Nevada Police Officer Shoots 14-Year Old Swinging a Knife at Nevada High School
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.
Of course. As you and I both know he was in violation of any number of NV statutes. Where is it in the NV self defense statute that becomes an issue? You could I guess claim that merely having the knives means he was engaged in a criminal activity. But I would suspect that, while he was potentially guilty of an offense it has no bearing on him using whatever he has available in self defense. Might even mitigate the charge as it turns out he really did need to be armed at school. Hey as a second amendment lover you should be pleased.
Kid can absolutely be charged with numerous violations of the NV statutes. You really think you could get a Reno jury to convict him after he gets a bloody nose from a bullying encounter...particularly if there is a long established bullying complaint? Now I begin to realize why you don't like lawyers. You can't bear to see the obvious occur.
Nothing in the self defense statute that requires your defense be legal. You may be charged with a crime as well if you pull an illegal machine gun to shoot up a jihadist massacring people in a church. But I suspect it will be difficult to gain a conviction in an American court. Had a friend who boated widely who had a well concealed 50 caliber built into his boat. If he used it in most waters he would likely be committing a crime. Still though...beats the hell out of being boarded by pirates.
In Nevada? You got to be kidding. I have only live here 21 years but I have lots of experience in Carson City as well as LV. Kid is practically a folk hero. No way on earth to get an upstate NV jury to convict him of anything.
I am actually surprised how little you understand NV. Thought you were a local.
No, you have no clue why I don't like lawyers. And further detail on that I am unwilling to go into any further than I have. I am a local. Been here most of my life. Don't know what circles you're running in, but this kid is no "folk hero". I've already said I don't foresee full criminal charges in this, because of his age and mental state. But he's still hardly a hero.
And as a private citizen, if you use force, lethal or otherwise, in self defense you had better hope you're within legal boundaries. If you're not, best pray there are some really extenuating circumstances. Judged by 12 or carried by 6 might draw you some water if the circumstances are right. But that isn't the case here. Mills Lane, former Washoe county DA was the author of our self defense laws herebouts. You haven't been here long enough to remember how that all came to pass. He was the staunchest of right to self defense supporters. And there is no way he would label this kid a hero for "defending" himself.
Oh MY! Are you off base. If you have a CCW, best go back to school. In a legit case of self defense it is a safe bet a N NV jury won't convict someone for use of deadly force, or let a violent criminal railroad an affirmative defense by defaming a victim. However that doesn't mean that victim won't get drug through the mud in open court. I do know what I speak of here. Where you're drawing your inferences from is a mystery to me. My personal experiences sure don't see me in agreement with you.
And how many police officers are killed in the UK, the 47 European countries, Australia, and New Zealand?
Very few police officers are killed in the UK and Europe and knives and knife crime are a universal problem. The police in other countries just use common sense and minimal force.
I am not repeating myself over and over again, and I have already pointed out the basic differences between the use of force and it's justification in Europe and many other countries across the world as opposed to the situation in the US.
If US Citizens are happy with this situation, then so be it, although personally I wouldn't be, and I firmly believe in the police exploring all options and tactics, including the use of non lethals (minimal force) before resorting to lethal force.
Very few police officers are killed in the UK and Europe and knives and knife crime are a universal problem. The police in other countries just use common sense and minimal force.
I am not repeating myself over and over again, and I have already pointed out the basic differences between the use of force and it's justification in Europe and many other countries across the world as opposed to the situation in the US.
If US Citizens are happy with this situation, then so be it, although personally I wouldn't be, and I firmly believe in the police exploring all options and tactics, including the use of non lethals (minimal force) before resorting to lethal force.
The militarization of police in the US is a big issue. You're not getting the full story about how we feel about that from a story like this. This is one , single, case in many that people are actually willing to cut the cop some slack on. And we haven't gotten all the info needed to make a 100% call yet.
When I was young cops were the good guys. They were actually there to "protect and serve". Keep the peace, de escalate situations, keep order. You could actually approach a cop if you were lost and needed directions. Try that now you're likely to end up against the wall with a gun to the back of your head with loud commands to state your business and produce your ID. Want to see a cop use a Taser? Just get a little irate with a cop over a chickensh** traffic stop for 2 MPH over the limit.
