San Diego police killed boy, 15, in school parking lot

[AK68]

San Diego police killed boy, 15, in school parking lot

Police shot and killed a 15-year-old student Saturday after he pointed a BB gun at them in a high school parking lot, authorities said.
When two officers arrived, they spotted a youth in the front parking lot. But as they got out of their patrol cars, he pulled a gun from his waistband and pointed it at an officer, police said.

The officers drew their guns and ordered him to drop the weapon. But instead he began to walk toward an officer, ignoring more demands to drop the weapon, police said.

Both officers fired, hitting him several times. They performed first aid and summoned paramedics, but the teen was pronounced dead at a hospital, police said.

 

[GOPerfect]

Stupid games. what the hell is wrong with these kids?

 

[spat]

I don't understand why they waited ?

Once he was pointing it at them, if it was a real gun he could have killed them. The longer it went on and he didn't fire, the *less*likely they were to get shot, walking toward them or not.

Unless he was so far away a hit was very unlikely and was closing the distance (and even then I wouldn't fault them for taking a shot if they had the skill to hit).

But if he didn't shoot right away, and for some reason you let him keep breathing, the justification goes down over time.

 

[UltraT]

Stupid games. what the hell is wrong with these kids?

He wasn't playing games though, he was doing a suicide by cop. The article says he made the 911 call. Just sayin'.

 

[GOPerfect]

He wasn't playing games though, he was doing a suicide by cop. The article says he made the 911 call. Just sayin'.

I only read the headlines, thanks for the clear up.

 

[GOPerfect]

I don't understand why they waited ?

Once he was pointing it at them, if it was a real gun he could have killed them. The longer it went on and he didn't fire, the *less*likely they were to get shot, walking toward them or not.

Unless he was so far away a hit was very unlikely and was closing the distance (and even then I wouldn't fault them for taking a shot if they had the skill to hit).

But if he didn't shoot right away, and for some reason you let him keep breathing, the justification goes down over time.

Well said. I will say, there are many on the job that are second guessing many of their actions. The Libs and SJW are in full force, especially when it comes to the coppers.

 

[Bananabandit]

He won then. Yay!

 

[Podmonkey]

He wasn't playing games though, he was doing a suicide by cop. The article says he made the 911 call. Just sayin'.

That is absolutely tragic.

 

[UltraT]

That is absolutely tragic.

Yeah you feel sorry for the kid and the cops that had to shoot and kill a kid.

 

[Podmonkey]

Yeah you feel sorry for the kid and the cops that had to shoot and kill a kid.

3 casualties.

 

[Shadow2]

So you should shoot first and fast so you don't loose your window of justification? So takeing life has become a a legal chess match ... sick way of looking at life if you ask me.

I don't understand why they waited ?

Once he was pointing it at them, if it was a real gun he could have killed them. The longer it went on and he didn't fire, the *less*likely they were to get shot, walking toward them or not.

Unless he was so far away a hit was very unlikely and was closing the distance (and even then I wouldn't fault them for taking a shot if they had the skill to hit).

But if he didn't shoot right away, and for some reason you let him keep breathing, the justification goes down over time.

 

[spat]

So you should shoot first and fast so you don't loose your window of justification? So takeing life has become a a legal chess match ... sick way of looking at life if you ask me.

Only if your goal is to kill someone.

My goal is to get out unharmed and with as little legal baggage as possible.

Shooting someone, no matter how justified, always has a significant cost.

Imagine everybody just stood there for 10 mins. It becomes much harder to justify a fear for your life when you shoot. Even though it's perfectly reasonable to shoot someone who's pointing a gun at you, if they've been doing it for several minutes already the obvious question will be what changed ? Weren't you in fear for your life a minute ago? Why didn't you shoot then ? The threat to your life justifies shooting, getting tired of a situation doesn't.

In this case, he was closing the distance, and that will provide enough justification, I just find that a very weak argument.

Assuming he was attempting suicide by cop, if they hadn't fired when they did, he would have escalated, and fired at them to force their hand (assuming the gun was even loaded). The end result would be the same, but the decision would not have been as controversial.

When they arrived on scene and he pointed the gun at them they had excellent justification. As things developed and they acquired more information the justification decreased dramatically as the evidence he had the will or ability to fire at them evaporated.

 

[dsdmmat]

.....When they arrived on scene and he pointed the gun at them they had excellent justification. As things developed and they acquired more information the justification decreased dramatically as the evidence he had the will or ability to fire at them evaporated.

They tried de-escalation when it failed and he did not comply, closing the distance instead they used deadly force. There is no loss of justification anywhere in that, it is a common technique. If possible de-escalate the situation, if not end the situation with the least amount of friendly casualties possible.

