Police officer kills unarmed adolescent

[Zaune]

Some US law enforcement agencies have a similar policy but only involving vehicle pursuits. I imagine Germany is the same since the risk to the public generated by a foot pursuit is quite small.

I can think of scenarios where it would be safer to break of a foot pursuit, actually, at least not without a lot of backup. Can't speak for Germany but if someone's known to be armed and dangerous in Britain, standard operating procedure is to hang back at a distance and follow them with air support until our local equivalent of SWAT arrives.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You asked why the kid wouldn't be shot in Germany.

True. I apologize.

Fact is, in the US, a cop is allowed to pull his gun in such a situation (although a reasonable cop won't...), in Germany, he is NOT even allowed to pull a gun in this situation. So the fact stands that the German cop would not already have a gun in hand at pursuit, and he would not have a gun in hand in front of the shed.

Is he allowed to defend himself? Yes, of course.
You are trying to create this usual, and ridiculous "Guy is storming at you in an alley, you have a gun" scenario - yes, if he were attacked with a weapon, he is allowed to fire his gun.

I'm not trying to create anything. Don't project. Thanas made what I felt was a conflicting statement based off our other discussions. I thought maybe something had changed.

But if, like in your scenario, the kid storms out of the shed at a distance that makes the cop feel threatened without having time to assess whether the kid is armed or not, the time would not suffice to pull a gun. So the question if he may shoot to kill is moot.

Also, there are higher standards of conduct in German police than US police when it comes to drawing a gun. Just storming out of the shed is NOT sufficient reason to pull, unless you can clearly see him having a weapon before he got inside or when he comes out.

In the US that policy could get you or another officer killed. So, it may be a higher standard in Germany but in the US that would be an unreasonable standard not to mention very stupid.

In most cases, self-defence would not include firearm use. Even if, he is mandated to try a non-lethal shot. In whole Germany (~80 mil. people), there are usually around 50 cases (Source, 2000-2004) of police officers using a firearm against a human, with about 10 % resulting in death, and 30% in no harm (warning shot).

In the US a warning shot is considered reckless and I don't believe it is permitted by any agency.

Also, if he were a German cop, he would already be fired and would probably face charges for what happened in this incident.

As SVPD pointed out the fact that he wasn't terminated makes you wonder what the actual details are regarding these disciplinary actions. If he was written up for failure to obey a supervisor because he didn't wash his department car then that's not really a reason to terminate anyone.

[LaCroix]

You asked why the kid wouldn't be shot in Germany.

True. I apologize.

No harm done.

In the US that policy could get you or another officer killed. So, it may be a higher standard in Germany but in the US that would be an unreasonable standard not to mention very stupid.

This I can agree to. The life of a cop is really different in the States and Europe...

In the US a warning shot is considered reckless and I don't believe it is permitted by any agency.

In Europe, it is practically mandatory. Usually it is sufficient to end a dangerous situation.

Also, if he were a German cop, he would already be fired and would probably face charges for what happened in this incident.

As SVPD pointed out the fact that he wasn't terminated makes you wonder what the actual details are regarding these disciplinary actions. If he was written up for failure to obey a supervisor because he didn't wash his department car then that's not really a reason to terminate anyone.

The fact he wasn't terminated for his prior stuff isn't of relevance in this case. I don't care at all.
I was referring that in Germany, every case of firearm use will be followed up by a criminal investigation, in which the cop has to be cleared. This case of firing at an unarmed minor will certainly not end well for the officer in question. The evidence is just "I thought he had", and that will not get him far. Prison is very well possible.

[Thanas]

Listen small fry. I brought it up again because you made a conflicting statement. The answer is yes, a german police officer could use deadly force to defend himself in the same situation and as far as I'm concerned shooting to wound is still considered deadly force because you're using a firearm.

No, he could not, at least not until the guy has a weapon and is imminently about to kill or severely injure the officer. Like a really huge knife and actively trying to stab the guy. Heck, there even is an argument whether using a gun in response to a baseball bat is justified.

