Does no one actually see my point? Can you understand why it doesn't seem right to me? Can you identify the disturbance I have that someone got riddled with bullets when I don't see an immediate threat from the information I got? Or do you actually think I'm dur dur retard slapping keys randomly?

So I have a different opinion about a nonfactual situation? Why is it so important that I'm certifiably wrong? In no way can you see a police force shooting someone because they're green and NOT because they were doing the right thing? Am I absolutely numb skulled for thinking that? I think it's a possible scenario that I feel is strengthened by the information we know. You can disagree, but why is it that you can't just disagree and say why? Instead I have to actually be proven incorrect when the problem has no actual answers. None of us were there, none of us know.

I just feel like my point of view isn't being empathized with or actually considered. I'm just plain wrong for questioning if their actions were legitimate.

So my important question is: Do you actually think that it's possible that they overreacted, or are we completely sure that the officers made the best decision?

Or maybe neither? Like I mentioned before, it seems like a "powder keg" situation. Something bad was going to happen one way or the other.



Everyone has been explaining why.

That right there is where you lose me, because there is obviously an immediate threat. It's a guy waving knives around and ignoring the polices attempts to stop him.



Shooting because he was green? What? They shot him because he was grinning and waving knives around like a psychopath. They tried to stop him without using force and he kept going.



We've been saying why... every post disagreeing with you has said why we disagree.
None of us has just said you're wrong and insulted you, we've all explained.



Look the thing is I'm usually the first to cry injustice in situations like this, but even I think things were handled well. I considered the side you've taken way before you even posted. But what we're dealing with here is an obviously dangerous individual who is threatening peoples safety even right in front of the police.



I think the police handled the situation the only way they could. They used the guns as a last resort, and now they're being criticized for using the guns at all.

A knife wielding maniac is a knife wielding maniac, no matter the age, skin color or hair cut (and yes, I call waving knives around in public and ignoring pepper spray and guns maniacal)

But I don't see that as dangerous. If I was at the mall and I saw some 400 pound guy was waving around knives saying "Kill me" I'd only need to physically be apart from him to feel safe. My argument is that there was a distance between the police and the knives, and thus the danger wasn't imminent. There was danger, and he needed to be stopped, but I imagine the many nonlethal ways of stopping someone could've been requested or brought to the scene while holding the kid at gunpoint. If he starts charging the police, blam. If he tries to throw a knife, blam (I'm arguing we're standing far enough away to where we're out of knife throwing range, which I'd argue is 20-30 feet). Not cooperating and being scary in general isn't enough in my book.

And most of the statements here are made as fact, as if the situation is obvious and clear. I don't think the scenario I've painted is at all unreasonable for what we've read. I think it'd help to read a few more articles to see if anything "triggered" the gunfire besides being non-cooperative.

what.

Er, I meant to say "even if a 400 pound guy..."

Considering he was beating and stabbing people on the regular, I think calling it a temper tantrum may be going a bit far

You're already making the assumption that because it was a teenager that he's not a threat. You've let your guard down, thus greatly increasing the chance that you, a fellow officer or the public will be injured or killed during an incident.

I would feel safe, but incredibly disturbed if a 40 pound guy was waving knives in the mall saying "kill me"

I didn't mention his age because I thought that made him less of a threat (however, if you look at the pictures of him, I don't think THAT kid is much of a threat) but because I think children need to be afforded a certain amount of lag in their emotions. That's why I mentioned the 40(0) pound man: I don't think anyone from 20 feet away (besides a professional knife thrower?) is going to be dangerous. I'd hope they acted because he charged or did something erratic and unpredictable (yes I know he's already doing that, but I'm talking about a change that would make me uncomfortable) but it's certainly possible that they acted our of inexperience (green) and poor judgment.

I had a long-ish reply typed out for kirbs, then I decided to actually read the story.



Three trained law enforcement officers felt threatened and stopped the threat.

END OF STORY.

He was being dangerous, and as you said, already being unpredictable.
They pepper sprayed him, and he kept going, that there makes it pretty clear to me that this person was going to do whatever the hell he wanted unless stopped.
So, he was stopped.
It's not pretty, it's not nice, but he was a dangerous individual and had to be dealt with.

