Cop pulls gun on 11 year old boy

[Megalodon]

Sure. But you're wrong. The last part of the continuum of force is "deadly force". Not "gun". Drawing a gun in the presence of a deadly weapon (such as a hatchet) falls slightly beyond verbal commands.

So even simple doesn't work. Look, drawing a gun is not "slightly beyond verbal commands", and a hatchet in the hands of a child is no more a deadly weapon than a pencil in the hands of an adult. They both have the potential, but it takes a lot of paranoia to immediately assume they are and draw your piece.

But hey, I tire of arguing against advocates of police excesses. we'll have to agree to disagree, and I'll keep my preference for police forces that actually train their officers, that then make it an extremely rare event to draw a gun, and even rarer to shoot it.

 

[squealpiggy]

So even simple doesn't work. Look, drawing a gun is not "slightly beyond verbal commands", and a hatchet in the hands of a child is no more a deadly weapon than a pencil in the hands of an adult. They both have the potential, but it takes a lot of paranoia to immediately assume they are and draw your piece.

But hey, I tire of arguing against advocates of police excesses. we'll have to agree to disagree, and I'll keep my preference for police forces that actually train their officers, that then make it an extremely rare event to draw a gun, and even rarer to shoot it.

You're mistaken about what continuum of force actually permits and you're also mistaken about the threat of weapons in the hands of young kids. You're further mistaken about the effects of being told verbally to drop a weapon while at gun point compared with having that weapon taken from you by force.

It's fine though if it helps you to stick to your default conclusion that any use of force by police can be construed as excessive if you think about it hard enough.

 

[Megalodon]

You're mistaken about what continuum of force actually permits and you're also mistaken about the threat of weapons in the hands of young kids. You're further mistaken about the effects of being told verbally to drop a weapon while at gun point compared with having that weapon taken from you by force.

Your assertions don't make it true.

It's fine though if it helps you to stick to your default conclusion that any use of force by police can be construed as excessive if you think about it hard enough.

Lying about my argument is bad form.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Really? Your assertions sure showed me... or something...

The use of force continuum is a diagram that shows available responses to whatever level of resistance a suspect is giving. It is not a roadmap, dictating that when faced with a gun or other lethal weapon, the first thing to be attempted is cooperative controls, then stepping up to pressure points, then takedown throws, then OC spray, then baton, then, finally, when all those other things didn't work, then you can pull out your gun and blast away.

If you roll up on a situation where someone starts firing at you, you don't start at the bottom of that continuum, you draw and start blasting away because you're at deadly force response immediately.

Your comment proves you know nothing regarding the use of force continuum and your opinion on this matter is, therefore, worthless.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

a hatchet in the hands of a child is no more a deadly weapon than a pencil in the hands of an adult.

Your assertions don't make it true.

 

[newyorkguy]

The funny thing is, this is all based on an allegation by an eleven-year-old boy. His mother, Janice Baptiste, filed an excessive force complaint with Henry County (GA) police and they said they would follow up on it.

I looked at the original news site and did a key word search and found no additional articles. Just the original article linked in the OP. So probably the cop denied it and the matter was closed.

 

[rwguinn]

The funny thing is, this is all based on an allegation by an eleven-year-old boy. His mother, Janice Baptiste, filed an excessive force complaint with Henry County (GA) police and they said they would follow up on it.

I looked at the original news site and did a key word search and found no additional articles. Just the original article linked in the OP. So probably the cop denied it and the matter was closed.

But 11 year olds never lie. They got no reason to, at all. Even when a cop brings them home.

As far as i can see, the entire ridiculous premis is built up from the kid saying "I didn't want him to shoot me"
Cops have guns
People with guns shoot people
Cops are bad people.
Therefore, he's liable to shoot me.\
It makes a good story. Haven't see a shred of evidence, other than gun-and-cop hatred here...

 

[The Norseman]

Since all we have at this time is one side of the story I won't say whether his force was reasonable or not.

When did these come to light? I haven't seen them.

This is the wrong question, and any judicial review determining if there was an excessive use of force should never ask it. The issue is never "he could have done this" it is instead "were the officer's actions reasonable under the Graham v. Connor standard?"

