Cop pulls gun on 11 year old boy

[Grizzly Adams]

Unless the 11 year old has a firearm, no cop on the street should feel they are enough of a threat to draw a gun.

So... there are reasons to draw on an 11-year-old, contrary to your earlier blanket assertion? Good to know you've at least partially come around to reality.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

False.

Once you draw a gun you closed yourself to all other possibilities to subdue an attacker but shooting.

Also false.

And if you need a gun to subdue an 11 year old the street is not for you.

I see a lot of internet toughguy talk from you on this matter, but I have yet to see a single post where you actually provide alternatives to a threat from an 11-year-old that is potentially lethal. If he were swinging a hatchet, what would you do to end the threat?

 

[squealpiggy]

Sure, depending on the totality of circumstances. It's trivially obvious that the cop felt, taking everything into consideration, that drawing his service weapon was justified. Apparently people now are saying that the cop didn't take everything into consideration in determining his response.

What did the child say or do which would have led a cop to reasonably believe his life was in danger or that he needed to draw his weapon to effect an arrest?

Considering that the only story we have is that reported, the information for which comes entirely from the mother of the alleged injured party I don't think that there's a reasonable answer to that question.

While a gun is more dangerous than pepper spray (a gun can kill, pepperspray cannot)

Disagree. Pepper spray can certainly kill by causing asphyxia. It is less likely to kill than a bullet though.

The only thing that will stop a bad kid with a chainsaw is a good kid with a chainsaw.

Aaaaaah ha haaaaaa!
Sincerely, that line of jokery will never get old.

An 11 year old should not be a threat meriting the drawing of a gun by a properly trained police officer. I know that nuance is hard, but you either argue against what I wrote, or we cut it short.

I'm detecting a lack of nuance.

 

[The Norseman]

ETA: Presuming the report is accurate...

So, getting hit with a hatchet is dangerous, but an 11 year old can't be a threat if he's holding one.

Do you notice the disconnect there?

Either a hatchet is a dangerous object (and the officer should be allowed to defend themselves) or it is not.

Not quite. This is why the police utilize two concepts called "totality of circumstances" and "use of force continuum". While a chainsaw might be viewed as a dangerous weapon, the fact that it is a child holding it needs also to be taken into consideration. How resistive or combative was the child? How many officers were present? Was the chainsaw running? How many 11 year olds have displayed homicidal tendencies in the past? How many 11 year old cop killers have there been? How many 11 year olds can overpower a grown man?

The totality of circumstances led this officer to draw his service weapon -- in other words, escalate to the highest levels of force, bypassing every other tool at his disposal. That strikes many people as being outrageously overreactive and indefensible.

Do you think if it was a hatchet wielded by a 20 year old it could also be ignored? Or do you think that there is something magical about being used by someone under 12 that makes it unlikely to be dangerous? (And keep in mind that if this kid were using a hatchet to cut branches off trees, he's more than capable of throwing it or swinging it with enough force to cut a person.)

I see....

So, what exactly do you think would be an acceptable method of "combat" when dealing with someone handling a weapon that you yourself said is "dangerous"?

Is this where you break out some sort of argument that officers should be some sort of Jackie-Chan martial artists who can engage in all sort of hand-to-hand (or hand-to-ax) combat without ever getting a scratch on them?

See above.

 

[Megalodon]

So... there are reasons to draw on an 11-year-old, contrary to your earlier blanket assertion? Good to know you've at least partially come around to reality.

I clarified my statement, which was made in the context of the story, to help those with reading problems. I’m glad it was useful to you.

False.

Facts not in evidence.

Also false.

Not in the least. Any attempt to grapple or otherwise subdue the attacker will put the gun in the reach of said attacker. If you draw a gun and they don’t stop, the only option is to shoot.

I see a lot of internet toughguy talk from you on this matter, but I have yet to see a single post where you actually provide alternatives to a threat from an 11-year-old that is potentially lethal.

That would be because my argument is that, for a minimally trained adult, an 11 year old should never pose a lethal threat.

If he were swinging a hatchet, what would you do to end the threat?

First thing, of course, would be to command the 11 year old to cut the crap and put the hatchet down.

Next line of action, as I said before, is to remove the hatchet from the 11 year old. Reaction time, coordination, strength and leverage are all to the adult’s advantage. Again, we are not talking teenagers here, we are talking children.

If the cop is enough of a tit to not be able to out-maneuver an 11 year-old, he should use is baton to snap the hatchet away from the child’s hand.

If he is critically deficient in the eye-hand coordination department, he can go for the pepper spray and threaten the 11 year old with that.

He should mind that a 5 year old might not understand what pepper spray is, so for those he might as well pull his piece and pray the child doesn't point a finger at him. I hear those "pew-pew" can make quite a bit of damage.

