to a trained police officer. They aren't your mother's iron, which was 5lbs. of metal, anymore. More likely, it was primarily plastic with a metal plate on the bottom. I don't think the ones made in the last 15 years would make much of a weapon, period, besides the fact it was being wielded by a child.

It's this "fight to the death" mentality that is the root of the problem. Protect & Serve, not Maim & Kill.

Did you even read this article before posting it?

So, this kid was seen brandishing not one, but THREE potentially deadly weapons. When confronted by a police officer, the kid raised the iron above his head, and moved towards the officer. If you were the officer in that position, what would you have thought he was going to do? I'd have shot the little shit too.

Mace is a completely asinine, and clearly uninformed suggestion, by the way. It will deter somebody, but it will not overcome a would-be assailant immediately. Where somebody's life is at risk, the only failsafe weapon is a gun.

LOL, you're a piece of work. Child? Way to spin. I suppose the cops should have just told him to bend over their knee so he could paddle him? Oh wait, no, that would be police brutality.

15yr-old are not exactly grown-ups. I do not know the circumstances, but even if the kid had a knife, they should probably have tried not killing him more.(maybe they thought he had that.)

They could probably have stepped backwards a bit. Hopefully getting a stand-off or something, or at least some more time to judge the situation. I would expect the police to risk themselves to some extent, because if they would not, they would have to treat everything as a threat, not exactly good for the atmosphere.
Btw this is just yet again a very short and undetailed article we're judging here. Perhaps that is fine, but IMO we are talking about hypothetical cases that might be, and not the case at hand.

Deadly weapons, in the hands of 15-year-olds, are still deadly.

You have never been in a life-or-death situation, where a split-second decision has to be made, have you?

I agree that the best thing to do would have been to subdue the kid without killing him. However, that takes a cool head, lots of skill, and a lot of luck to manage it so that neither the officer nor the kid gets hurt. Are there people who could and would have disarmed him without anyone getting hurt? Yes. Is it reasonable to expect every police officer to be able to do so in that situation? No. Police have been known to use excessive force, but this isn't an example. If you attack a police officer, there's a decent chance you'll get shot. I hate that, but I'd probably shoot him too. I wouldn't want my kid to grow up without a dad because I got brained with an iron. Or worse, for my family to have to support a brain-damaged ex-cop for the next 50 years.

Think about this, Fu. If a clearly out of control policeman came after you with a night stick, and you were armed, would you shoot him? I bet you would. And if you did, I'd be on your side.

That's the bottom line. Exactly.

In a potential kill-or-be-killed situation, the officer's primary concerns should be for his safety. Self-defense is justified.

police officers know that their job can be dangerous and they get trained to solve such situation without having to kill someone.
They don't attend police school for fun.

I really doubt the kid could hit him with the Iron after getting shot in the leg.

The kid wasn't John Rambo, and would have dropped the Iron and collapsed.

You've obviously had no training in the area you seem to know so much about. One thing they teach in "police school" is escalation of force. According to escalation of force protocols the officer was justified in firing his weapon. Secondly, they aren't trained to shoot people in the leg, they are trained to shoot center of mass. Its not like the movies.

I don't think they are allowed to shoot someone when their life isn't threatened.

Even with a flail this kid wouldn't have posed a thread to trained police officers.

Shooting him in the leg would have been enough to immobilise him if he would have tried to harm them.

lol, not like in the movies, yeah in the movies armed police officers usually don't shoot children.

At least our cops are trained to shoot criminals in the leg if their life should be in danger.

But I've no problem with believing you American cops are trained to kill, what else can I expect of a bunch of violent rednecks.

Shooting someone in the leg is hard. Legs move a lot and they aren't a big target. There are better non-lethal weapons.
I have trained with firearms some. One of the first things you learn is not to shoot unless to kill. Guns are not made to maim, they're made to kill. Maybe you have a good case that he should have tried not to shoot, but if he's going to shoot, then he should expect the person he is shooting to die (because frequently people who are shot die even if you don't intend it).

@Mrgrins: Do you have a link or some proof showing German police are trained to shoot people in the leg? Where did you get that idea? Second question: Have you ever fired a weapon at a moving target?

@BNS: You are exactly right.

Lethality does depend on skill and/or strength.. Might still be lethal, though.
Not really, but i can still imagine how things could have happened, what the situation could have been like. Sure, if i did, that would help me do this better.
Of course, the US is a big place. This could just have been an unfortunate event. Then again, i dont think that in general, the police in the US is a shining example either.
If i get time, i will try to look up what policemen are trained to do in such situations in the Netherlands.(And which even carry guns in the first place.)

The police didn't have the luxury of getting to imagine how things would happen, they had a real person, who had been acting in a threatening way with knives and whatnot to his own mother, with a real weapon in his hand that could cause injury or death. In situations like that they have to act on thier training. If they believed their life or someone else's life was threatened, deadly force is called for.