Don't think for a second we are blind to what our police are becoming/have become. Even rural patrolmen in small towns these days are carrying enough hardware to fall in with a forward deployed assault infantry division. The cop in this case is tame by comparison to his brethren in the Washoe County Sherriff Dept.And for once, we saw an LE use of a firearm with one, single round fired that stopped the threat. It's usually three of four officers, all packing Crunchentickers, doing multiple mag dumps at a perp who merely gave the appearance of having a gun, and maybe hitting him once in the leg. And then come to find out the guy was just reaching for his wallet or scratching his nose.
As far as cops going round the bend with use of force, this incident was quite the pen full of kittens. Citizens here carry firearms. We would MUCH rather defend ourselves against violent criminals than have the cops roll up. Trust me, it's far sfer that way.
As I mentioned before, you cannot use less lethal weapons without backup.
It "would have been avoided" in other countries because those countries have a far far higher density of officers than the US.
Does it take two officers to operate a taser, as it's no more difficult to use than a firearm. Furthermore you would have thought a School Campus Police Officer of all people would have had less lethals at his disposal and why weren't the local police also called in as back up. Reno is a city, and does have a police department.
I sadly disagree with those who claim this shooting was justified, as I believe it could have been avoided and indeed would have been avoided in many other countries where the police resort to firearms far less quickly in such circumstances.
Last edited by Brave New World; 12-28-2016 at 04:21 AM..
The militarization of police in the US is a big issue. You're not getting the full story about how we feel about that from a story like this. This is one , single, case in many that people are actually willing to cut the cop some slack on. And we haven't gotten all the info needed to make a 100% call yet.
When I was young cops were the good guys. They were actually there to "protect and serve". Keep the peace, de escalate situations, keep order. You could actually approach a cop if you were lost and needed directions. Try that now you're likely to end up against the wall with a gun to the back of your head with loud commands to state your business and produce your ID. Want to see a cop use a Taser? Just get a little irate with a cop over a chickensh** traffic stop for 2 MPH over the limit.
Don't think for a second we are blind to what our police are becoming/have become. Even rural patrolmen in small towns these days are carrying enough hardware to fall in with a forward deployed assault infantry division. The cop in this case is tame by comparison to his brethren in the Washoe County Sherriff Dept.And for once, we saw an LE use of a firearm with one, single round fired that stopped the threat. It's usually three of four officers, all packing Crunchentickers, doing multiple mag dumps at a perp who merely gave the appearance of having a gun, and maybe hitting him once in the leg. And then come to find out the guy was just reaching for his wallet or scratching his nose.
As far as cops going round the bend with use of force, this incident was quite the pen full of kittens. Citizens here carry firearms. We would MUCH rather defend ourselves against violent criminals than have the cops roll up. Trust me, it's far sfer that way.
Where does that happen at? I got lost in DC a few months ago and asked a police officer where I was at. He just told me how to get to where I was going and gave me a reminder to watch for the traffic because it was especially bad that day?
Not the first time I have done that and im sure it wont be the last.
Procedurally..yes. One on the Taser one on the subject. Especially if the subject is truly violent and armed. This is NOT something new. Things really escalated after 911 and the wonderful Patriot Act, but the trend has been there longer than that. I went through LE training as a young man. We were trained and conditioned to have thick skins and to use our words.
Not so any more. Cops are taught they are to be unconditionally obeyed, and if not, that's what a Taser is for. LTLs are ...negotiating tools. Firearms are weapons. Taser training is actually pretty intense. Most departments require an officer get Tased before being allowed to carry one. Part of the training.
Procedurally..yes. One on the Taser one on the subject. Especially if the subject is truly violent and armed. This is NOT something new. Things really escalated after 911 and the wonderful Patriot Act, but the trend has been there longer than that. I went through LE training as a young man. We were trained and conditioned to have thick skins and to use our words.
Not so any more. Cops are taught they are to be unconditionally obeyed, and if not, that's what a Taser is for. LTLs are ...negotiating tools. Firearms are weapons. Taser training is actually pretty intense. Most departments require an officer get Tased before being allowed to carry one. Part of the training.
