Teen Killed By Police Was Bipolar With ADHD

[Duelist]

http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/21167368/detail.html

THis is scary!

[Anelize]

How sad.

[kdbee]

That is fucked up.

I don't think the police had reason to shoot him AT ALL, but they shot him in the HEAD. They didn't shoot him to disarm him. They better pay big time for this one.

Poor kid..his poor mom...a tragedy.

[beetle]

While this is sad and all, the police show up...they don't know the situation. All they know is some kid has a knife to his mothers throat. I'm sure some negotiation took place but ultimately, the cops did what they were supposed to, IMO. Were they supposed to wait and see if he was really going to slice her throat? That whole shooting to disarm business, that's only in the movies and on TV. It's not what happens in a real world situation like this.

So, they called for help. They say they only wanted an ambulance, no cops. I'm not sure you get to choose who your first responder turns out to be. Did the kid only put the knife to his mother's throat when he saw the cops or was he already acting aggresively? Either way, that's the scene the police walked up on. Kid with a knife to mama's throat. If they'd waited and the kid DID slice her throat open, people would be screaming about why the cops didn't act sooner.

The cops are often in a lose, lose situation.

And, if the kid was already acting aggresively and only an ambulance showed up could you imagine the scene for the paramedics? He's obviously not going to want to go to the hospital if he hasn't wanted to take his meds. He's going to put up a fight. Who's to say he wouldn't have pulled a knife on the paramedics, and they have no way of defending themselves. The cops had to be there.

[r2mnot]

The same thing happened here a couple of years ago, except the kid was holding a knife to his own throat. WTF? Why couldn't they have used a taser?

[beetle]

The same thing happened here a couple of years ago, except the kid was holding a knife to his own throat. WTF? Why couldn't they have used a taser?

I figure they couldn't use a tazer in the case posted by the OP because he was likely standing behind his mother, using her as a sheild with the knife to her throat. And even if they could, the muscle contractions from the tazer might have caused him to slice his mom's throat. I'm speculating a lot here, as we all are.

In the case you bring up, I don't know why they didn't use a tazer. That does seem to make more sense in that case. And maybe that case is one of the bad calls made by police. But everytime the cops have to shoot someone who's MI, doesn't make it a bad call.

I mean maybe the cops should carry dart guns loaded with haldol.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

The article doesn't contain enough information to pass judgement, IMO. It fails to convey the exact circumstances at the moment of the shooting, and neither the officers or family members are objective sources to determine whether the force was justified.

Was he an active threat to his mother or the officers? Unclear. Hopefully this will be investigated satisfactorily. But for the record, I don't think that mental illness is a ticket to threaten people with knives without consequence, and the headline seems sensationalist.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

That whole shooting to disarm business, that's only in the movies and on TV. It's not what happens in a real world situation like this.

Bingo. Cops are trained to shoot for centre mass. Firing at a moving, threatening target is difficult unless you're a trained sniper. Hitting the target instead of bystanders takes precedence over trying to hit the target is a specific place.

I did see a video of a suicidal guy in a lawn chair getting a gun shot out of his hand, but that was a sharpshooter. Rank-and-file cops don't get enough range time to pull off Matrix shit.

[kdbee]

So what if the kid wouldn't have wanted to get in the ambulance. These people are supposed to be TRAINED for such situations.

And if the kid had a knife to his moms throat, it would have been stated in the reports plainly and frequently. In all of the reports, I didn't hear it once.

The mom: “I said, ‘Don't shoot!’ They said, ‘Drop the knife,’ and before I knew it, it happened in seconds. They did not negotiate. They did not try to disarm him,” Oquendo said.

Also if it is the case that cops aren't trained better in shooting, where to shoot, etc, they fucking need to be. Them not having the training is absolutely no excuse. If they need better training, there's also excuse for them not to receive more intensive training before given a gun.

[pinkiemarie]

As sad as the whole thing is, I did feel like the story was written rather sympathetically with regards to the illness, which is a step up from the way it's often regarded.