A kid charging at somebody (was it ever proven he had a weapon, btw?) is not considered that huge a threat in German law that it justifies gun usage. (And I dispute that using a gun to wound somebody is the same as deadly force, especially considering the statistic on police gun usage in Germany. The "warning shot" also poses little to no risk whatsoever, so I do not get the panicky US fear of them). If he is just charging at you then responsible use of force requires using your own body strength and at most very limited baton usage to respond to it. Basically, an officer is only supposed to use a gun or baton when his own physical ability to overwhelm the problem is in question.

Is this maybe more risky? Possible. OTOH a police officer getting killed almost never happens over here and not killing people (even if they are criminal scum) is regarded as a higher priority in this case.

Then again, how many police officers get killed by adolescents in the US in a year that make this a credible threat?


The way I see it the officer in question commited several severe fuckups:
- he disobeyed direct orders to not pursue the suspect. Alarm bells ringing off right here.
- he called for no backup nor let anybody know about the situation
- he tried no deescalation strategy once he got the guy in the shed. He approached the shed with a gun drawn. This might have even triggered the whole thing in the kid - him being cornered, not thinking straight and OMG there is this cop with a gun coming down on me. Considering the reputation of some police agencies the guy might have thought the police meant him harm.

Sure, if the guy was armed and charged at the officer (proven?) then yeah, he is ultimately responsible. But the officer certainly contributed to this and in my opinion he should suffer consequences for that. Maybe even prison.

Honestly, have you even heard of the above situation happening in Germany? I'd guess not but I will say that's a win for you.

Of a cop shooting an adolescent? Yeah. It happens even in Germany. A cop shot a kid six times or so when said kid "attacked" at him. Said cop is iirc now serving prison sentence because - surprise - German cops are supposed to handle adolescents without emptying their clip into them. Panicking is not an excuse. You are a cop and trained to act that way, so do it. Society trusts you with tremendous power, if you can't handle it too bad.

Being a cop in Germany sounds a lot better than being one in the US.

It probably is, but standards are also higher for the force in the first place. We've gone over that as well.

My example is from the area of SLC, Utah. This story is out of San Antonio, Texas where young teenage gun violence is much higher. In Vegas, they had a 13 year old steal beer (harmless crime) from a local convience store. A police officer began a chase. This 13 year old drops his beer turns around and assumes a good platformed stance and fires several rounds at the Vegas cop. Also, in Vegas they have 16 year old gang members going out and robbing convience stores at gun point and then fleeing in vehicles from police.

In how many cases of a cop pursuing adolescents is this the case, though? Is it typical for US adolescents to pull guns or is it the odd freak case? Because if not, then what business does he have pulling his gun in the first place? Was he so out of shape that a 16-year old kid outmuscled him? Did he saw a weapon when he pursued him?

This was a 14 year old kid, who had no evidence possessing a weapon. It was also clear he did not pick up a huge weapon like a machete or ax out of the shed. So pray tell, what weapon could the officer have seen?

Let me ask you something - are you really certain that the police officer in question was under a legitimate threat here when he shot the guy and that the kid was that huge a threat?

The fact he wasn't terminated for his prior stuff isn't of relevance in this case. I don't care at all.
I was referring that in Germany, every case of firearm use will be followed up by a criminal investigation, in which the cop has to be cleared. This case of firing at an unarmed minor will certainly not end well for the officer in question. The evidence is just "I thought he had", and that will not get him far. Prison is very well possible.

If there was no evidence of the kid having a weapon then he will end up in prison almost certainly. Might even be manslaughter eventually getting down to involuntary manslaughter.

[Simon_Jester]

Listen small fry. I brought it up again because you made a conflicting statement. The answer is yes, a german police officer could use deadly force to defend himself in the same situation and as far as I'm concerned shooting to wound is still considered deadly force because you're using a firearm.