Any Officer who undergoes the basic 3 day Taser Course and annual referesher course can deploy and use Taser in the UK, it is less harmful than a firearm and only requires one trained officer. The red light finds the target and the officer will shout a warning before activating the device.
Taser is not there to force people to obey the police, it is there as a means of minimal force in violent situations where the subject usually has a weapon other than a firearm and Taser itself should only be used as a last non-lethal resort. In this case the use of Taser would have been justified even if the suspect was under 18 years old as it was preferable to the use of lethal force.
What happens in Europe (that includes the UK), stays in Europe. What happens in the US stays in the US. At least that's the way it should be. Mind your own business and stop criticizing other countries. None of them are perfect.
I am as European as they come, and I have lived in the US longer than most of you experts are old. Take a long look at your country before looking at others, and think before ranting, raving, winging and whining.
Except the US reguarly criticises other countries over their human rights records and human rights are often seen as fundamental and universal, hence the Universal Declaration on Human Rights which the US voted in favour of, as well as numerous other legal treaties such as the Geneva Convention, International Courts etc etc.
Furthermore organisations such as Amnesty International, which was formed in Londonin relation to Human Rights issues across the globe, and are free to comment on what they believe breaches Universal Human Rights regardless of the nation or it's internal laws, as indeed Iam I and the OP did ask in the first post whether or not you thought the shooting of 14 year old Logan Clark was justified.
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that 'Everyone has the Right to Life' and this appears in numerous international treaties and national laws, and to take a life must be a last resort and fully justificable.
Amnesty International cite the shooting of 12 year old Tamir Rice by Police in Cleveland Ohio as a case in point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnesty International
On 22 November 2014, police in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, responded to an emergency call about an unidentified male standing in a local park and pointing a gun at people. It is unclear if the responding police officers were aware of the caller’s tip that the weapon was “probably fake”, or if they knew the alleged gunman was only a child.
Within two seconds of stepping out of his police car, one of the officers shot Tamir Rice from just metres away. A surveillance video later released by police shows how the young boy was fatally wounded in the blink of an eye. He died later in hospital.
A US judge who reviewed the actions of the two police officers involved wrote that, having watched the surveillance video of the incident several times, he was “still thunderstruck by how quickly this event turned deadly”. He found probable cause for the officer who pulled the trigger to face murder charges.
Nobody is disputing that police are faced with challenging, and often dangerous, situations. The power to use force is indispensable for police to carry out their duties, but that does not mean it is an inevitable part of the job – in fact, the underlying principle of the international standards for policing is not to use force unless it is really necessary.
What the Tamir Rice case shows is that in the USA, as in many other countries, police often fall short of this mark. This tragic reality has been highlighted time and again, including the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the series of protests it unleashed.
The militarization of police in the US is a big issue. You're not getting the full story about how we feel about that from a story like this. This is one , single, case in many that people are actually willing to cut the cop some slack on. And we haven't gotten all the info needed to make a 100% call yet.
When I was young cops were the good guys. They were actually there to "protect and serve". Keep the peace, de escalate situations, keep order. You could actually approach a cop if you were lost and needed directions. Try that now you're likely to end up against the wall with a gun to the back of your head with loud commands to state your business and produce your ID. Want to see a cop use a Taser? Just get a little irate with a cop over a chickensh** traffic stop for 2 MPH over the limit.
Don't think for a second we are blind to what our police are becoming/have become. Even rural patrolmen in small towns these days are carrying enough hardware to fall in with a forward deployed assault infantry division. The cop in this case is tame by comparison to his brethren in the Washoe County Sherriff Dept.And for once, we saw an LE use of a firearm with one, single round fired that stopped the threat. It's usually three of four officers, all packing Crunchentickers, doing multiple mag dumps at a perp who merely gave the appearance of having a gun, and maybe hitting him once in the leg. And then come to find out the guy was just reaching for his wallet or scratching his nose.
As far as cops going round the bend with use of force, this incident was quite the pen full of kittens. Citizens here carry firearms. We would MUCH rather defend ourselves against violent criminals than have the cops roll up. Trust me, it's far sfer that way.