[beetle]

So what if the kid wouldn't have wanted to get in the ambulance. These people are supposed to be TRAINED for such situations.

And if the kid had a knife to his moms throat, it would have been stated in the reports plainly and frequently. In all of the reports, I didn't hear it once.

The mom: “I said, ‘Don't shoot!’ They said, ‘Drop the knife,’ and before I knew it, it happened in seconds. They did not negotiate. They did not try to disarm him,” Oquendo said.

Also if it is the case that cops aren't trained better in shooting, where to shoot, etc, they fucking need to be. Them not having the training is absolutely no excuse. If they need better training, there's also excuse for them not to receive more intensive training before given a gun.

I doubt the typical paramedic is equipped or trained to subdue a knife weilding pyschotic person. Sure they have to wrestle with some unruly patients sometimes but gaining control of a subject in that kind of state is usually the job of the police, not the paramedics. Maybe there should be emergency pdocs that can be called and they show up and then...uh, do what... oh yeah, get a knife brandished at them.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

Also if it is the case that cops aren't trained better in shooting, where to shoot, etc, they fucking need to be. Them not having the training is absolutely no excuse. If they need better training, there's also excuse for them not to receive more intensive training before given a gun.

Well, that's easy to say, but there is a finite amount of time and resources. With regards to 99.9% of their duties, training is better spent ensuring that they are informed of the laws they are supposed to enforce, they are able to conduct good interviews, they know how to fill out their paperwork, they are able to drive satisfactorily, and they are in good physical shape. The vast majority of cops never fire their guns. Now, in these rare circumstances, it is a good thing for them to know how to shoot, but it isn't a priority. The tactical teams are the ones who are supposed to respond to situations where firepower is needed.

My point was that, without more information, I can't really condemn the officers. It sounds like a shitty situation for all involved. And we still don't know the immediate danger to anyone in the circumstance. If it turns out that he was twenty feet away from anyone, I'd totally support charges against the officers.

And, as beetle pointed out, paramedics shouldn't have to deal with knife-wielding maniacs.

[kdbee]

So what if the kid wouldn't have wanted to get in the ambulance. These people are supposed to be TRAINED for such situations.

And if the kid had a knife to his moms throat, it would have been stated in the reports plainly and frequently. In all of the reports, I didn't hear it once.

The mom: “I said, ‘Don't shoot!’ They said, ‘Drop the knife,’ and before I knew it, it happened in seconds. They did not negotiate. They did not try to disarm him,” Oquendo said.

Also if it is the case that cops aren't trained better in shooting, where to shoot, etc, they fucking need to be. Them not having the training is absolutely no excuse. If they need better training, there's also excuse for them not to receive more intensive training before given a gun.

I doubt the typical paramedic is equipped or trained to subdue a knife weilding pyschotic person. Sure they have to wrestle with some unruly patients sometimes but gaining control of a subject in that kind of state is usually the job of the police, not the paramedics. Maybe there should be emergency pdocs that can be called and they show up and then...uh, do what... oh yeah, get a knife brandished at them.

You're right. Agreed.

[kdbee]

Well, that's easy to say, but there is a finite amount of time and resources. With regards to 99.9% of their duties, training is better spent ensuring that they are informed of the laws they are supposed to enforce, they are able to conduct good interviews, they know how to fill out their paperwork, they are able to drive satisfactorily, and they are in good physical shape. The vast majority of cops never fire their guns. Now, in these rare circumstances, it is a good thing for them to know how to shoot, but it isn't a priority. The tactical teams are the ones who are supposed to respond to situations where firepower is needed.

My point was that, without more information, I can't really condemn the officers. It sounds like a shitty situation for all involved. And we still don't know the immediate danger to anyone in the circumstance. If it turns out that he was twenty feet away from anyone, I'd totally support charges against the officers.

And, as beetle pointed out, paramedics shouldn't have to deal with knife-wielding maniacs.

I have to disagree with the allotment of resources. It is extremely irresponsible to let cops go around holding deadly instruments if they are not 100% fully trained.