No, he could not, at least not until the guy has a weapon and is imminently about to kill or severely injure the officer. Like a really huge knife and actively trying to stab the guy. Heck, there even is an argument whether using a gun in response to a baseball bat is justified.

A person with a baseball bat is capable of killing or severely injuring you, I'd think.

I think you're on much firmer ground with your points about the lack of de-escalation tactics, and about how the policeman's actions made it more likely that this would end in violence (and the teenager getting shot) by cornering him and not calling for backup.

[TheHammer]

The lawsuit says he violated procedure, as well as disobeyed orders. I can't speak to specifics since they aren't included, hopefully they will emerge later.

Yeah, the attorney that the family hired is doing his job. He's alleging these policy violations. Doesn't mean any actually took place. The only thing we know that did happen was he disobeyed orders.

As noted, we can pick up that discussion once evidence is presented at trial. If he didn't violate procedure, but merely disobeyed orders then perhaps a lesser charge.

WHY is that unreasonable? Society gives police a gun and authority to use it. I don't think its unreasonable to expect them to comply with policies or orders from their superiors, or hold them accountable for failing to do so. I'm not saying it would apply in all cases, but in cases such as above the officer in question's behavior was akin to Criminally negligent manslaughter as defined here http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... nslaughter

Yes, so do I. The same way I hold you accountable for not following the policies in your job. You get fired. You only get charged with a crime if you actually commit a crime. However, regardless of whatever policies you violate you did not force the other person to try and take your life. If that is what took place the responsibility and consequences for that action rest upon the shoulders of that kid and he paid the price for trying to take the life of another person.

There are certain policies that if I don't follow I'm not only fired, but held criminally accountable. If a worker operating a construction crane doesn't follow proper procedure and people get killed, not only is he fired but likely prosecuted as criminally negligent.

The Officer's refusing to obey orders and not following proper procedures could easily be construed as a failure to perform his duty. There do not appear to be any extenuating circumstances that would excuse his doing so. It may well be that ultimately the Kid "charged out" of the shed, However it is clear that the Officer needlessly escalated the situation. So, while the shooting may be justified, the officers recklessness that lead to the situation was not. And yes there may not be a particular statute for this, but there damn well should be.

I disagree. Fire this cop. Charging him with a crime for protecting himself is retarded and unreasonable. He didn't escalate the situation. He did what a cop is suppose to do. Using your logic any cop that chases a suspect is "escalating" the situation. As I've stated before this officer didn't do anything that another officer wouldn't do in a similiar situation. What makes it unique is he was given an UNUSUAL order to not pursue the suspect. The only time you'd hear that in my city is for a vehicle pursuit that is endangering the lives of OTHER CITIZENS not the fucking suspect.

I thought cops were supposed to obey the orders of their superiors and follow procedure. The order to "not pursue" was hardly unusual because the "Suspect" was a 14 year old boy who went to a school in the district this idiot patrolled. The crime was minor, there was no need to go into hot pursuit over a school yard fight when you could easily find out where the boy lived from his school records, or pick him up when he went to school the next day. It was the most sensible order in the world.

IF it turns out that the statement about violating procedure is bullshit, and he in fact did everyting "by the book" (aside from disobeying orders), then I could see him not criminally culpable. However, if he did not follow procedure, and because of that lead to the escalation resulting in a situation where he "needed to defend himself" then he should most certainly be held criminally responsible as I have noted. Given this guy's track record, I find it highly unlikely that he did anything "by the book"...

And that's giving this prick the benefit of the doubt that he was in fact "defending himself" and not jackass on a power trip pissed off that the kid ran rather than "obey his commands"... and who decided to "teach this punk a lesson". I'd find that just as likely as him being "attacked and in fear of his life" by the boy.

I can see why you might empathize with him because you imagine yourself maybe being in that situation. I can understand that. But honestly, do you think you'd have done what that officer did? The fourteen your old boy, who you keep referring to as "the suspect" wasn't some dangerous criminal. He was a kid who got into a minor one punch fight, got scared, and ran away. If it had been your child maybe you wouldn't be so quick to excuse the behavior of the officer involved.