Kidding aside, my question is, why would anyone defend having such critically under-qualified people as a police officer?

 

[Megalodon]

I'm detecting a lack of nuance.

Please elucidate us, then. Under which circumstance -excepting firearms- should a police officer feel that a child is enough of a threat to merit drawing a gun?

Note that an average unarmed adult has more potential to be a lethal opponent than a child with a hatchet. Explain now what is to keep the officer from drawing the gun when interacting with any member of the public?

 

[Segnosaur]

It's an 11 year old, for crying out loud. You walk to him and take the hatchet away.

Just out of curiosity, does your entire experience of dealing with 11 year olds involve visiting them in the coma ward of your local hospital?

The reflexes, movement control and strength of an 11 year old are nothing compared to those of a grown man. We are not talking about a teenager here, we are talking about children.

Never claimed that an 11 year old was stronger than an adult. But, a hatchet actually has, you know, a sharp end. And a significant amount of weight.

I've taken martial arts classes (JiuJitsu to be specific) which were mixed adults/children. I'm not saying one of the 11 year olds would have been strong enough to beat me up, but in my opinion many would be more than strong enough to handle a hatchet with enough strength and speed to make simply "taking it away" a not-safe action.

But hey, maybe my martial arts classes were the exception of the rule. Maybe my class was filled with kids drugged with steroids and cocaine, making them the only kids in the world fast and strong enough to handle a hatchet, and that every other 11 year old in the world has the reflexes and strength of a quadriplegic on valium.

First thing, of course, would be to command the 11 year old to cut the crap and put the hatchet down.

You are, of course, assuming that the child would have responded to such commands. We were asked about a hypothetical situation, and we pointed to one where the children were NOT responsive to the police, and even mouthed off to them.

Next line of action, as I said before, is to remove the hatchet from the 11 year old. Reaction time, coordination, strength and leverage are all to the adult’s advantage.

And the fact that a child has an object with a SHARP EDGE capable of cutting flesh is to the child's advantage.

We're not talking completely unarmed combat here...

If the cop is enough of a tit to not be able to out-maneuver an 11 year-old, he should use is baton to snap the hatchet away from the child’s hand.

And there we have it... the old "Jackie Chan fight with no risk" option.

Forget about the risk that the kid might try throwing the hatchet. (I'm sure your average cop ha the martial arts skill to knock a flying hatchet out of the air.)

Forget that hitting a hatchet out of a kids hand might actually injure the child (Or do you think that children are impervious to getting injured? And that any hatchet will magically fall to the ground.)

...he can go for the pepper spray and threaten the 11 year old with that.

Assuming the kid even knows what pepper spray is.

An 11 year could would be old enough to know what a gun is (after all, they've probably seen them on TV a hundred times a year) but unfamiliar with pepper spray (hey, I don't even know what a cop's pepper-spray would look like if he pulled it on me.)

 

[Segnosaur]

Not quite. This is why the police utilize two concepts called "totality of circumstances" and "use of force continuum".

Hey, I have no problem considering "totality of circumstances".

What I'm concerned about are people (like megalodon) making blanket statements about how the "totality of circumstances" would never ever be such that an officer would be justified to draw his gun. I've pointed out hypothetical situations where I believe he WOULD be justified. Whether those circumstances actually happened is not known (and probably not even the most likely circumstances). The question is would they have been possible.

While a chainsaw might be viewed as a dangerous weapon, the fact that it is a child holding it needs also to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that I was not the one suggesting the child had a chainsaw. I was talking about them having an ax or hatchet (something smaller/lighter, but still with sharp edges.)

How resistive or combative was the child?

Again I want to point out that I was giving a hypothetical situation where a child WAS combative. Others (like megaladon) appeared to be assuming that no matter how combative the child was they would never ever be able to harm the cops.

How many 11 year olds have displayed homicidal tendencies in the past?

I'm not really sure that would be a relevant question. After all, you're not dealing with the entire population of 11 year olds. You're dealing with 11 year olds who (in this hypothetical situation) were combative enough to challenge police.

How many 11 year olds can overpower a grown man?

Keep in mind that the issue isn't just being "overpowered". It would also be nice if, at the end of the day, the cop didn't loose a few fingers (even if it was never in doubt who would have won in a fight.)

The totality of circumstances led this officer to draw his service weapon -- in other words, escalate to the highest levels of force, bypassing every other tool at his disposal. That strikes many people as being outrageously overreactive and indefensible.

So, aren't you ignoring the "totality of circumstances" yourself?

You're ignoring the possibility of an extremely combative child, perhaps one that was taller/heavier for his age, handling an axe or hatchet in a dangerous manner, and assuming they're "outrageously overreactive".