I'm not disagreeing that the duties you mentioned aren't important, but a stronger emphasis needs to be placed on crisis situations (whether they know what they're getting into or not...which actually makes it even more important)

[Inspired_Neurosis]

Well, that's easy to say, but there is a finite amount of time and resources. With regards to 99.9% of their duties, training is better spent ensuring that they are informed of the laws they are supposed to enforce, they are able to conduct good interviews, they know how to fill out their paperwork, they are able to drive satisfactorily, and they are in good physical shape. The vast majority of cops never fire their guns. Now, in these rare circumstances, it is a good thing for them to know how to shoot, but it isn't a priority. The tactical teams are the ones who are supposed to respond to situations where firepower is needed.

My point was that, without more information, I can't really condemn the officers. It sounds like a shitty situation for all involved. And we still don't know the immediate danger to anyone in the circumstance. If it turns out that he was twenty feet away from anyone, I'd totally support charges against the officers.

And, as beetle pointed out, paramedics shouldn't have to deal with knife-wielding maniacs.

I have to disagree with the allotment of resources. It is extremely irresponsible to let cops go around holding deadly instruments if they are not 100% fully trained.

I'm not disagreeing that the duties you mentioned aren't important, but a stronger emphasis needs to be placed on crisis situations (whether they know what they're getting into or not...which actually makes it even more important)

Fair enough.

[kdbee]

Fair enough.

*hand shake*

and a

*smile*

[Stickler]

I personally would like to see as many police districts as possible have specialist teams for dealing with the mentally ill in crisis, to help minimize such deaths.

That having been said, someone with a knife in their hand is menacing another person, a cop would assume the knife wielder had deadly intent, and act accordingly. The police officer would have had only a fraction of a second in which to prevent a probable murder, which just isn't enough time to think out a response.

When someone is fully psychotic, or on amphetamines/PCP, they can, and do, get adrenaline rushes that can give them an enormous amount of strength and incredible insensitivity to pain. Which can mean, among other things, that a Taser will not reliably or instantly drop them.

When I get bored, I have been known to watch TRU tv (AKA the police chase channel). I have seen a dashcam vid of a man, later found to be high on amphetamines, continue to walk around jerkily as the police were shooting him with a Tazer charge. It took three charges from the Tazer before he fell to the ground and was cuffed while trying to get up again.

In order to achieve the kind of shooting precision with a pistol that is regularly shown in movies (giving people the impression that accuracy with a pistol is easy) you would probably have to start training in adolescence, and maintain training daily, much like an olympic athelete. People who have both the innate reflexes to do this, the training, the money to spend on bullets, and access to an place to practice shooting for a couple of hours daily, are rare, and becoming rarer as our country becomes more urbanized and less people have acreage to set up a home range on their property.

If all police were expected to get competition-accurate with a pistol before going on the street, there would be very few police. It's a nice idea, but impossible to implement.

[AirMarshall]

Being manic/psychotic is no free-pass for threatening others.

Police are generally very well trained with all their equipment and in multitudes of scenarios. Don't forget, we read an occasional sad, difficult story. Cops do this shit 20 times a shift, every damn day. They KNOW when a situation is escalating and getting out of hand.

A person with a knife is a deadly threat within 21 feet, and can cover that distance in about 2 seconds; less than the amount of time it takes to draw a pistol from the holster. These are the accept and proven considerations that every cop knows by heart. Knives are actually more deadly than guns if the attacker touches the attackee.

Tazers are more expensive than a pistol. Unfortunately, I have almost never seen a regular cop anywhere carrying one, except on tv. Cities/counties/states decide how much money they are willing to spend on equipment. Call your mayor and demand they buy more.

Tazers are not precision aimed devices. Police cannot "shoot to disable". That is a myth from TV and movies. Even an expert shot cannot depend on such a policy in a dynamic situation. Arms and legs are actually very small, and have big arteries in them which can be just as deadly. When a cop shoots, he must shoot with the most reliability, effectiveness and with the minimum number of rounds. Shooting for center of mass guarantees the best chance for a hit given a moving target and a nervous/scared shooter. The purpose of shooting is not to kill, but the hydrodynamic effect of bullet rounds tends to shock the nervous system and stun/disable the individual.

