Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wouldn't be deemed reasonable in Europe under 'Article 2' of the European Convention on Human Rights - 'The Right to Life' which states;
"the amount of force used must also be reasonable and proportionate and the degree of force used must be the minimum required in the circumstances to achieve the lawful objective, otherwise, it is likely that the use of force will be excessive and unlawful."
All Firearms Officers in the UK carry Taser, as a less lethal alternative, as well as other non-lethals, using a firearm in this situation was not the minimum amount of force, and the officer should have had less lethal alternatives at his disposal or even have requsted back up.
So what? We are NOT the U.K since we (thankfully) tossed y'all out back in the 1700's. "Back in the day" crooks and such would NEVER think of injuring a cop much less shoot one, that was a BIG no-no as it caused wayyy too much attention/heat on ALL the crooks. That has obviously changed over the years for the worse.
Secondly, people in the U.K. don't have and haven't had ready access to guns like they do here, we don't have the amount of coppers per citizen the U.K. has either so backup is not readily available.
Now let's look at terror attacks in the streets, how they're handled and thwarted. Want to measure volume of those in the U.K./Europe vs the U.S.?
How's about you quit trying to apply YOUR rules/laws to what happens here as it's clear even in the U.K. the use of force is changing from the old days as your body count rises.
So what? We are NOT the U.K since we (thankfully) tossed y'all out back in the 1700's. "Back in the day" crooks and such would NEVER think of injuring a cop much less shoot one, that was a BIG no-no as it caused wayyy too much attention/heat on ALL the crooks. That has obviously changed over the years for the worse.
Secondly, people in the U.K. don't have and haven't had ready access to guns like they do here, we don't have the amount of coppers per citizen the U.K. has either so backup is not readily available.
Now let's look at terror attacks in the streets, how they're handled and thwarted. Want to measure volume of those in the U.K./Europe vs the U.S.?
How's about you quit trying to apply YOUR rules/laws to what happens here as it's clear even in the U.K. the use of force is changing from the old days as your body count rises.
The same law applies in 47 European Countries and not just the UK, Article 2 being part of the European Convention on Human Rights, whilst many other westernised countries have similar rights or laws.
People in the UK do have guns, especially those in rural areas, however in this situation it was a knife and not a gun, as for police numbers the US has a substantial amount of police and US Police have access to Taser and non-lethals.
Surely it makes sense for officers to carry Taser as a less lethal option rather than just using maximum force straight away in relation to a 14 year old special needs kid who was being bullied.
As for terrorist attacks there have been very few Islamic terrorist attacks in the UK, and the foiling of such attacks is down to good intelligence rather than shooting 14 year old special needs children.
Then again more people die as a result of police shootings every year in the US than have died in terrorist attacks in Europe over numerous decades.
As for your nonsense about rising body counts, we have one of the lowest murder rates in the world and we do not have a rising body count. As for police shootings they are very rare and the police often shoot nobody at all over several years, and in relation to 14 year olds with knives, they use non-lethal force, as this is the minimum reasonble force required.
Last edited by Brave New World; 12-26-2016 at 07:25 AM..
The same laws applies in 47 European Countries and not just the UK, Article 2 being part of the European Convention on Human Rights, whilst many other westernised countries have similar rights or laws.
People in the UK do have guns, especially those in rural areas, however in this situation it was a knife and not a gun, as for police numbers the US has a substantial amount of police and US Police have access to Taser and non-lethals.
Surely it makes sense for officers to carry Taser as a less lethal option rather than just using maximum force straight away in relation to a 14 year old special needs kid who was being bullied.
As for terrorist attacks there have been very few terrorist attacks in the UK, and the foiling of such attacks is down to good intelligence rather than shooting 14 year old special needs children.
Again, we don't subscribe to your convention and so it doesn't apply here. People in the U.K. have long guns not ready access to pistols as those are highly controlled, correct?
Most/all officers here DO carry tasers and batons but those are not always the best option nor do they always work. Their goal is for everyone to go home/jail at the end of the day but if that doesn't seem likely then the goal is for the officer and innocents to walk away and the criminal to end up on the ground by any means.
As I've said before, if all those looky-loo's had left when told to it would have reduced what was a target rich environment for the 14 year old AND given the cop the kids FULL attention since he wouldn't have been as agitated by the crowd MAYBE he'd have been able to talk the kid down or had the space/time to use other measures to subdue.
That was NOT the situation he was facing at that moment.