See above.[/quote]

 

[Megalodon]

Just out of curiosity, does your entire experience of dealing with 11 year olds involve visiting them in the coma ward of your local hospital?

No, but neither it does dealing with the cartoon characters you are apparently accustomed to.

Just out of curiosity, why didn't you reply to my reply to you, and instead moved to my discussion with someone else?

Never claimed that an 11 year old was stronger than an adult. But, a hatchet actually has, you know, a sharp end. And a significant amount of weight.

Your reply implies that an 11 year old doesn't have a disadvantage in coordination or reaction time. Thus I have to wonder if you are in a special jujitsu class.

... in my opinion many would be more than strong enough to handle a hatchet with enough strength and speed to make simply "taking it away" a not-safe action.

As I said in my reply to you, if you get a shaolin monk, feel free to draw the pepper spray.

But hey, maybe my martial arts classes were the exception of the rule. Maybe my class was filled with kids drugged with steroids and cocaine, making them the only kids in the world fast and strong enough to handle a hatchet, and that every other 11 year old in the world has the reflexes and strength of a quadriplegic on valium.

It's fun in your world, I guess... the land where children are as capable fighters as grown men, and where cops can draw their guns at the sight of a pencil.

You are, of course, assuming that the child would have responded to such commands. We were asked about a hypothetical situation, and we pointed to one where the children were NOT responsive to the police, and even mouthed off to them.

No, I am posting the crescendo of severity of reply to a situation. Your skills at reading seem to be on par with your jujitsu

And the fact that a child has an object with a SHARP EDGE capable of cutting flesh is to the child's advantage.

We're not talking completely unarmed combat here...

Yes, we do know about it, since it's the point of the whole discussion. Some will be able to take the hatchet away, some will have been trained at your dojo. Anyway, there's more alternatives before drawing a gun.

And there we have it... the old "Jackie Chan fight with no risk" option.

Are you insane? Clubbing a hatchet out of the hand of a child is "Jackie Chan" to you?

Forget about the risk that the kid might try throwing the hatchet. (I'm sure your average cop ha the martial arts skill to knock a flying hatchet out of the air.)

Now the kid not only swings the hatchet in a way indistinguishable from a 20 year old, he also throws them? And I am the one thinking up "Jackie Chan" scenarios?

Forget that hitting a hatchet out of a kids hand might actually injure the child (Or do you think that children are impervious to getting injured? And that any hatchet will magically fall to the ground.)

Now you are concerned with the safety of the child? Guess that having a loaded gun pointed at him by a scared adult is a healthy pastime.

Assuming the kid even knows what pepper spray is.

An 11 year could would be old enough to know what a gun is (after all, they've probably seen them on TV a hundred times a year) but unfamiliar with pepper spray (hey, I don't even know what a cop's pepper-spray would look like if he pulled it on me.)

So in your world the children are strong enough to be a deadly threat to police officers, but dumb enough not to know that when cops point something at you it's probably not a skittles dispenser?

 

[squealpiggy]

Please elucidate us, then. Under which circumstance -excepting firearms- should a police officer feel that a child is enough of a threat to merit drawing a gun?

Note that an average unarmed adult has more potential to be a lethal opponent than a child with a hatchet. Explain now what is to keep the officer from drawing the gun when interacting with any member of the public?

Ah so now a firearm is a legitimate reason for an officer to draw a gun on a child. Thank you for the acknowledgement that your previous statement on the subject was incorrect.

So: sword, large knife, the aforementioned chainsaw. Any weapon capable of causing serious bodily harm or death to the officer. The use of force continuum does not specify an age of the subject because age is an unhelpful indicator of risk.

You have a picture in your head of a lovable wee scamp when in reality there exist a few, not a whole ton, but a few extremely disturbed young children that can and will cause extreme damage to somebody with a weapon.

It's also worth pointing out that one officer drawing a gun and frightening a child who has a weapon is a lot less damaging than the officer taking that weapon away by force. If I was confronted by an 11 year old who threatened me with a knife I daresay I could take it off them with minimal injury to myself, but that 11 year old would not be unscathed.

Cop beats up 11 year old boy
All he had was a samurai sword

 

[squealpiggy]

Quick aside: I recently read an alarmist article about how taser use was on the increase by police in the UK. While the article unsurprisingly glosses over the fact that taser deployment was recently expanded in the UK providing more officers access to them, the pertinent fact is that in in over 75% of cases the tasers were not actually fired. In 20% of cases the taser being drawn was enough to encourage compliance in the subject and in 52% of cases simply aiming and arcing or switching on the red targeting dot was sufficient.

The point here is that a display of overwhelming force is very often enough to cause a subject to surrender without any risk to themselves or to others.

 

[Segnosaur]

Just out of curiosity, does your entire experience of dealing with 11 year olds involve visiting them in the coma ward of your local hospital?