The Graham analysis presents three questions:

1. What was the threat presented at the time force was used?
2. What was the nature of the crime the officer suspects the individual to have committed?
3. Was there violence or the threat of violence in resisting an arrest?

We already know fairly well the answer to the second question, and that answer doesn't do anything to bolster the case for a potentially deadly response. We don't know much about the first or the last question, though. Until we do, the question of whether or not a threat to respond with deadly force was reasonable cannot be answered, legally.

Yes, I agree and thank you for the information regarding Graham v. Connor. I wasn't aware of that specific standard.

But that's why I'm stating it in specific terms of, "based on the information reported". My opinion is subject to change if we ever hear anything else about the incident.

 

[The Norseman]

Body armour is designed to keep an officer alive in the case of being shot in the torso or stabbed. It is of limited usefulness against an axe.

if officers had impenetrable body armour perhaps they wouldn't need guns at all.

So what? That's completely not responding to what I wrote.

Sure. But you're wrong. The last part of the continuum of force is "deadly force". Not "gun". Drawing a gun in the presence of a deadly weapon (such as a hatchet) falls slightly beyond verbal commands.

Yes, it does and we don't know if the officer followed departmental policy on the use of potential deadly force against this child.

Police use of force training about knives and other bladed weapons is quite clear. Don't mess around when it comes to knives.

Not "messing around" depends entirely on the totality of circumstances, use of force continuum and departmental policy. We don't know if policy was followed, but I'm gonna guess based on what was reported, that he did not.

 

[The Norseman]

But 11 year olds never lie. They got no reason to, at all. Even when a cop brings them home.

As far as i can see, the entire ridiculous premis is built up from the kid saying "I didn't want him to shoot me"
Cops have guns
People with guns shoot people
Cops are bad people.
Therefore, he's liable to shoot me.\
It makes a good story. Haven't see a shred of evidence, other than gun-and-cop hatred here...

Hatred from whom?

 

[a_unique_person]

What about if the 11 year old kid had a firearm? Can firearms not hurt people if the person holding it is under a certain age?

Good point. Every single person at any time could be carrying a gun. God bless America.

 

[squealpiggy]

So what? That's completely not responding to what I wrote.

Well you wrote that body armour would protect an officer from a hatchet. It really wouldn't.

 

[The Norseman]

Well you wrote that body armour would protect an officer from a hatchet. It really wouldn't.

No I didn't. I said that cops have passive protection devices just like your example of construction workers. Then I went on to describe the active protection devices that cops have. As you can see, I never said or implied protection from what -- just that they had the protection devices.

At any rate, my knowledge of police body armor is probably fifteen years old and I understood that kevlar vests were really no protection against stabbing attacks. I can easily extrapolate the technology these days and most likely, police armor provides some protection against cutting and stabbing weapons. BStrong might know about that more, or another American cop on JREF.

Personally, I think that American cops in general are woefully undertrained, overweight, and the mantra of "I'm going home to my family every night" tends to establish some level of fear as they go about their day to day activities. This is all my opinion; it's negative, but there is no anger there as some might imagine.

 

[Checkmite]

This seems silly to me. If the police had been called because the boy was swinging the hatchet around or threatening to hurt people with it, I can see where they would reasonably consider the hatchet a dangerous weapon.

But they were called because the boy was cutting tree branches. In this context the hatchet is obviously just a tool and if the kid hadn't voiced or motioned any threats, I cannot accept that merely possessing the hatchet means police are automatically justified in treating him as armed and dangerous.

 

[squealpiggy]

This seems silly to me. If the police had been called because the boy was swinging the hatchet around or threatening to hurt people with it, I can see where they would reasonably consider the hatchet a dangerous weapon.

But they were called because the boy was cutting tree branches. In this context the hatchet is obviously just a tool and if the kid hadn't voiced or motioned any threats, I cannot accept that merely possessing the hatchet means police are automatically justified in treating him as armed and dangerous.

At this stage it's not clear what transpired. My interest was in arguing with the notion that an 11 year old is never a threat.

 

[applecorped]

God bless America.

And no one else.