I think JediKirby is a pretty cool guy. eh refrains from using deadly force unless absolutely necessary and doesn't afraid of anything

Man, I wish I didn't have to be accountable or pragmatic in my decision making process either. It'd be really nice to fall back on my authority when my judgment is off, but I'm not a police officer. Again, if the article said "He got closer to" or "He then rushed" or "Three officers feared for their own safety when the gunman..." That says "We did a bunch but he just wouldn't stop so we shot him." If they felt unsafe because the kid was waving knives, they shouldn't be cops in my opinion. If they felt unsafe because he did something that was actually dangerous, than they're right. We don't know enough, so you can't just say that the story's over and that you're right. That's the kind of logic I mentioned being annoyed by. You're not willing to discuss the potentials, you'd rather just pat them on the back and move on.

JLee you still haven't answered the question whether you think it's possible that 3 cops could make a bad judgment, or do you think all knife wielders who don't stop wielding knives after tear gas should be shot down?

It would depend on the situation and every situation is different.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24792294-2862,00.html

If he was advancing and one of the officers was cornered, there is no issue with the officers shooting.

Then I'm totally wrong. ****, I would've shot the kid.

Wow, he's even more psychotic then I thought.
Seven shots were fired before he was brought down? Wow he had to have been on something.

kirby- you want me to question the judgement of not one, not two, but THREE officers who made a split-second decision, when I have very limited information?



This job is not black and white. As Avenger said, every situation is different. When the time comes to make a decision, the decision has to be made. We don't have the luxury of studying events for hours after they occur. If you're ever placed in a situation where you have to make such a decision in a matter of seconds, maybe you'll understand.

Edit:

Maybe they weren't so green after all- they made the right decision under a severe amount of stress.



It's not like the movies- look up the Trooper Coates shooting. He died after being shot with a .22. His murderer survived five hits from a .357 Magnum.

I don't think questioning 3 police officers is wrong or unreasonable. In fact, I recall watching a story on TV where one cop freaked and fired, and all of the other cops unloaded too. That could've been a show, but I'm not sure that if one shot, the others wouldn't also begin shooting. While I was wrong in this situation, I'm still annoyed that you don't acknowledge that cops could possibly end up shooting someone needlessly, and that the original article gave no indication that something actually happened to cause the shooting.

Three officers, trained in the proper use of force, made the determination to fire.

You were not there. You did not know what happened. You have no law enforcement training. You want me to question the judgement of fellow officers, without knowing what actually happened.

I'm sorry if that annoys you, but I will stand by my brothers and sisters until I have reason to do otherwise.

Every police involved shooting is investigated.

Exactly- and it's not investigated by reading the newspaper.

After reading the article again... I got the feeling this kid would have done a school shooting or something worse, than waving knives around, threatening people, stabbing merchandise, and making police officers fire upon him. Anyhow... it seems like the kid suffered some sort of abuse before the incident... that sounds more interesting.

...if it was like the movies, he would've kept going after the 7 shots, stabbed half the cops, got hit by a car, landed with a roll then sprinted away yelling "I'll get you next time!"

I guess it depends on the bullet, the gun, accuracy, the individual, etc.

But 7 shots from 3 officers would only take like 2 seconds to fire... even less.

Well, there was the one warning shot then each double tapped. Adds up to seven and would have been over in less than a second.

Like JLee said: You have the luxury of spending days and days thinking about and discussing this decision, and still no clear answer as to what the "right" thing to do has become unquestionably obvious. They had an instant, and made a decision. I'm sure one person fired and the others followed, and as someone just said, it would have been over in less than a second. You don't think the officers who shot the kid are doing the same thing you're doing a million times over? Wondering whether that kid really needed to be shot? Whether they did the right thing? Feeling guilty, feeling horrible. But that's how it works. Put yourself in that situation...walk it through step by step, realistically. Tell me how it turns out. Did you wait for the kid to get tired and go to sleep? Wait around for him to stab someone? Do some kung-fu?

It was a threat, it was a just a stupid, hopelessly out classed threat. Why is it important to bend over backwards in order make sure the guy lives in that situation? There's little enough natural selection going on as it is. Human life is important, but you can take even that principal to an extreme.