When you call 911 you have admitted that you are no longer in control of a situation and are asking the experts to take over. If there is any threat of violence EMS and Firefighters will stay at least a couple blocks away until the police have cleared them to come in. A cop walks into an unknown situation, with a threatening subject. He does not have the luxury of calling a timeout and retreating down the street to conduct a touchy-feely counseling/negotiation via bullhorn.

I have a little experience having been a competitive and expert shooter for over thirty years and having spent six years in reserve law enforcement.

a.m. Oh, and I'm crazy too!

p.s. In the future hopefully cops will be given more non-lethal tools, more practical training in dealing with mentally ill, and MI patients will take their meds or go to the ER before they get hurt.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

I agree with everything that you wrote, AM, and I should have qualified about the whole 20 feet thing. I intended to distinguish between whether force was justified or not in the context, but I did a bad job of articulating it. There is a difference between standing 20 feet away from someone passively, and charging somebody with it drawn. Regardless, it's all conjecture until the details of this incident are better specified.

I think that the only real point of contention I had with ksh was over what can be realistically expected from police in such a scenario. In my opinion, sometimes lethal force is only option available. I think we can all agree that well-trained police who seek to minimize force are something that a society should strive for, but we have to keep limitations and difficulties in mind.

[mudpuppy]

Raise your hand if you've ever been a Cop.

'nuff said.

Shoot to disarm? Pfft.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

Ha. I knew that you'd get around to this thread eventually. I'm impressed by your brevity and restraint.

But yeah, it's easy to blame. Attitudes towards policing and the military are the one area that has alienated me from my fellow civil libertarians. [Note to self: getting political again. Take deep breaths and occupy your mind with something else for 10 minutes.]

[mudpuppy]

Actually, the restraint was mostly a function of not having computer access, and posting from an iPhone. Hard to rant on that small keyboard.

I will say this:

Shooting to disarm is a myth perpetuated by Hollywood. It is neither practical, nor safe, to shoot to disarm.

Even highly trained snipers rarely take that sort of shot. There is significant risk to bystanders. If one should miss the small, moving target, and accidentally injure of kill an innocent bystander, it would be a tragedy of epic proportions.

Generally, all personnel who carry a gun professionally (Law Enforcement and Military, both of which I have done, I'm speaking from experience here, not my ass) are trained to shoot for the largest area of the target presented. Typically that is "Center Mass", in other words, the center of the chest. This allows for slight windage and elevation (left/right, up/down travel in the path of the bullet, or movement of the target). This is safest for all parties involved, and ensures the more accurate marksmanship.

If the chest is obscured, one aims for the next largest exposed portion of the target. In the case of an aggressor using a human shield, this is often the head of the subject.

A tazer in this situation would not have been practical. It would have required several factors, which likely were not present.

First, a large muscle group must be accessible. This means both visible, and within range of the probes. They shoot out on wires. There is a limit to their range. They are also not as accurate in a bullet, and often miss. Additionally, they will not penetrate thick clothing, like a heavy jacket, or layers of clothing.

You need a large muscle group. You cannot shoot someone in the face or neck with a tazer. First, because the likelihood of missing is high. Second because if you strike bone, the probes may not sufficiently embed in the flesh. Finally, because a tazer works by immobilizing a large muscle group. The probes must be in close proximity to said large muscle group to have any impact.

Now, a word on "Use of Force" and "Escalation of Force".

There are multiple levels of "Force" available to the Law Enforcement Officer.

Based upon my training, I know them to be as follows:

Verbal Persuasion. Ideally, the level of force we would all like to see effective. About 60% of the time (IME), it is.

Unarmed, Hand-to-Hand Combat. I believe the civilian LEO sector uses I different term, but I've been out of it so long that I've forgotten it. Basically, using a combination of joint manipulation and brute force, to get a suspect to comply. The level of effectiveness is dependant on several factors.