Again, we don't subscribe to your convention and so it doesn't apply here. People in the U.K. have long guns not ready access to pistols as those are highly controlled, correct?
I thought the issue was a 14 year old carrying a knife and not a firearm.
In terms of gun laws in the UK, very few people had pistols to start, there were only 40,000 registered handgun users in the UK and pistols serve no purpose in relation to hunting or any farming related or use on the land. They were however subject to regulation following the murder of a number of very young school children in Scotland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj
Most/all officers here DO carry tasers and batons but those are not always the best option nor do they always work.
The Officer in this case claims he didn't have Taser, as Taser would have been the obvious choice of less lethal in such cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj
As I've said before, if all those looky-loo's left when told to it would have reduced what was a target rich environment for the 14 year old AND given the cop the kids FULL attention since he wouldn't have been as agitated by the crowd MAYBE he'd have been able to talk the kid down or had the space/time to use other measures to subdue.
That was NOT the situation he was facing at that moment.
It's probably best to use a non-lethal in a target rich environment and more especially Taser rather than bullets.
The Cop couldn't be bothered to carry a Taser, he had no credible non-lethals other than baton and spray, he was therefore forced to shoot the kid leaving him badly injured and with possible brain damage, although he is lucky to be alive.
Verdict - The Cop should have had a credible less lethal option especisally if he had no backup.
The use of maximum force in relation to firearms could and should have been avoided and would have been avoided in most other countries.
I thought the issue was a 14 year old carrying a knife and not a firearm.
In terms of gun laws in the UK, very few people had pistols to start, there were only 40,000 registered handgun users in the UK and pistols serve no purpose in relation to hunting or any farming related or use on the land. They were however subject to regulation following the murder of a number of very young school children in Scotland.
The Officer in this case claims he didn't have Taser, as Taser would have been the obvious choice of less lethal in such cases.
It's probably best to use a non-lethal in a target rich environment and more especially Taser rather than bullets.
The Cop couldn't be bothered to carry a Taser, he had no credible non-lethals other than baton and spray, he was therefore forced to shoot the kid leaving him badly injured and with possible brain damage, although he is lucky to be alive.
Verdict - The Cop should have had a credible less lethal option especisally if he had no backup.
The use of maximum force in relation to firearms could and should have been avoided and would have been avoided in most other countries.
Your verdict which means zippo in the U.S. (thankfully). Hopefully you are never in the position to make such a choice and then to have armchair experts (from another country no less) dissect what YOU do.
Your verdict which means zippo in the U.S. (thankfully). Hopefully you are never in the position to make such a choice and then to have armchair experts (from another country no less) dissect what YOU do.
Thankfully I don't live in a country where the police are trigger happy and thankfully 'Article 2' ECHR affords me more protection from the police and state than is given to American Citizens.
The US is now a nation where minorities live in fear of the police, where controversial police shootings reguarly lead to riots and revenge attacks against the police. So I would suggest the current rules are not working properly and the police need to be more accountable for their actions especially when it comes to shootings.
Thankfully I don't live in a country where the police are trigger happy and thankfully 'Article 2' ECHR affords me more protection from the police and state than is given to American Citizens.
The US is now a nation where minorities live in fear of the police, where controversial police shootings reguarly lead to riots and revenge attacks against the police. So I would suggest the current rules are not working properly and the police need to be more accountable for their actions especially when it comes to shootings.
Don't spend so much time watching the news. I travel regularly, aren't white and have never felt fearful of any police. There are some parts of larger cities I have though, but it wasn't from the popo.
There is video that has not been published on the internet, believe it or not.
The kid with the knives was the attacker. The person he cut ran and tried to get away. The boy with the knives chased him.
We would need to see video of him from the period before he drew the knives. I doubt it exist but perhaps a security camera. If he was the aggressor that of course would remove any self defense. The government would still have to deal with excessive force.
I thought the issue was a 14 year old carrying a knife and not a firearm.
In terms of gun laws in the UK, very few people had pistols to start, there were only 40,000 registered handgun users in the UK and pistols serve no purpose in relation to hunting or any farming related or use on the land. They were however subject to regulation following the murder of a number of very young school children in Scotland.
The Officer in this case claims he didn't have Taser, as Taser would have been the obvious choice of less lethal in such cases.
It's probably best to use a non-lethal in a target rich environment and more especially Taser rather than bullets.