 

[spat]

They tried de-escalation when it failed and he did not comply, closing the distance instead they used deadly force. There is no loss of justification anywhere in that, it is a common technique. If possible de-escalate the situation. if not end the situation with the least amount of friendly casualties possible.

Common or not, the threat was much lower when they shot than it was when they arrived.

When they arrived they didnt know anything about his mindset. When they shot they knew a lot more.

As I said, him closing the distance will give them cover, but if you felt the risk was low enough to attempt de-escalation when you arrived, if he hadn't closed the distance, what changed to increase that risk ?

 

[dsdmmat]

Common or not, the threat was much lower when they shot than it was when they arrived.

When they arrived they didnt know anything about his mindset. When they shot they knew a lot more.

As I said, him closing the distance will give them cover, but if you felt the risk was low enough to attempt de-escalation when you arrived, if he hadn't closed the distance, what changed to increase that risk ?

The only reason to try de-escalation is political/social the cops don't want to shoot someone if they don't have to, not only is it a nightmare on the psyche it is also a nightmare professionally/publicity wise.

The threat never subsided, the weapon was pointed at the officers the whole time. I would agree the threat level would have decreased if the weapon was lowered but, there is no indication of that. Just because someone didn't pull the trigger in the first 30 seconds does not mean they did not have intensions or the ability to use deadly force.

 

[spat]

The threat never subsided. the weapon was pointed at the officers the whole time. I would agree the threat level would have decreased if the weapon was lowered, but there is no indication of that. just because someone didn't pull the trigger in the first 30 seconds does not mean they did not have intensions or the ability to use deadly force.

The fact that the officers didn't fire right away means they thought their lives weren't at risk enough to shoot (they were wrong, but whatever). The law isnt about whether they were actually in danger, but what they reasonably believed. To justify the shooting they will need to explain why what they believed changed betweeen the time they didn't shoot and the time they did.

If it's a short time, like 30 secs, then you can justify that by saying they were analysing the decision, but after that, it becomes much harder to do.

The fact remains, if he wasn't closing the distance, and they were asked "what changed" that caused them to decide to fire they will have no good answer.

 

[dsdmmat]

The fact that the officers didn't fire right away means they thought their lives weren't at risk enough to shoot (they were wrong, but whatever). The law isnt about whether they were actually in danger, but what they reasonably believed. To justify the shooting they will need to explain why what they believed changed betweeen the time they didn't shoot and the time they did.

If it's a short time, like 30 secs, then you can justify that by saying they were analysing the decision, but after that, it becomes much harder to do.

The fact remains, if he wasn't closing the distance, and they were asked "what changed" that caused them to decide to fire they will have no good answer.

I disagree, they don't need to justify anything. All they have to do is describe the situation as it unfolded. 30 seconds is a lifetime in gun fighting terms. In 3 seconds the average person can move 21 feet. In 30 a person can move 270 feet (90 yards). The only thing more time elapsing does to the situation is introduce the potential for a 3rd party to get involved, either by design (another perpetrator) or unknowingly (a new potential victim).

An armed threat advancing is justification enough to fire. A threat that has a firearm pointed in your direction moving or not is justification enough to fire.


If you have a gun on an intruder in your house and you don't fire on them immediately, would that mean you did not consider them a deadly threat? The mere fact you felt it necessary to hold them at gun point means you consider them a deadly threat. The fact that you didn't fire on them immediately is not relevant to the level of threat posed by the intruders during the situation. If they move at all the conditions of the situation change. If they advance they are more of a threat, if they retreat they potentially are less of a threat.

Making sure the shot would not injure a bystander is enough of a justification to wait when pulling the trigger. Adrenaline will makes your brains turn to mush and flow into your feet, you are relying purely on training at that point. If you are trained to de-escalate first then that is what you will do.

The only people that will be asking for an explanation of the officers actions are Monday morning quarterbacks.

 

[spat]

I disagree, they don't need to justify anything. All they have to do is describe the situation as it unfolded. 30 seconds is a lifetime in gun fighting terms. In 3 seconds the average person can move 21 feet. In 30 a person can move 270 feet (90 yards). The only thing more time elapsing does to the situation is introduce the potential for a 3rd party to get involved, either by design (another perpetrator) or unknowingly (a new potential victim).

An armed threat advancing is justification enough to fire. A threat that has a firearm pointed in your direction moving or not is justification enough to fire.