No...

Yet you seem to think that you can just "take a hatchet away", regardless of how combative or strong (for his age) the kid is.

I got it! You think police all have telekenisis!

Just out of curiosity, why didn't you reply to my reply to you, and instead moved to my discussion with someone else?

Actually, I did reply to your reply. Go back and look at post 40. That's the one I replied to with the above 'coma' comment.

However, I also added some comments from a posting you made to another member. The reason I combined them is because the topics were similar, and when possible I don't like to clutter up threads with multiple postings with related content.

Your reply implies that an 11 year old doesn't have a disadvantage in coordination or reaction time.

Never claimed that an 11 year old wouldn't have a disadvantage. I even specifically stated that I didn't think one could "beat me up" (and I'm not even as skilled as a police man would be.)

But having an object with, you know, a SHARP EDGE changes things. My statement was to the effect that most of them would probably have enough strength to swing and/or throw a hatchet with enough force to cause harm.

It's fun in your world, I guess... the land where children are as capable fighters as grown men, and where cops can draw their guns at the sight of a pencil.

Nice strawman there.

Hey! Maybe that's why you think that a cop can take a hatchet away from a combative kid! Because you think all kids are made of straw!

And there we have it... the old "Jackie Chan fight with no risk" option.

Are you insane? Clubbing a hatchet out of the hand of a child is "Jackie Chan" to you?

You're the one who seems to think that such "club vs. hatchet" encounters can be fought with absolutely no risk to either of the individuals.

I suspect real fights are much messier and unpredictable (even against a weaker opponent), and it would be advantageous to avoid that element of unpredictability.

Now the kid not only swings the hatchet in a way indistinguishable from a 20 year old...

Ummm... why does it have to be "indistinguishable from a 20 year old"? Getting hit with a hatchet can still cause injury, whether its a carefully-controlled swing from an adult, or an awkward spastic swing from an 11 year old.

...he also throws them? And I am the one thinking up "Jackie Chan" scenarios?

First of all, keep in mind that I first brought up the possibility of a kid throwing the hatchet back in post 36.

Secondly, is there any particular reason you don't think an 11 year old would be able to throw a hatchet? Do you think they would be unable to raise their arms high enough or something? (Remember, we're not talking about some uber-accurate showman who can hit a bulls-eye at 50 feet... we're talking about the possibility of some dumb kid throwing a hatchet (which, you know, has a sharp end) because he saw it in a movie once.

Forget that hitting a hatchet out of a kids hand might actually injure the child (Or do you think that children are impervious to getting injured? And that any hatchet will magically fall to the ground.)

Now you are concerned with the safety of the child?

Actually I always have been. AND I've been concerned about the safety of the officer. Both must be considered.

Any sort of "combat" is risky. The kid could swing wildly (even if "uncoordinated") and connect with the officer. The officer could hit the hatchet out of their hand and accidentally break the kids arm. Or the hatchet could be knocked out of the kids hand and land on his foot.

By illustrating an overwhelming amount of force (i.e. a gun), it would hopefully cause a combative kid to stand down immediately.

So in your world the children are strong enough to be a deadly threat to police officers...

Correction... a threat to police officers when holding an ax or hatchet.

but dumb enough not to know that when cops point something at you it's probably not a skittles dispenser?

In case you didn't know, strength and intelligence are not always connected.

I have a university degree. I've been working for the past 20 years. Yet I myself probably wouldn't be able to immediately identify what a pepper-spray can was if a cop were pointing one at me. Unlike firearms, pepper-spray hasn't yet become something people in general are familiar with.

 

[Megalodon]

Ah so now a firearm is a legitimate reason for an officer to draw a gun on a child. Thank you for the acknowledgement that your previous statement on the subject was incorrect.

I clarified my statement, which was made in the context of the story, to help those with reading problems. I’m glad it was useful to you.

The use of force continuum does not specify an age of the subject because age is an unhelpful indicator of risk.

Another one that thinks 5 year olds are a deadly threat

You have a picture in your head of a lovable wee scamp when in reality there exist a few, not a whole ton, but a few extremely disturbed young children that can and will cause extreme damage to somebody with a weapon.

I personally think you guys got caught in the whole "let's defend the police officer" wave and now are reduced to saying stupid crap like this.

It's also worth pointing out that one officer drawing a gun and frightening a child who has a weapon is a lot less damaging than the officer taking that weapon away by force.

Or like this... Having a loaded gun pointed at you by an easily scared adult is not healthy. If the kid thought that it was all fun and games and moved towards the cop he would have been shot. All because someone escalated their response in an extremely unprofessional way.

If I was confronted by an 11 year old who threatened me with a knife I daresay I could take it off them with minimal injury to myself, but that 11 year old would not be unscathed.