Oleoresin Capsicum Sprays. The professional term for "Pepper Spray". This typically does not work on intoxicated subjects. It has also been demonstrated to have little effect on severely manic or agitated people. Some people are also immune to its effects due to ethnicity, diet, etc. It is also a poor choice in a small, confined space, where the Officer himself may be blinded by the spray.

Tazer. An option NOT available to most Military personnel, virtually all Civilian LEOs have access to this level of Force. It's limitations were already outlined above.

Police K9. If a K9 is available, it should be employed before the use of the baton, as it reduces the risk of injury to both the Officer and the subject. However, K9s are often not available, or cannot be deployed because of the nature of the threat.

Baton. Formerly known as a nightstick or club. Depending on how a Baton is employed, it is considered a non-lethal or lethal use of force. For example, the Officers in the Rodney King incident used the baton in a lethal manner, which is why they were convicted of Police Brutality. A little more on WHY, in a bit.

Display of Deadly Force. In short, this consists of drawing your sidearm, and warning the subject that you will be forced to employ it, should he/she not comply. This may also apply to certain displays with the Police Baton.

Use of Deadly Force. This would be actually firing your weapon, with the intent to stop the threat, or using the Baton in a deadly manner.

So, those are the LEVELS of Force.

Here is how they are used.

A physically combative, unarmed subject may not be subdued with deadly force.

The highest level of force that may be used on an unarmed subject is a Baton.

Typically, one starts at the lowest level of force that would be effective and necessary to ensure Officer and bystander safety, and escalate as the situations dictates.

It is NOT, however, necessary to escalate THROUGH each level of force.

A person armed with a weapon is always presented with a Display of Deadly Force.

They pose a lethal threat to the Officer and Bystanders. It is a matter of Officer Safety, and the safety of bystanders, and it is a major liability, to address a lethal threat with anything LESS than a minimum of Display of Deadly Force.

The Officers in the Rodney King incident were found guilty because once Mr. King was removed from his vehicle, he could no longer be said to be presenting a lethal threat. He was combative and non-compliant, but the Officers involved employed their Batons in a method considered to be Deadly Force. In that situation, Mr. King could not be said to have presented a lethal threat. Therefore, the highest level of force that would have been considered appropriate would have been the use of the Baton in a NON-Deadly manner, or the employment of Police K9s. The manner in which the batons were employed, exceeded non-lethal use. Hence- Police Brutality.

While I do not know the details of the case that spurred this post, I can say this much:

Person armed with a knife is met with a minimum of a display of Deadly Force.

If the display followed by a warning is insufficient to stop the immediate threat to Officers and/or bystanders or victims, the Display is followed by Use of Deadly Force.

Period.

Paramedics/EMTs in almost ALL jurisdictions, will NOT enter the scene of a crime in progress.

PERIOD.

In almost all jurisdictions, it is ILLEGAL for a Paramedic/EMT to be armed. They have no way to defend themselves. They DO NOT enter a home when a person is armed and combative. They wait for Law Enforcement to arrive and neutralize the threat, before they will enter to render aid.

While the mother may not have WANTED Police assistance, the Law dictates and Standard Operating Procedure dictate that Police must first disarm and subdue the threat, before the EMTs will enter the domicile.

If she told Emergency Operators that her son had a knife, they had no choice but to dispatch Law Enforcement.

Having knowledge that a crime was in progress- in this case, Assault with a Deadly Weapon and/or Attempted Murder, Police were both within their jurisdiction to enter the home and stop the crime in progress.

But, I suppose Cop Bashing is a pastime that never grows old.

[vanderk]

What more can I add? Air Marshall and Mud Puppy have perspective few others here will ever experience. I will only add that peace officers (a title I wish were used more often) are very highly trained. They are on the range and in mock up excercises very regularly. I occasionally get to participate in these situations in my jail work. The amount of preparation that goes into these scenarios is impressive. Moreso the debriefing. Cop bashing never grows old. Admittedly, some cops act out of line and fully deserve the bashing they receive (the internal bashing is much worse than that inflcited by the community). But the vast majority act as reasonably as the situation dictates. The situation this time was mighty dicey. Rubber bullets? Bean bags? Maybe. Taser? Almost certainly not. By the time it takes to deliberate someone is probably dead. Mighty glad I work on the periphery of law enforcement, not in the hot center.

