15 yo Asperger Teen Shot Dead by Police

Post Reply New Topic

I just read about the news and... if someone attacked me with a knife, I'd protect myself by whatever means necessary. It says one of the policemen received a light wound, but it could have perfectly been nastier had he been unluckier. There are better ways to deal with it, sure, but shooting at someone who's flailing a knife at you, and even managed to harm you once, doesn't seem completely unreasonable.

And the fact that he was autistic and not able to control what he was doing plays actually against him. I got mugged at gunpoint not too long ago, but the guy was looking for money so I just emptied my wallet and he left me shaken and pennyless but otherwise unharmed. If that guy hadn't been in control of himself I could have been shot, and if such a guy, armed or unarmed, attacked me, I'd assume that as he isn't in control of himself, he's incapable of reasoning, so I'd use crippling and potentially deadly force against him (eye gouging, neck punching, knee smashing, and other nasty stuff.) And if I somehow had a gun with me, I'd certainly use it.

Policemen should have training to deal with these cases without resorting to deadly force. But if they felt the kid was a threat to their life and physical integrity, they have the right to defend themselves.

Sorry, but your magical wonderland where no one dies doesn't exist.

then its good i never said no one dies,
its your head putting it in that context,

other than that im done here, you can read up on it if you want but there arte plenty of countries in the eu that would take similar actions if they identify a lack of judgement.
some wont and in some cases that wont happen but to denounce it completely is as naive as the "wonderland" you think i describe.

List of places where police officers try to negotiate with people who are currently shooting at them: Your imagination.

You really aren't in a position to call anyone naive. Maybe you just decided that a few news stories about crazy gunmen who didn't die makes it the norm.

well then lets see this large amount of people dead in danish shootings then

also i never said they negotiated, nor did i say no one died,
nor did say the police wouldnt fire back when needed, what i do say is that that limit is placed in quite different places it seems.
gang related crime is the only "common" form of shootings but as said earlier(which was the point of it) these shootings rarely involve police simply becaue of where when and why the gangs decide to shoot.
meaning that most cases the police are actually involved in directly are situations where we are not talking about people with the main motivator to hurt others, but people pressured into a situation they quite simply cant cope with, there are plenty of examples if i cared enough about your opinion to translate all the articles. google translate should work.


so believe it or not, make it into your own little fantasy or not but i never said most of what you wrote, flawed inferrence.
bear in mind we are talking a few hundred shootings(200-300 as far as i recall) and even less fatalities countrywide.

What kind of ridiculous logic lead you to believe that a low homicide rate means the police won't shoot you if you're being dangerous? And what makes you think a few examples is enough to make it the norm?

You seem to be under the delusion that cops care about your mental issues while they're being shot at.

If you think I'm interpretting you incorrectly, then present your point more clearly. I can barely understand what your point is.

why dont you read back

my point has been clearly stated froms everal different sides,

as i said the point is there is a limit where fatal violence is warranted and in denmark that line is in another place.
in that light shooting a person with a butter knife when agitated in the head is not a measured responese but an overreaction.

also i never said they cared and i never said they wouldnt shoot back you think in black and white and it shows, what i did
say was that the police is trained to take the state of mind of the person in question into account because of how important that often is.

most shootings ind enmark do not lead to the loss of life even if the cops where endangered, that is why i tell you lets see all these dead in denmark from shootings, because they simply arent there and when you start searching you will see just how many cases the police where in danger and still didnt kill every threat with a shot to the head.

but then again just as i have a hard time understanding how one can justify a headhsot on a 15 year old with a butter knife you might simply not be capable of understanding

So let me get this straight.
You're attributing the low homicide rate in Denmark to the idea that the police there are less willing to shoot?

As I've said, if you can't grasp the idea that a person trying to stab you is dangerous, there's just no helping you.

no (read back)

and i already did(read back)

Ugh, this is the last time I'm ever going to argue with someone who has a communication problem. Or if there's a language barrier. Or both.

Excessive force.

If two police officers can't physically handle a lone teenager with a butter knife, then they shouldn't be police officers.

One of my best friends is a cop; and I want her to come home every night. If someone attacks her with a weapon, she has a right to shoot them. If anyone attacks anyone with a weapon, they have a right to defend themselves with deadly force.

Now; does that mean he was a bad guy who deserved to die? NO.

It makes it an even greater tragedy, but what if the knife had hit a vein in the cop's neck and the cop bled out?

No one wins in these cases.

Who are the trolls that come to this website? Why am I wasting my time responding to a fraud trolling this website?

The police invaded the space of his home. From what I read he was backed into a corner making it impossible to simply walk away. The idiot quoted above blames someone for using a butter knife, and has absolutely no criticism about the police using real guns with real bullets.

paraphrasing Bob Dylan, "You criticize what you don't understand" As if police wasn't threatening enough, it would have to come out in a court case what actions the police did to further put the kid into self defense mode.

Police being in the kid's home, and backing him into a corner. The kid felt like he was in a situation that he felt required self defense, and had just as much right to practice self defense.

People seem to think the police can do whatever the hell they want, and said thought has led them to doing just that.

The teenager was murdered because he was having a meltdown due to not wanting to go to school (school being hell for so many with Asperger's even if there's no bullying).

Parents are at fault too for forcing him to do such (which is just forcing an abnormal person to try and be normal) and taking away his computer (which probably was his interest).

If I wanted to stay home from school, my mother would let me. She saw how hard it was for me. If I was forced, it wouldn't have been pretty at all.

I think it's sad how people can actually justify shooting the poor kid.
Cops are trained in not only self defense, but also in non-lethal combat, it is their job to only shoot to kill as a LAST RESORT. Any other instance and that's what stunners and control batons are for. The cops, IMO, clearly were negligent in their capabilities to handle a kid with a butter knife.
Yes even a butter knife can kill, but guess what? So can bare hands, and shooting to kill someone who has no gun, is wrong.
If there had only been one officer, that'd be a different story, but there were three that day, and the two not "sustaining defensive wounds" could have easily used their tasers to take care of the situation. It takes the same amount of time to raise a stunner and fire it, as it does to raise a gun and fire it. I think the officers that fired their guns were negligent in their responsibility to protect human life and should at least be suspended pending a real investigation (which in most precincts is standard procedure when an officer kills a suspect with their firearm).

Like I said, if it had just been the one officer, it would be a different story, but there were three, and I find it hard to believe that they "had no choice but to kill" the kid. If three officers (h*ll, even two) can't tackle and/or otherwise subdue ONE guy with a knife, what does that say? It says "they're incapable of doing their jobs properly".