So now the problem is hurting the child, not that they are dangerous?

Again, it seems that you have a problem with the cops getting a bad press, and you're willing to dig deep to defend what is indefensible.

 

[squealpiggy]

I clarified my statement, which was made in the context of the story, to help those with reading problems. I’m glad it was useful to you.

It's not a clarification when you drastically change the content.

Another one that thinks 5 year olds are a deadly threat

That's interesting, the statement of mine you quoted doesn't specify any age at all. Where are you getting "5 year olds" from?

I personally think you guys got caught in the whole "let's defend the police officer" wave and now are reduced to saying stupid crap like this.

Or attending to your claim that 11 year olds are never a threat only a threat if they have guns.

Or like this... Having a loaded gun pointed at you by an easily scared adult is not healthy. If the kid thought that it was all fun and games and moved towards the cop he would have been shot. All because someone escalated their response in an extremely unprofessional way.

Easily scared? Where are you getting this from?

So now the problem is hurting the child, not that they are dangerous?

If I had to take a Nerf gun off an 11 year old I could do it without causing injury. I'm pretty big and strong, I have a background in martial arts and boxing. 11 year olds do not, in general, frighten me If I had to take a baseball bat or a knife off an 11 year old I'm not going to do it gently because of the danger such weapon poses to me. If I could reasonably threaten an 11 year old so they would drop the weapon first then that would be a better outcome for everyone.

Again, it seems that you have a problem with the cops getting a bad press, and you're willing to dig deep to defend what is indefensible.

It's only indefensible if you have decided ahead of time that it is indefensible.

Let's just say that in this circumstance the child threatened the officer with a knife or hatchet and instead of threatening the child he instead kicked him to the ground and forcefully took him into custody. Would you be OK with this?

 

[The Norseman]

You are, of course, assuming that the child would have responded to such commands. We were asked about a hypothetical situation, and we pointed to one where the children were NOT responsive to the police, and even mouthed off to them.

Okay. Where does drawing a firearm fall on the use of force continuum compared to mouthing off?

And the fact that a child has an object with a SHARP EDGE capable of cutting flesh is to the child's advantage.

As opposed to training, experience, age, reach, strength, equipment, numbers...

Forget about the risk that the kid might try throwing the hatchet. (I'm sure your average cop ha the martial arts skill to knock a flying hatchet out of the air.)

Yes, there is a risk of injury when one is a police officer.

Forget that hitting a hatchet out of a kids hand might actually injure the child (Or do you think that children are impervious to getting injured? And that any hatchet will magically fall to the ground.)

Yes, even children may be hurt when cops determine there's a need to escalate the use of force to the highest possible levels.

Assuming the kid even knows what pepper spray is.

An 11 year could would be old enough to know what a gun is (after all, they've probably seen them on TV a hundred times a year) but unfamiliar with pepper spray (hey, I don't even know what a cop's pepper-spray would look like if he pulled it on me.)

How about a baton?

Hey, I have no problem considering "totality of circumstances".

What I'm concerned about are people (like megalodon) making blanket statements about how the "totality of circumstances" would never ever be such that an officer would be justified to draw his gun. I've pointed out hypothetical situations where I believe he WOULD be justified. Whether those circumstances actually happened is not known (and probably not even the most likely circumstances). The question is would they have been possible.

Well, yes, at age 11, I think it's certainly possible, just highly improbable.

Keep in mind that I was not the one suggesting the child had a chainsaw. I was talking about them having an ax or hatchet (something smaller/lighter, but still with sharp edges.)

Yes, I didn't make it very clear that I was using a different weapon to emphasize my point, so that's my bad.

Again I want to point out that I was giving a hypothetical situation where a child WAS combative. Others (like megaladon) appeared to be assuming that no matter how combative the child was they would never ever be able to harm the cops.

Again, I think it depends on what you mean by combative -- verbally aggressive, passively resisting, agitated, angry, subdued...

I'm not really sure that would be a relevant question. After all, you're not dealing with the entire population of 11 year olds. You're dealing with 11 year olds who (in this hypothetical situation) were combative enough to challenge police.

When a cop faces a Hell's Angel in a bar, he's not facing the entire population of Hell's Angels, but he can still draw inferences as to possible violent behavior.

Keep in mind that the issue isn't just being "overpowered". It would also be nice if, at the end of the day, the cop didn't loose a few fingers (even if it was never in doubt who would have won in a fight.)

Yup, I agree.

So, aren't you ignoring the "totality of circumstances" yourself?

You're ignoring the possibility of an extremely combative child, perhaps one that was taller/heavier for his age, handling an axe or hatchet in a dangerous manner, and assuming they're "outrageously overreactive".

