danlo wrote:
In situations like this, I can't help but point out: How are police supposed to determine that someone is autistic/has special needs, while keeping a safe distance? Do you know if it was 2 police officers who came across him or just the 1? Unlike most conditions, autism simply does not have 1 big sign shouting to passerbys "I am autistic!". Most people you meet wouldn't be able to tell, even though they might suspect something is up, I'm sure most of you would just present a little bit odd. And yet we expect the police to diagnose people on the fly? Should they assume every odd-presenting person is autistic, just so a couple of mistakes don't happen and unarmed people don't get tasered? They've got themselves to worry about also. In hindsight, it's easy to say "He was unarmed, he was harmless", but it is very different in-the-moment. We need to lower our expectations of what police should do. They're not perfect, they're human, and they do make mistakes. Oh my god, they're not perfect? Well, then they MUST be evil! Right?
No, not 'diagnosing on the fly'. But you don't need to aim for anything vital/major to stop someone getting away. A few bullets to the leg should do it.
_________________
<a href="http://www.kia-tickers.com><img src="http://www.kia-tickers.com/bday/ticker/19901105/+0/4/1/name/r55/s37/bday.png" border="0"> </a>