[AnneMarie]

Not knowing the details, this still sounds like a similar situation here a number of years ago. Rookie cop shot and killed crazy son in home. In this case, it was despite mother's pleas to not use force. Not sure that's a parallel but it sounds like it may have been. There was a very big community outrage because a/ the kid was crazy not murderous, and b/ there were cultural and language differences. Due to the community reaction, all in the PD are now required to receive reasonably in depth training in cultural differences and in recognizing and handling crazy (erratic and threatening behavior often is the crazy and not the same type of threat as other situations / de-escallation often is the best course). The number of cop shootings in this and similar situations dropped appreciably. The cops deaths did not increase, either.

I so strongly disagree with the earlier statement that beat cop training should focus on paperwork instead of handling violent/deadly situations. Tactical is called in when there is time to call them in. It is the first responder who encounters the most threatening/violent situations. There is time if the first responder has not already killed or been killed. Training on how to handle threatening situations is paramount to having an effective police department that doesn't needlessly kill people out of ignorance and lack of training. Not all, but most situations can be managed without using deadly force. How to do that is not always instinctive. If we the tax payers are not insisting that our cops are trained to not kill us or others except as last resort, and to do this in a manner safe to them as well, we suck as employers and deserve the results we get. So, I really would not want to live in the community that said just train first responders on how to process reports and time cards.

[Duelist]

I didn't comment on this other then Scary, I think what contributed to this the most was that the kid was violent, AND OFF his MEDS! I don't think in this situation that they could have used less force and I wasn't posting this to cop bash. I really don't think it's fair to judge off the limited info given. Just to calrify my thoughts on this...

[mudpuppy]

This is the narrative from my FAVORITE episode of Dragnet.

YES, Dragnet.

One of the best Police dramas ever made. Back before Rodney King. Back before Cop Bashing became a National Pastime.

Back when you always wore your hat, you polished your shoes and your Sam Browne. Back when people still remembered why Cops are CALLED Cops.

This is the show that made me wanna be a Cop.

And this is my favorite episode... why Detective Sergeant Friday tells a young, rookie Cop, what it is to be a Cop.

It's awkward having a policeman around the house. Friends drop in, a man with a badge answers the door, the temperature drops 20 degrees. You throw a party and that badge gets in the way. All of a sudden there isn't a straight man in the crowd. Everybody's a comedian. "Don't drink too much," somebody says, "or the man with a badge'll run you in." Or "How's it going, Dick Tracy? How many jaywalkers did you pinch today?" And then there's always the one who wants to know how many apples you stole.

All at once you lost your first name. You're a cop, a flatfoot, a bull, a dick, John Law. You're the fuzz, the heat; you're poison, you're trouble, you're bad news. They call you everything, but never a policeman.

It's not much of a life, unless you don't mind missing a Dodger game because the hotshot phone rings. Unless you LIKE working Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, at a job that doesn't pay overtime. Oh, the pay's adequate-- if you count pennies you can put your kid through college, but you better plan on seeing Europe on your television set.

And then there's your first night on the beat. When you try to arrest a drunken prostitute in a Main St. bar and she rips your new uniform to shreds. You'll buy another one-- out of your own pocket. And you're going to rub elbows with the elite-- pimps, addicts, thieves, bums, winos, girls who can't keep an address and men who don't care. Liars, cheats, con men-- the class of Skid Row.

And the heartbreak-- underfed kids, beaten kids, molested kids, lost kids, crying kids, homeless kids, hit-and-run kids, broken-arm kids, broken-leg kids, broken-head kids, sick kids, dying kids, dead kids. The old people nobody wants-- the reliefers, the pensioners, the ones who walk the street cold, and those who tried to keep warm and died in a $3 room with an unventilated gas heater. You'll walk your beat and try to pick up the pieces.