I had stated at the outset that I was presuming the article correct and to view my comments in that light. In your hypothetical, you keep adding elements which weren't there when I responded. Yes, that changes my responses, and no, I'm not ignoring the totality of circumstances.

 

[Segnosaur]

Another one that thinks 5 year olds are a deadly threat

You see, here's the problem...

People like squealpiggy and myself are attempting to be rational... we're not making blanket statements (i.e. always draw guns on kids), but we're saying let the circumstances decide... Did the kid have a weapon? (ax, hatchet, flame thrower, etc.)? How large was the kid? (There is a wide distribution of sizes)? How did the kid respond to any orders from the cops? Are the kids holding anything that would be dangerous if used by someone of their size?

And, we would judge officers on how they reacted based on those criteria.

The fact that I posted a scenario where I think it WOULD be reasonable to draw a gun doesn't necessarily mean I think it would ALWAYS be appropriate to threaten with such force.

On the other had, you are basically making a blanket statement... "No child of 11 could ever harm an adult", and you attempt to support your conclusion largely by building up straw men.

I personally think you guys got caught in the whole "let's defend the police officer" wave...

Not really....

We're not defending these particular officers. We're not condemning them either. We're taking a "wait and see" approach, while keeping an open mind.

If its found that the kids had no ax/hatchet/flamethrower, or if they had them but dropped them at the first sign of trouble (and still the cops pulled their guns), then I'm quite willing to condemn the cops.

What I'd like to avoid is making any sort of blanket statements before all the details are known.

If anyone seems to be "caught", its not people like squeelpiggy or myself with our "defense of the cops", it seems to be you, with your "cops are always wrong" attitude, doing everything you can to suggest a cop should "always" be able to disarm a kid with no risk, largely by building strawmen (such as suggesting that because I think a kid can swing enough force with a hatchet to harm, it means I automatically think kids are just as capable as adults.)

If the kid thought that it was all fun and games and moved towards the cop he would have been shot.

I find it amazing... first you suggest that kids should be just as capable at recognizing pepper spray as a gun, but now you're suggesting the kids are now dumb enough to think having a gun pointed at them is all "fun and games".

So, can you tell me where about you can find people who are more familiar with pepper spray than firearms?

 

[Megalodon]

Yet you seem to think that you can just "take a hatchet away", regardless of how combative or strong (for his age) the kid is.

No, I think that most capable police officers should be able to take the hatchet away. For the others there are more options.

I got it! You think police all have telekenisis!

So you decided to double down on the stupid. No point in arguing it you, I suppose.

Actually, I did reply to your reply. Go back and look at post 40. That's the one I replied to with the above 'coma' comment.

So I suppose you conceded that it was extremely stupid to compare an 11 year old and a 20 year old.

But having an object with, you know, a SHARP EDGE changes things.

Yes, I know... the magic of the sharp edge.

My statement was to the effect that most of them would probably have enough strength to swing and/or throw a hatchet with enough force to cause harm.

Harm is subjective, and more than strength is needed to use a hatchet.

Hey! Maybe that's why you think that a cop can take a hatchet away from a combative kid! Because you think all kids are made of straw!

No, it has more to do with living in the real world.

And BTW, I can kill someone with a pencil, and so can many adults and some teenagers. Your standard cop should go around with the gun drawn 24/7, with all the threats around.

You're the one who seems to think that such "club vs. hatchet" encounters can be fought with absolutely no risk to either of the individuals.

No, I'm the one that thinks that a police officer with his baton should be able to easily disarm a child with a hatchet.

I suspect real fights are much messier and unpredictable (even against a weaker opponent), and it would be advantageous to avoid that element of unpredictability.

Let's try to drive this home. An encounter between a police officer and an 11 year old can be considered a "fight" but that's stretching the meaning substantially.

Ummm... why does it have to be "indistinguishable from a 20 year old"?

I don't know... you were the one saying it doesn't make a difference. I know who I would prefer to face in real life.

Getting hit with a hatchet can still cause injury, whether its a carefully-controlled swing from an adult, or an awkward spastic swing from an 11 year old.

Did you write that with a straight face? I'm starting to think you guys are trolling me.

First of all, keep in mind that I first brought up the possibility of a kid throwing the hatchet back in post 36.

And I assure you it didn't lose any of it' novelty and weirdness.

Secondly, is there any particular reason you don't think an 11 year old would be able to throw a hatchet?

No, I don't think the child would not be able to throw it in a way that would pose a threat to an alert adult.

BTW, what is the obsession with the sharp end? A hit with the blunt end can easily cause damage.

Any sort of "combat" is risky. The kid could swing wildly (even if "uncoordinated") and connect with the officer. The officer could hit the hatchet out of their hand and accidentally break the kids arm. Or the hatchet could be knocked out of the kids hand and land on his foot.