The Cop couldn't be bothered to carry a Taser, he had no credible non-lethals other than baton and spray, he was therefore forced to shoot the kid leaving him badly injured and with possible brain damage, although he is lucky to be alive.
Verdict - The Cop should have had a credible less lethal option especisally if he had no backup.
The use of maximum force in relation to firearms could and should have been avoided and would have been avoided in most other countries.
It wasn't that he "couldn't be bothered" to carry a Taser. Not all officers can. Campus police for public schools K-12 I don't believe are allowed Tasers in Washoe county. Personally, I wouldn't have closed to LTL distance with this kid. Not knowing as I do what a knife at close range is capable of doing to the human body either by design or accident. I'm sure the same thoughts were in the officers mind. I also represent the potential jury pool here for this, and community opinion leans toward the action that was taken.
Most people also believe the kid needs/needed help with his issues, but at the time of the incident all that mattered was the danger he presented. That being considerable and of immediate concern. I can't honestly imagine stopping to mull over the kids possible social/mental problems, other than the instant judgment that he was armed and nuts, going into this situation. Sounds like a SNL skit. Closing to within range of the knives to attempt some other sort of disarmament tactic may sound all cool and such, but this isn't an old Steven Segal movie. The reality makes about as much sense as a screen door in a submarine.
While I'm no edged weapon expert trained and practiced to take out enemy pickets with a K Bar, I do have some first hand knowledge of what a knife at close range in the hands of a desperate and horribly frightened/angry person will do. The results can and more often than not are in defiance of imagination. It doesn't take much force to see a modestly sharp blade open a human being up like a Zip Lock baggy. Coupled with the fact that this kid was showing that doing so was at the top of his intent list , well, all I can say is he HAD to be stopped. Deserving has nothing to do with it.
Yea, that a 14 yo kid had to be shot because he was a serious threat to life and limb isn't a pleasant thought. But this is the world we live in. Age has no bearing on how dangerous a person can be or on their intent to do harm. I'm sensing an inference here that the officer actually wanted to shoot this kid. As if he sat at home dreaming of sending it downrange. That is just appallingly knee jerk and speaks to a complete lack of knowledge regarding use of lethal force. While there certainly are those who while away time dreaming of being the "hero" in a situation like this, this cop wasn't one of them. The former types have things in common. When the "moment" comes, they either can't pull the trigger, or fail miserably if they actually do.
The result of to many movies and/or reality shows substituted for mental and physical training and actually understanding what use of lethal force means. Very, very, seldom is any use of lethal force simplistic, before, during and especially after such force is used. Even in cases where someone is defending themselves against a violent, sadistic attack in which death , or at the least permanent and horrible harm, is a certain result, the investigation that follows is often as brutal and demeaning for the victim as the attack.
One of the biggest reasons for this is the use of affirmative defense tactics by blood sucking lawyers. If someone has actually been a victim and had the tip of the sword of such tactics applied to them after having had to defend their life, they will NEVER look at lawyers the same again. It gets vey easy to see all of them as mealy mouthed, glory seeking, scumbags who's sole job is to see violent bipreds turned back loose upon us. having been abused as a child, having a "disadvantaged" upbringing, no positive role models and yes, having been bullied become excuses to see victimizing others as some sort of right. "He was abused, therefore his violently attacking and intending to brutally rape and murder is not his fault. And his victim who defended themselves is the one who is truly accountable." No, I'm not exaggerating.
people here in the US are completely fed up with violent criminals getting off the hook for their actions because of these "mental impairment and "disadvantaged" background" defenses. Especially when it's OUR loved ones laying on a hospital gurney beaten and traumatized, and then being vilified by some bottom feeding defense lawyer trying to make the predator look like a victim. As if people are just supposed to take whatever some fleabag feels like dishing out because he/ and she in some cases, must have been abused and/or disadvantaged.
Get back to me when you've been through an after incident self defense investigation and been through one with someone you love more than life. When you've had to actually make the terminal call to use lethal force. I can say with certainty it's far harder to see a loved one go through this than it is to experience it yourself. In this case here, that many other parents were spared from being told their child or other loved one is fighting for their life or is already dead justifies that single round fired that stopped a knife attack. << yes indeed. Something to ponder on and then some.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Closing to within range of the knives to attempt some other sort of disarmament tactic may sound all cool and such, but this isn't an old Steven Segal movie. The reality makes about as much sense as a screen door in a submarine. 
No, I'm not exaggerating. 