 

[Manopolus]

- Is there some requirement that whenever a gun is drawn that the officer must shoot someone? Or can the officer, you know, put the gun away once the threat was clear?

There's an old saying that goes "don't draw a weapon unless you intend to use it." If the officer did not intend to use the weapon under a potential set of circumstances that he could reasonably forsee, he should not have drawn.

I hate to argue by cliche, but this one's used enough amongst law enforcement, gun safety people, and gun toters in general (and in movies, etc.) to be a widely accepted societal more. Keep in mind that a gun has been known to accidentally go off -- as a general rule you don't point a gun at someone, period... unless there is a significant threat present. It's not even acceptable to unintentionally point a gun in someone's direction... pointing it straight up or down is the generally accepted procedure at a firing range and when hunting. Being a cop doesn't exclude you from this sort of a safety standard... just the opposite.

The minute you point a gun in someone's direction, their life is potentially in danger whether you actually intend to shoot or not. Trying to use it as an empty threat is not at all acceptable because the threat is potentially not as empty as you think. You are endangering a life when you point a gun at someone, period.

 

[newyorkguy]

There's an old saying that goes "don't draw a weapon unless you intend to use it." If the officer did not intend to use the weapon under a potential set of circumstances that he could reasonably forsee, he should not have drawn.

I'm sure that's not true, that police officers are not allowed to use their guns for defensive purposes. They are trained to only draw their handgun when they mean to shoot someone. That would mean they would be barred from using firearms to make arrests or to take someone into custody at gunpoint.

The quote below is an excerpt from an NYPD document. It's not the one I was looking for but I think it does illustrate that police use firearms for defensive or enforcement reasons.

These options extend from professional presence up through verbal force, physical force, non-*‐impact weapons (i.e. pepper spray), conducted energy devices, impact weapons like batons, and, finally, deadly physical force. All of these are tools at the officer’s disposal, and the officer is under no obligation to move sequentially from one to the next; he or she may jump from verbal force to pointing a firearm—or vice versa—if the situation dictates. Link

ETA - The quoted passage is on page 7.

 

[Manopolus]

I'm sure that's not true, that police officers are not allowed to use their guns for defensive purposes. They are trained to only draw their handgun when they mean to shoot someone. That would mean they would be barred from using firearms to make arrests or to take someone into custody at gunpoint.

The quote below is an excerpt from an NYPD document. It's not the one I was looking for but I think it does illustrate that police use firearms for defensive or enforcement reasons.



ETA - The quoted passage is on page 7.

The part you should have hilited:

If the situation dictates.

Seriously, even a standard gun safety course will tell it to you exactly as I did... it's also a pretty common turn of phrase in the military (although in that case it isn't so much about "drawing" but about pointing it at someone, since it's usually a rifle) -- and yeah, I know that from living it.

The "situation that dictates" this sort of thing is one where there is a serious threat present. I do realize that there may be some officers who do not adhere to this concept at all times (and even get away with it), but it's a fairly widely accepted standard. If you think I'm saying they can't draw in self defense... somehow you didn't understand me properly... self defense means that there is an actual threat to defend against (and facing someone with a violent criminal history can be enough to warrant the need for that protection -- to address another of your points). Temporary non-compliance with shouted orders isn't enough, from where I stand... that's just being a sociopathic control freak. I'd say speaking with the person like they're actually a fellow human being is probably the next step in a lot of cases I see where the police have been accused of misconduct.

 

[newyorkguy]

The part you should have hilited: if the situation dictates.

Okay.

He or she may jump from verbal force to pointing a firearm—or vice versa—if the situation dictates.

Sorry I don't see a difference.

How can it be true that police officers are not allowed to draw their guns for defensive purposes? They may well have told you this at a gun safety class. Probably good advice for citizens. Not so good advice for cops.

Deputies arrest Fort Collins man at gunpoint Sunday following short chase Link

Man arrested at gunpoint outside Portsmouth library Link

Suspect arrested at gunpoint after Cullman County woman fatally shot Link

Ever watch COPS? Every episode starts with the female Portland OR officer radioing in, "One-thirty-two and Bush, I've got him at gunpoint."


I think you're mistaken about this.