Do you have real adventure in your soul? You better have, because you're gonna do time in a prowl car. Oh, it's going to be a thrill a minute when you get an "unknown trouble" call and hit a backyard at 2 in the morning, never knowing who you'll meet-- a kid with a knife, a pill-head with a gun, or two ex-cons with nothing to lose. And you're going to have plenty of time to think. You'll draw duty in a lonely car, with nobody to talk to but your radio.

Four years in uniform and you'll have the ability, the experience and maybe the desire to be a detective. If you like to fly by the seat of your pants, this is where you belong. For every crime that's committed, you've got 3 million suspects to choose from. And most of the time, you'll have few facts and a lot of hunches. You'll run down leads that dead-end on you. You'll work all-night stakeouts that could last a week. You'll do leg work until you're sure you've talked to everybody in the state of California: people who saw it happen, but really didn't. People who insist they did it, but really didn't. People who don't remember; those who try to forget. Those who tell the truth; those who lie. You'll run the files until your eyes ache.

And paperwork? You'll fill out a report when you're right, you'll fill out a report when you're wrong, you'll fill one out when you're not sure, you'll fill one out listing your leads, you'll fill one out when you have no leads, you'll make out a report on the reports you've made. You'll write enough words in your lifetime to stock a library.

You'll learn to live with doubt, anxiety, frustration. Court decisions that tend to hinder rather than help you. Dorado, Morse, Escobedo, Cahan. You'll learn to live with the District Attorney, testifying in court, defense attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, judges, juries, witnesses. And sometimes you're not going to be happy with the outcome.

But there's also this: there are over 5,000 men in this city, who know that being a policeman is an endless, glamourless, thankless job that's gotta be done.

I know it, too, and I'm damn glad to be one of them.

I've never seen LEO Training that didn't involve education and training on crisis intervention and how to approach Mentally Ill suspects and victims.

I've received specialized training, as a routine matter, in both recognizing and addressing mentally ill persons.

I'm not aware of anywhere that this isn't standard, excepting perhaps very VERY small rural municipalities.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

Stacia: Okay, that was another paragraph that I could have worded better. In fact, I butchered what I intended to say so badly that, upon review, I don't even agree with what I had written. Here's what I meant: It is not at all possible for all armed police officers to be sharpshooters with a handgun, regardless of training and resources. Training cops to shoot people in the feet, etc, is a pipe dream. And if a police department hypothetically did attempt to train their officers to that point, it would be wasteful AND dangerous, because the vast majority would plateau at a skill level well below this superhuman expectation.

That's pretty much what I met to say. Not all peace officers can be Simo Häyhä. "Shooting to disable" is impossible for anyone short of a marksman with something more useful than a Glock, for the reasons outlined several times in this thread. I'll choose my words more carefully in the future.

Mud: Heh. That's more like the rant I expected out of you.

[Caillech]

So what if the kid wouldn't have wanted to get in the ambulance. These people are supposed to be TRAINED for such situations.

Actually, from what I understand...first responders have very little training when it comes to mental illness. They are the worst (but most necessary) people to call in a situation like this.

[gizmo]

I hate to wade into this, but this happened in my city. There are lots of facts that weren't reported in that news article that have come to light after the initial rush to judgment passed.

First, the mother insisted that her son was not violent and was only using her as a shield because he was afraid of the police. But the bottom line was he was holding her as a shield with a sharp knife at her neck. A person holding another person as a hostage doesn't almost decapitate the person when using them as a human shield.

Second, the police officers gave the boy several, and I repeat, several chances to drop the knife without surrendering his mother. He didn't do that.

While the mother shouted "He's bipolar" to the cops, I really don't think this would have changed their tactical response. He was a sad, messed up, violently bipolar kid. It's a shame that he had to die, but ultimately, it was his choice to take his mother hostage at knife point. Honestly, there are plenty of people who get killed each year by cops because they are brandishing weapons, and this one should really be considered no different that a homeless man with schizophrenia brandishing a shank.

Oh, and the head shot? It was the only part of him visible where, if shot, wouldn't harm his mother. Physically, that it.