Exactly

I'll consider this a concession on that point.

I wasn't aware that "rolling eyes" constituted a point?

[Wing Commander MAD]

Thanas, two questions for you regarding your post. What exactly is meant by a "warning shot"? I'm thinking along the lines of discharging the weapon into the air, though that is still dangerous and I believe technically illegal over here, at least in some locales (especially cities), due to the danger to others. A warning shot seems to greatly increase the danger to innocent bystanders regardless, something that should be even more likely to occur in Germany than the United States, due to increased population density. Second, why does it have to be a huge weapon? For example, a screw driver is just as deadly as a machete when wielded as a weapon (arguably maybe even more so, due to the increased lethality of deep puncture wounds on the torso v.s. lacerations on extremeties and the torso). A larger weapon certainly may have some advantages like reach and momentum compared to a smaller and most likely lighter weapon, but that doesn't make the smaller improvised weapon any less deadly. It just means one is less efficient than the other, not that they both can't achieve the same goal of making you dead.

[Simon_Jester]

The main issues are reach and momentum and ability to overcome the officer's baton.

I wouldn't want to take a screwdriver against someone who has a club, but I might try to take a machete, or another club, against someone who has a club.

Some weapons (like a penknife), in the hands of some individuals (who are not likely to be all that lethal as people) might not be seen as enough of a threat that an officer needs a firearm to respond. This does somewhat increase the risk of German policemen being killed when someone tries to stab them to death with a Swiss Army knife while the officer fights back with a baton, but I couldn't say how much the risk increases.

[Sephirius]

Thanas clearly has no fucking clue about proper firearm/force escalation procedure. I highly doubt any law enforcement agency even in Germany actively uses warning shots as a proper threat posture.

If they do, I don't know what backwater area of dumbfuckistan they're from but I'm surprised it doesn't get them killed more often, if that is the case.

If the gun is out, that means deadly force is already on the table, and if an officer opens up, you're damn right they're shooting to kill. None of this 'try for a nonlethal shot first' bullshit. It's basically the mutually assured destruction concept on a smaller scale, if you're going to strike, you better make sure there is no possible way they can strike back.

Warning shots are irresponsible, unsafe, and above all reckless as they endanger you, your partner/teammates, bystanders and actually the target, as it may make them mentally rule out a better outcome and choose to go down fighting.

Anyone with any measure of LE/MIL experience should tell you this.

[salm]

Thanas clearly has no fucking clue about proper firearm/force escalation procedure. I highly doubt any law enforcement agency even in Germany actively uses warning shots as a proper threat posture.

If they do, I don't know what backwater area of dumbfuckistan they're from but I'm surprised it doesn't get them killed more often, if that is the case.

If the gun is out, that means deadly force is already on the table, and if an officer opens up, you're damn right they're shooting to kill. None of this 'try for a nonlethal shot first' bullshit. It's basically the mutually assured destruction concept on a smaller scale.

Warning shots are irresponsible, unsafe, and above all reckless as they endanger you, your partner/teammates, bystanders and actually the target, as it may make them mentally rule out a better outcome and choose to go down fighting.

Anyone with any measure of LE/MIL experience should tell you this.

No, no he´s completely right. German police may only shoot to kill in the most extreme of situations. In any other case they have to shoot to wound. And they do it.

They also have to anounce that they are going to use their gun before firing. Either by saying it or by firing a warning shot.

[Korto]

WHY is that unreasonable? Society gives police a gun and authority to use it. I don't think its unreasonable to expect them to comply with policies or orders from their superiors, or hold them accountable for failing to do so. I'm not saying it would apply in all cases, but in cases such as above the officer in question's behavior was akin to Criminally negligent manslaughter as defined here http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... nslaughter

Yes, so do I. The same way I hold you accountable for not following the policies in your job. You get fired. You only get charged with a crime if you actually commit a crime. However, regardless of whatever policies you violate you did not force the other person to try and take your life. If that is what took place the responsibility and consequences for that action rest upon the shoulders of that kid and he paid the price for trying to take the life of another person.