To take this farther, there once was a day when if a cop caught you doing something wrong/stupid they had options other than arrest/tickets and if things got out of hand you'd be more apt to meet their baton/flashlight than any gun or even mace. Back in the '70s cops would TALK to you and we with them but sadly that has changed.
On the other side of the coin, back then parents were mortified if officer Dan brought you home for breaking the law or being caught doing something stupid AND would tan your hide for it after the cop left (or sometimes while he was still standing there). It slowly changed to "my Johnny never does any wrong so it must be the evil jack booted cop". Back then we'd NEVER think it was ok to disobey an order from a cop, forget about hitting or shooting at one. Cops didn't run around in fear for their lives just because they wear a badge.
Back in the '70s I had several cop friends and a few of my friends dads were cops so I got to hear/see both sides of how things worked then. Cops were certainly NOT afraid of the citizenry and the citizenry were not afraid of cops (unless you were a crook and then only afraid of going to jail).
I started to see a change in the '80s when new cops came on the force in our city, they were much more badge heavy which means the badge alone gave them the feeling of being king of all they survey and an "us vs them" attitude. I do think it has a lot to do with taking cops out of neighborhoods and forcing them to stay in their cars due to larger patrol areas with fewer cops. We went from the same cops in our neighborhoods every week who'd just pull up to sit and chat or get out and interact with the locals to someone we'd never met rolling through or just whipping in when there was a call. The personal interaction went away. Maybe that was how this all started?
To take this farther, there once was a day when if a cop caught you doing something wrong/stupid they had options other than arrest/tickets and if things got out of hand you'd be more apt to meet their baton/flashlight than any gun or even mace. Back in the '70s cops would TALK to you and we with them but sadly that has changed.
On the other side of the coin, back then parents were mortified if officer Dan brought you home for breaking the law or being caught doing something stupid AND would tan your hide for it after the cop left (or sometimes while he was still standing there). It slowly changed to "my Johnny never does any wrong so it must be the evil jack booted cop". Back then we'd NEVER think it was ok to disobey an order from a cop, forget about hitting or shooting at one. Cops didn't run around in fear for their lives just because they wear a badge.
Back in the '70s I had several cop friends and a few of my friends dads were cops so I got to hear/see both sides of how things worked then. Cops were certainly NOT afraid of the citizenry and the citizenry were not afraid of cops (unless you were a crook and then only afraid of going to jail).
I started to see a change in the '80s when new cops came on the force in our city, they were much more badge heavy which means the badge alone gave them the feeling of being king of all they survey and an "us vs them" attitude. I do think it has a lot to do with taking cops out of neighborhoods and forcing them to stay in their cars due to larger patrol areas with fewer cops. We went from the same cops in our neighborhoods every week who'd just pull up to sit and chat or get out and interact with the locals to someone we'd never met rolling through or just whipping in when there was a call. The personal interaction went away. Maybe that was how this all started?
I believe so, yes. Cops have become less...human to us, and more an arm of heavy central authority, and to cops we are all just potential collars. The public is always and ever just something to be herded under the power of the badge and gun. Talking to citizens? Just ...talking? Only under suspicion. Cops aren't so much a part of the community anymore as an arm of government. And as you say, on the public side dodging personal accountability is the game. "Dint' do nuthin"'.
Even in small towns and rural areas these days honest interaction just isn't there. Different class of criminals out there now too. Gang fights used to be considered damn nasty if chains and knives came out. Now Glocks are ubiquitous. Back in the day, a cop could take the chance that a kid with a knife didn't really want to use it, and could talk him down. Now it's taken out of hand he WILL use it, and talking is pointless.
Since 911 and the Patriot Act, and now with this war on cops, they are more combat troops than public servants. And the public is caught in the middle. Standard patrolmen are equipped like SWAT used to be, and SWAT ....well, just look at SWAT. I have a couple friends I shoot with who used to be cops. They got out. Because things are getting that bad. They just wanted to be plain old citizens again. One became a firefighter. In light of all that, what happened with this kid and his knives was pretty tame. It actually was a "good" shoot. Far better on the scale than what we see in most other cases.
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.