The fun part of this recent care for the child's health is that it avoids the fact that if the child for any reason doesn't drop the hatchet and moves towards the cops, their only option is to shoot. Or the fact that accidental firings are possible, and even common.

By illustrating an overwhelming amount of force (i.e. a gun), it would hopefully cause a combative kid to stand down immediately.

And if he doesn't, what is the next move?

 

[Segnosaur]

Okay. Where does drawing a firearm fall on the use of force continuum compared to mouthing off?

Not sure if that's particularly relevant, since in my hypothetical situation I was suggesting a case where the kids were mouthing off (or in other ways uncooperative with police) AND had some sort of weapon (e.g. hatchet or ax) that could cause harm when used by the kids.

And the fact that a child has an object with a SHARP EDGE capable of cutting flesh is to the child's advantage.

As opposed to training, experience, age, reach, strength, equipment, numbers...

Again, why is that relevant?

I've already admitted that a child would be at a disadvantage in unarmed one-on-one fighting (for the reasons you mentioned above and more). However, the presence of (for example) a hatchet ads an element of risk that might negate some or all of the advantages that the adult has.

Forget that hitting a hatchet out of a kids hand might actually injure the child (Or do you think that children are impervious to getting injured? And that any hatchet will magically fall to the ground.)

Yes, even children may be hurt when cops determine there's a need to escalate the use of force to the highest possible levels.

Not sure what the point of your post was.

Highest possible level=gun.
Lower level=pepper spray or baton.

If simply drawing the gun (i.e. not using it) causes the kid to stand down immediately, would that not be safer (for both the officer and the kid) than trying to use one of the lower levels (spray or baton), getting involved in a 'fight', and having one of the participants get injured because of it?

An 11 year could would be old enough to know what a gun is (after all, they've probably seen them on TV a hundred times a year) but unfamiliar with pepper spray (hey, I don't even know what a cop's pepper-spray would look like if he pulled it on me.)

How about a baton?

Yes, how about a baton?

I suspect most kids would know what a gun is, and how dangerous they are.

Faced with a baton, while it might cause some kids to stand down, you also run the risk of some kids thinking "my ax is better than their baton!", thus running the risk of further conflict.

When you have a 2 foot ax (with a sharp metal head), you might not be intimidated by someone who pulls out a 2 foot baton (with no sharp edges).

Again, I think it depends on what you mean by combative -- verbally aggressive, passively resisting, agitated, angry, subdued...

Given the fact that I was attempting to give a hypothetical situation where it might be appriate to draw a gun, I was suggesting that it would be 1) agressive, 2) non-cooperative, and 3) doing something that would be considered threatening (such as raising a hatchet as if to throw it).

When a cop faces a Hell's Angel in a bar, he's not facing the entire population of Hell's Angels, but he can still draw inferences as to possible violent behavior.

Yes but my point was, if faced with a kid waving an ax around and threatening a police officer, it is not an important statistic to know "how many 11 year olds want to harm officers". The important statistic is "how many 11 year olds waving an ax and mouthing off to cops want to harm officers".

I had stated at the outset that I was presuming the article correct and to view my comments in that light. In your hypothetical, you keep adding elements which weren't there when I responded.

Did I add anything?

Back in post 36 (when I first posted my hypothetical scenario), I pointed to:
- Kids (note the plural) with hatchets
- Kids mouth off to cops. (I didn't specify it specifically, but its assumed they would have been non-cooperative)
- Kid lifts a hatchet as if to throw it.
So, all the basic elements were there right from the beginning... uncooperative kids, weapons, threatening manner, etc. About the only think I added was the fact that perhaps the kid was large for his age. (Although I can think of one other possibility... that although the 1 kid was 11, he might be in a group where some kids are older and thus more of a "threat".)

Everything else that I added was just a debunking of megaladon's claims that "taking an ax/hatchet away from an 11 year old is easy", by pointing out that not all 11 year olds are invalids.

 

[Megalodon]

People like squealpiggy and myself are attempting to be rational...

No, not really.

The fact that I posted a scenario where I think it WOULD be reasonable to draw a gun doesn't necessarily mean I think it would ALWAYS be appropriate to threaten with such force.

In your scenario it is wildly inappropriate to draw a gun.

On the other had, you are basically making a blanket statement... "No child of 11 could ever harm an adult", and you attempt to support your conclusion largely by building up straw men.

So you build a strawman to accuse me of building strawmen? priceless.

...with your "cops are always wrong" attitude, doing everything you can to suggest a cop should "always" be able to disarm a kid with no risk,

Nope, I actually offered other options for the less competent cops.

...largely by building strawmen (such as suggesting that because I think a kid can swing enough force with a hatchet to harm, it means I automatically think kids are just as capable as adults.)