Here's where I don't quite agree. If I was to slip on my Prosecuter's hat, I would argue that the officer needlessly and recklessly created a situation (by going into the shed, instead of containing the situation while things cooled down) where a trained, reasonable person could anticipate a high possibility, even probability of a panicked youth doing something stupid and the situation escalating. As a direct result of the officer's action, the boy died. I believe he could be charged with the boy's death, and if he wasn't a police officer, he would be. (This statement is based upon a personally observed bias in Australia towards not prosecuting police when things go wrong if they were "just doing their job" (sic), no matter how stupidly they were doing it. Therefore, it should be regarded as unsubstantiated opinion)

[Lord Baal]

In Venezuela more often than not policemen will make a couple of warning shoots to the air or the ground to stop people from running or make them run, depending on the context and how much corrupted it the officer on the event. Rarely anyone get injured by it (or at least it's heard of). When they shoot to injure they do, and when they shoot to kill they do and kill or injure.

Just trowing a little info about dumbfuckistan kind of countries.

[Thanas]

A person with a baseball bat is capable of killing or severely injuring you, I'd think.

And yet it does not allow an officer to use a gun immediately without taking at least two steps of escalation first. At least not in Germany and we do not seem to have an epidemic of officers getting killed by bats anyway.

Thanas, two questions for you regarding your post. What exactly is meant by a "warning shot"? I'm thinking along the lines of discharging the weapon into the air, though that is still dangerous and I believe technically illegal over here, at least in some locales (especially cities), due to the danger to others. A warning shot seems to greatly increase the danger to innocent bystanders regardless, something that should be even more likely to occur in Germany than the United States, due to increased population density.

Both firing into the air or at nothing are legal though the police departments judge proper procedure.

As for the danger, funny how not a single bystander in Germany was injured by a warning shot in the last 15 years, yet somehow people regard it as some great threat.

Second, why does it have to be a huge weapon? For example, a screw driver is just as deadly as a machete when wielded as a weapon (arguably maybe even more so, due to the increased lethality of deep puncture wounds on the torso v.s. lacerations on extremeties and the torso). A larger weapon certainly may have some advantages like reach and momentum compared to a smaller and most likely lighter weapon, but that doesn't make the smaller improvised weapon any less deadly. It just means one is less efficient than the other, not that they both can't achieve the same goal of making you dead.

German police gets extensive training in how to deal with threats like that. A simple kitchen knife or a screwdriver would not have a competent German cop reaching for his gun and potentially escalating the situation, especially not because a few good hits with a police baton will knock you out of the fight quite quickly. A machete on the other hand is much more deadly due to the baton being less use against it and it just being able to inflict more damage even if the guy wielding it is at a physical disadvantage. Nobody is disputing that you can be killed even by a toenail clipper if handled correctly but it is a statistical risk analysis.

[Thanas]

Because this post was too stupid not to deserve its own reply:

Thanas clearly has no fucking clue about proper firearm/force escalation procedure.

Oh man. Comedy gold incoming. Yeah, what do I know about stuff I studied at university?

I highly doubt any law enforcement agency even in Germany actively uses warning shots as a proper threat posture.

On the contrary, all of them use them and are required to do so by the highest courts.

If they do, I don't know what backwater area of dumbfuckistan they're from but I'm surprised it doesn't get them killed more often, if that is the case.

It does not and nice to see all of Germany is a backwater.

If the gun is out, that means deadly force is already on the table, and if an officer opens up, you're damn right they're shooting to kill. None of this 'try for a nonlethal shot first' bullshit. It's basically the mutually assured destruction concept on a smaller scale, if you're going to strike, you better make sure there is no possible way they can strike back.

Ever heard of a concept called deescalation?

Warning shots are irresponsible, unsafe, and above all reckless as they endanger you, your partner/teammates, bystanders and actually the target, as it may make them mentally rule out a better outcome and choose to go down fighting.