I agree it's a sad case. But it's a trickle-down case. If his meds were managed, or his school was more structured, or his doctors more on top of things, any of these things might have resulted in the saving of a young life. It's such a waste.

[Duelist]

I think that's what bothers me the most gizmo, that this young man was wasted potential because of whatever excuses people want to give, he should have had someone explain to him WHY he needed to be complaint with his meds, to help him when he was floundering between taking them and stopping them. If we don't DO something to save these young teens being dx'd with BP I & BP II we're gonna lose them and their families lives will have lost potential as well which could be avoided IF SOMEONE GAVE a DAMN! I don't have the answers, I know there are no clearcut answers, but it's really sad seeing yet another young bipolar man dying at the hands of police, many MI people seek out death by police as a form of suicide, that could be what we had here, sure sounds like it don't it?

[Stickler]

it's really sad seeing yet another young bipolar man dying at the hands of police

Yes, absolutely.

I know in my county there is a program to send around a monitoring team for disabled-level mentally ill people who are considered at-risk. The team's job is to make sure the mentally ill people they deal with are stabilized, not in any danger(the mentally ill, remember, are way more likely to be harmed by the general populace than the other way around), taking their meds, eating, bathing, not living in health-hazard conditions, etc. This program saves money and lives. I'd love to get a job on it someday.

The thing to do is to catch the situation before the deadly weapons come out. But try to get officials to allot the money...sigh.

(Interestingly enough, in the escalation-of-force menu I learned when I got my protection officer cert, pepper spray is actually surprisingly low on the list. Otherwise, about the same, except that guards are not encouraged to use physical force, ever. We're there to save the company money, not cost it a million-dollar lawsuit.)

[Inspired_Neurosis]

The thing to do is to catch the situation before the deadly weapons come out. But try to get officials to allot the money...sigh.

This is really a separate debate from what has already been discussed, but I do not at all like the idea of operating under any kind of assumption of guilt as far as MI is concerned. There is so much potential for abuse if we relax the protocol for committing people or forcing any kind of rehabilitation before a crime is committed. Unfortunately, some people lose it, and some people have to die. No degree of preventative measures will stop this. It would be a far greater injustice if we started any kind of actions against people that we suspect may eventually go postal.

Now, I don't want to be reading anything from your post that you didn't clearly imply, but I just thought I'd throw that out there. Not saying that you suggested anything. Just wanted to counter a possible implication of that line of thinking.

[Stickler]

Some people do, in fact, lose it and are killed to prevent imminent deadly harm to another. And there's no 100% way of defusing situations. However, some unknown-but-probably significant number of dangerous situations could be prevented with better management practices. Now that I think about it, even insuring access to treatment would be a step forward in many places. Craziness can affect your ability to keep a job(!), and the people who are the most in need of services often have the least ability to pay.

The program I was referencing is for people who are MI-disabled, who have had repeated hospitalizations. The program helps keep them out of the hospital and out of jail.

In this particular young man's case, there may or may not have been a way to prevent what happened. I imagine the young man would have experimented with going off meds sooner or later, and I'm not sure anyone could have made him take those meds when he decided to stop them. Teenagers take risks-it's what they do.

[AnneMarie]

Stacia: Okay, that was another paragraph that I could have worded better. In fact, I butchered what I intended to say so badly that, upon review, I don't even agree with what I had written. Here's what I meant: It is not at all possible for all armed police officers to be sharpshooters with a handgun, regardless of training and resources. Training cops to shoot people in the feet, etc, is a pipe dream. And if a police department hypothetically did attempt to train their officers to that point, it would be wasteful AND dangerous, because the vast majority would plateau at a skill level well below this superhuman expectation.

That's pretty much what I met to say. Not all peace officers can be Simo Häyhä. "Shooting to disable" is impossible for anyone short of a marksman with something more useful than a Glock, for the reasons outlined several times in this thread. I'll choose my words more carefully in the future.

Mud: Heh. That's more like the rant I expected out of you.

I can agree with that pretty easily.