If you have a gun on an intruder in your house and you don't fire on them immediately, would that mean you did not consider them a deadly threat? The mere fact you felt it necessary to hold them at gun point means you consider them a deadly threat. The fact that you didn't fire on them immediately is not relevant to the level of threat posed by the intruders during the situation. If they move at all the conditions of the situation change. If they advance they are more of a threat, if they retreat they potentially are less of a threat.

The only people that will be asking for an explanation of the officers actions are Monday morning quarterbacks.

Shooting someone is illegal, even for cops. The fact that they are posing a threat is an affirmative defense, which means the onus is on you to prove it was justified. So, yes, they do need to provide the justification.

 

[Target]

The cops are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Remember a few months ago the young kid waving a gun in a park?
The cops came rushing in their cruiser and the tires have barely stopped when the kid was shot?

 

[Airborneguy]

I've never seen a case where attempting to deescalate a sitaution became a legal liability for the cops. On the contrary, it shows that the use of force was a true last resort, and is viewed favorably by the courts/prosecutors.

I get your point, and maybe in the case of a long drawn out incident factors could show that force was unnecessary, but even then, deescalation tecniques are always encouraged and will aid the cops in showing they did their best to avoid DPF until it became absolutely necessary to fire.

 

[dsdmmat]

Shooting someone is illegal, even for cops. The fact that they are posing a threat is an affirmative defense, which means the onus is on you to prove it was justified. So, yes, they do need to provide the justification.

apparently you missed this line:
All they have to do is describe the situation as it unfolded.

The prosecutor will have the job of justifying and proving why it was not accordance with the law.

 

[freddy]

In 3 seconds the average person can move 21 feet.

1.5 seconds

Tueller Drill - Wikipedia

 

[dsdmmat]

1.5 seconds

Tueller Drill - Wikipedia

While I know of this drill (and of its findings) my intent was only to show the "Average" person can move 21 feet in 3 seconds (walking). This allowed for old, slow, fat people (like myself), who typically are in the roll of attackee not attacker.

 

[freddy]

If I recall correctly Ayoob had a student do it in around 1.5 seconds with a broken leg/ankle.

 

[GuyMontag]

The cops are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Remember a few months ago the young kid waving a gun in a park?
The cops came rushing in their cruiser and the tires have barely stopped when the kid was shot?

Details matter, and the cops are not damned if they do or don't.

Disgracefully gunning down that kid in the park vs suicide by cop proves that fact beyond any question.

One shooting is clearly justified, the other a textbook example of excessive deadly force.

 

[dsdmmat]

If I recall correctly Ayoob had a student do it in around 1.5 seconds with a broken leg/ankle.

A Pittsburg Steeler Running Back is not your average Joe.

 

[spat]

apparently you missed this line:
All they have to do is describe the situation as it unfolded.

The prosecutor will have the job of justifying and proving why it was not accordance with the law.

Apparently you don't understand the concept of an affirmative defense.

The prosecutor only needs to prove that they intended to and actually did kill him. That is all that is required of them. The defense then needs to prove that one of the exceptions applies.

Homicide is presumtively illegal, and the burden is on the defense to prove a particular case is otherwise.

 

[dsdmmat]

Apparently you don't understand the concept of an affirmative defense.

The prosecutor only needs to prove that they intended to and actually did kill him. That is all that is required of them. The defense then needs to prove that one of the exceptions applies.

Homicide is presumtively illegal, and the burden is on the defense to prove a particular case is otherwise.

So the officer is guilty till proven innocent huh? I think you are in the wrong country.

 

[spat]

I've never seen a case where attempting to deescalate a sitaution became a legal liability for the cops. On the contrary, it shows that the use of force was a true last resort, and is viewed favorably by the courts/prosecutors.

I get your point, and maybe in the case of a long drawn out incident factors could show that force was unnecessary, but even then, deescalation tecniques are always encouraged and will aid the cops in showing they did their best to avoid DPF until it became absolutely necessary to fire.

I doubt anyone has ever been prosecuted because of it, but there are plenty of cases of valid criticism.

But if a prosecutor did choose to go that route, the shooter would be required to defend his decision, and having made a different decision under more dangerous circumstances a few minutes before won't help them any....

 

[spat]

So the officer is guilty till proven innocent huh? I think you are in the wrong country.

That is how a self defense claim works. If you think otherwise you could get yourself in a lot of trouble.

Affirmative defense - Wikipedia

A similar concept is possession of a firearm in NY. It is illegal, and you are required to prove that you have a permit to have one.

If you are charged with possession, and you don't offer evidence to the contrary a prosecutor could just prove that you had the gun, that's it. He doesn't need to offer any evidence that you didn't have a permit.