You will now provide proof of this. Statistical proof, providing how German use of police firearms is potentially more dangerous than American use of firearms. I have already provided statistics as to German usage in the past and so far no statistic has shown that German usage is irresponsible, unsafe, reckless and forces people to fight. Quite the contrary - German police kill less people on average even in shootouts. So unless you present proof, I am just going to proclaim you the empty windbag you are.

Anyone with any measure of LE/MIL experience should tell you this.

I see, so my law professors, police instructors and police officers I studied under and work with on a permanent basis have no measure of LE experience, nor does the German police union or the highest courts in the land. That is certainly good to know. I especially like how you just proclaim the entire German law enforcement community does not know what they do.

Then again, police shootings are almost unheard of in Germany and the number of police officers shot per year in German is in the single digit in even the worst years, so what do they know, right?

No, no he´s completely right. German police may only shoot to kill in the most extreme of situations. In any other case they have to shoot to wound. And they do it.

They also have to anounce that they are going to use their gun before firing. Either by saying it or by firing a warning shot.

The last part may be omitted in a kind of "guy pulls out gun and starts shooting at them OK Corrall type" situation but the shoot to wound still applies.

[Kamakazie Sith]

No, he could not, at least not until the guy has a weapon and is imminently about to kill or severely injure the officer. Like a really huge knife and actively trying to stab the guy. Heck, there even is an argument whether using a gun in response to a baseball bat is justified.

Let's back up a second here. I meant if the kid were armed with a weapon capable of causing serious injury or death. Just to clarify if this teenager was unarmed and the officer shot him because he believed him to be dangerous due to witnessing the assault then I absolutely disagree with the shooting being justified as long as there isn't some other factor.

A kid charging at somebody (was it ever proven he had a weapon, btw?) is not considered that huge a threat in German law that it justifies gun usage. (And I dispute that using a gun to wound somebody is the same as deadly force, especially considering the statistic on police gun usage in Germany. The "warning shot" also poses little to no risk whatsoever, so I do not get the panicky US fear of them). If he is just charging at you then responsible use of force requires using your own body strength and at most very limited baton usage to respond to it. Basically, an officer is only supposed to use a gun or baton when his own physical ability to overwhelm the problem is in question.

I was going off the assumption that he was armed because frankly there's no discussion if this teenager was unarmed. In the US you could use deadly force on an unarmed person if that person charging you physically outmatches you, the use of other weapons would be unwise or ineffective, and you can't escape or letting this person escape would create risk of serious injury or death to another person.

Is this maybe more risky? Possible. OTOH a police officer getting killed almost never happens over here and not killing people (even if they are criminal scum) is regarded as a higher priority in this case.

Then again, how many police officers get killed by adolescents in the US in a year that make this a credible threat?

It's more about the number of adolescents that carrying around firearms in the United States especially in large cities with gang problems. While I agree that trying to take this kid into custody was stupid having his gun out was a reasonable precaution considering this is San Antionio.

The way I see it the officer in question commited several severe fuckups:
- he disobeyed direct orders to not pursue the suspect. Alarm bells ringing off right here.

I wouldn't call it a severe fuck up only because such an order from a supervisor is simply unheard of in foot pursuit situations. He still should have followed the order though but that doesn't mean he contributed to the situation.

- he called for no backup nor let anybody know about the situation

All we really know is he didn't wait for backup.

- he tried no deescalation strategy once he got the guy in the shed. He approached the shed with a gun drawn. This might have even triggered the whole thing in the kid - him being cornered, not thinking straight and OMG there is this cop with a gun coming down on me. Considering the reputation of some police agencies the guy might have thought the police meant him harm.

Who says he had time to try a deesclation strategy. Going off the article the entire incident took only a couple seconds.

Sure, if the guy was armed and charged at the officer (proven?) then yeah, he is ultimately responsible. But the officer certainly contributed to this and in my opinion he should suffer consequences for that. Maybe even prison.