Do you think if it was a hatchet wielded by a 20 year old it could also be ignored? Or do you think that there is something magical about being used by someone under 12 that makes it unlikely to be dangerous?

If you don't want to be called on the dumb things you say, then stop saying dumb things.

I find it amazing... first you suggest that kids should be just as capable at recognizing pepper spray as a gun,

No, never said that. What I said is that an 11 year old would probably recognize that a cop would be pointing something harmful at him.

...but now you're suggesting the kids are now dumb enough to think having a gun pointed at them is all "fun and games".

Reading comprehension is a useful skill. You should try to acquire it before engaging in written discussions. Whatever the reason that a kid might have for not dropping the hatchet and moving towards the cops (bravado, stupidity, misunderstanding of the situation, panic), it would result in a dead kid, because the cops escalated to maximum force response immediately.

So, can you tell me where about you can find people who are more familiar with pepper spray than firearms?

Why should I? You seem to have made an interesting discussion in your head, but I have no way to follow it.

 

[The Norseman]

Not sure if that's particularly relevant, since in my hypothetical situation I was suggesting a case where the kids were mouthing off (or in other ways uncooperative with police) AND had some sort of weapon (e.g. hatchet or ax) that could cause harm when used by the kids.

Again, why is that relevant?

I'm just asking the questions that would more accurately place the situation on the use of force continuum as well as the totality of circumstances. I understand we don't know the answers to these questions unless you'd change the hypothetical; I'm saying that we don't know if the use of force that the officer displayed is reasonable or not.

I've already admitted that a child would be at a disadvantage in unarmed one-on-one fighting (for the reasons you mentioned above and more). However, the presence of (for example) a hatchet ads an element of risk that might negate some or all of the advantages that the adult has.

Alright.

Not sure what the point of your post was.

Highest possible level=gun.
Lower level=pepper spray or baton.

If simply drawing the gun (i.e. not using it) causes the kid to stand down immediately, would that not be safer (for both the officer and the kid) than trying to use one of the lower levels (spray or baton), getting involved in a 'fight', and having one of the participants get injured because of it?

Yes, it probably would be safer if that were the outcome. I'm saying that the officer must justify the use of force as being reasonable considering the circumstances. Drawing a firearm in essence bypasses the other 'levels' (for lack of a better term) of possible force responses and might, therefore, be considered unreasonable use of force.

Yes, how about a baton?

I suspect most kids would know what a gun is, and how dangerous they are.

Faced with a baton, while it might cause some kids to stand down, you also run the risk of some kids thinking "my ax is better than their baton!", thus running the risk of further conflict.

There is always a risk that could be hypothesized when any use of force is displayed.

When you have a 2 foot ax (with a sharp metal head), you might not be intimidated by someone who pulls out a 2 foot baton (with no sharp edges).

True. An 11 year old would probably be intimidated by the presence of the officers confronting him in the first place though.

Given the fact that I was attempting to give a hypothetical situation where it might be appriate to draw a gun, I was suggesting that it would be 1) agressive, 2) non-cooperative, and 3) doing something that would be considered threatening (such as raising a hatchet as if to throw it).

Yes but my point was, if faced with a kid waving an ax around and threatening a police officer, it is not an important statistic to know "how many 11 year olds want to harm officers". The important statistic is "how many 11 year olds waving an ax and mouthing off to cops want to harm officers".

Okay, I see your points and they seem valid to me.

Did I add anything?

Well, I thought you did but if I'm mistaken, I apologize.

Back in post 36 (when I first posted my hypothetical scenario), I pointed to:
- Kids (note the plural) with hatchets
- Kids mouth off to cops. (I didn't specify it specifically, but its assumed they would have been non-cooperative)
- Kid lifts a hatchet as if to throw it.
So, all the basic elements were there right from the beginning... uncooperative kids, weapons, threatening manner, etc. About the only think I added was the fact that perhaps the kid was large for his age. (Although I can think of one other possibility... that although the 1 kid was 11, he might be in a group where some kids are older and thus more of a "threat".)

Everything else that I added was just a debunking of megaladon's claims that "taking an ax/hatchet away from an 11 year old is easy", by pointing out that not all 11 year olds are invalids.

Okay, I stand corrected and I appreciate the clarification.

 

[12AX7]

Here's a possible scenario... Kids have hatchets to cut down branches (a reasonable tool for them to have for that purpose). Cops show up and tell them to put down the hatchets. Kids (in a moment of bravado) start to mouth off to the cops, and since a group of kids is usually dumber than one, one lifts the hatchet as if to throw it. (I doubt it happened like that, but it would be a reasonable scenario for a cop to feel reasonably threatened.)

Yes, because the number of kids with dealdy accurate hatchet-throwing skills are on the rise.