That's the part I'm having hard time with. How did he contribute to the situation? Is trying to apprehend a suspect "contributing" to the situation? Maybe, but that's what the police are suppose to do. So, what makes this situation so different?

Of a cop shooting an adolescent? Yeah. It happens even in Germany. A cop shot a kid six times or so when said kid "attacked" at him. Said cop is iirc now serving prison sentence because - surprise - German cops are supposed to handle adolescents without emptying their clip into them. Panicking is not an excuse. You are a cop and trained to act that way, so do it. Society trusts you with tremendous power, if you can't handle it too bad.

No, adolescents shooting each other and being armed with assault rifles, concealed pistols, etc.

It probably is, but standards are also higher for the force in the first place. We've gone over that as well.

I actually mean safer. And yes we've gone over both these concepts including the vast difference in behavior between your criminals and ours and access to weapons. As for comparing your police to ours. It depends on the department for example how do your standards compare to say the FBI or NYPD or LAPD? It also depends on what is being trained and it also depends on how that training relates to the field the officers will be working in. So, yes we've skimmed over the subject but actually gotten into it? No.

The fact is I don't really care, Thanas. I'm not trying to get into a who has the bigger dick argument.

In how many cases of a cop pursuing adolescents is this the case, though? Is it typical for US adolescents to pull guns or is it the odd freak case? Because if not, then what business does he have pulling his gun in the first place? Was he so out of shape that a 16-year old kid outmuscled him? Did he saw a weapon when he pursued him?

Like I said before in high gang areas guns are common and gang members of all ages carry. If we're talking about a place like Richfield, Ut then firearms on adolescents aren't common and pulling your gun because a kid got into a fight then ran and hid in a shed probably isn't reasonable without something more. In San Antonio it's a different story.

This was a 14 year old kid, who had no evidence possessing a weapon. It was also clear he did not pick up a huge weapon like a machete or ax out of the shed. So pray tell, what weapon could the officer have seen?

No idea. Other evidence though could have included personal knowledge that the officer had of the kid like his criminal history, the wearing of gang colors, or maybe threats to the victim.

Let me ask you something - are you really certain that the police officer in question was under a legitimate threat here when he shot the guy and that the kid was that huge a threat?

I don't have enough information to make that determination.

[Sephirius]

On the contrary, all of them use them and are required to do so by the highest courts.

Actually, I am honestly surprised by this and therefore concede the point.

It does not and nice to see all of Germany is a backwater.

See also above.

Ever heard of a concept called deescalation?

Yes, I have. However, over here is if you have a gun drawn, the suspect is presenting an immediate and imminent threat- and that warning shots could be used against you in court later on, if the case is well, not de-escalated and someone winds up in a body bag.

You will now provide proof of this. Statistical proof, providing how German use of police firearms is potentially more dangerous than American use of firearms. I have already provided statistics as to German usage in the past and so far no statistic has shown that German usage is irresponsible, unsafe, reckless and forces people to fight. Quite the contrary - German police kill less people on average even in shootouts. So unless you present proof, I am just going to proclaim you the empty windbag you are.

Yes, I am a windbag. I honestly did not know the German police forces did this as a matter of policy. Please forgive my severe brain fade.

Is the disconnect here perhaps that when police here draw weapons, it is the last resort, rather than a path of escalation as the German side presents it? Is it due to the higher prevalence of firearm crime or violent crime as well?

[LaCroix]

Is the disconnect here perhaps that when police here draw weapons, it is the last resort, rather than a path of escalation as the German side presents it? Is it due to the higher prevalence of firearm crime or violent crime as well?

You have it backwards. German(for a fact most European) police only draws guns when there is a gun-armend criminal present. ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT if anything else fails.

German officers would be fired or even face charges for drawing guns in situations where US cops (usually) do. (Like stopping a car, pursuit of a criminal who has no visible weapon drawn, a dog barking when they enter a yard.)

[Thanas]

Let's back up a second here. I meant if the kid were armed with a weapon capable of causing serious injury or death. Just to clarify if this teenager was unarmed and the officer shot him because he believed him to be dangerous due to witnessing the assault then I absolutely disagree with the shooting being justified as long as there isn't some other factor.

I would agree that if the guy was armed with a really serious weapon (like a machete or an ax) and there was no way of the officer physically overpowering him without severe risk of injury I would agree that shooting at him to wound would be justified, but not direct shots to the head or middle chest area.

In the context of US law, which does not place as high a value on human beings per se, I would probably agree that the shooting as an isolated incident was justified if the guy indeed was seriously armed and charged at him with a clear identifiable attempt to hurt him.

However, due to the officer's huge messups that were responsible for creating this situation in the first place he bears a not inconsiderate amount of blame. This was a completely needless death and the office should be punished for this. Loss of his jobs, pension, benefits and being a debt slave to the family of the boy he killed should be the very least he deserves.

I was going off the assumption that he was armed because frankly there's no discussion if this teenager was unarmed.

With what, though? Shouldn't the police response be "he charged at me with [weapon]", not "I thought he was dangerous?" That seems like a tacit admission that the kid actually posed little risk.

It's more about the number of adolescents that carrying around firearms in the United States especially in large cities with gang problems. While I agree that trying to take this kid into custody was stupid having his gun out was a reasonable precaution considering this is San Antionio.

How many officers got killed by boys though?

And was there any indication this kid was a gang member or armed? Shouldn't that be the first thing he would say? "I noticed his gang tats and a bulge in the waist area as he an away" or stuff....yet nothing.

I wouldn't call it a severe fuck up only because such an order from a supervisor is simply unheard of in foot pursuit situations. He still should have followed the order though but that doesn't mean he contributed to the situation.

If he had stopped we would not have to discuss anything here. It is the same thing with his other actions - he cornered the kid (against orders) and therefore immediately created the situation. Had he led the kid walk nobody would be dead and they would have just arrested him tomorrow.

That is his contribution.

No, adolescents shooting each other and being armed with assault rifles, concealed pistols, etc.

I can't remember that it happened outside some turkish/lebanese gangs fighting in Berlin with knifes and pistols. Point being though, was there any indication the kid was a gang member? Or are young adolescents automatically considered such threats in the USA? If so, on what statistical basis?

The fact is I don't really care, Thanas. I'm not trying to get into a who has the bigger dick argument.

Fine by me.

Like I said before in high gang areas guns are common and gang members of all ages carry. If we're talking about a place like Richfield, Ut then firearms on adolescents aren't common and pulling your gun because a kid got into a fight then ran and hid in a shed probably isn't reasonable without something more. In San Antonio it's a different story.

Okay then - what is the evidence the kid was a gang member and what are the actual rates among adolescents in that area for shooting at police officers?

No idea. Other evidence though could have included personal knowledge that the officer had of the kid like his criminal history, the wearing of gang colors, or maybe threats to the victim.

None of that is however claimed by the police, despite the fact that it should be the first thing mentioned in the media, like "the victim was a member of street gang COPKILLAS". In fact, the only thing we know from the article is "I was scared and feared for my life so I shot the kid".

[Thanas]

Is the disconnect here perhaps that when police here draw weapons, it is the last resort, rather than a path of escalation as the German side presents it? Is it due to the higher prevalence of firearm crime or violent crime as well?

You have it backwards. German(for a fact most European) police only draws guns when there is a gun-armend criminal present. ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT if anything else fails.

German officers would be fired or even face charges for drawing guns in situations where US cops (usually) do. (Like stopping a car, pursuit of a criminal who has no visible weapon drawn, a dog barking when they enter a yard.)

Yeah. The only reason a German police officer will draw his gun if he has to think his life or that of bystanders or vital interests are in immediate danger. Even when people draw guns on them some will rather try to talk (besides, pulling guns when the other guys has a gun at you is not that great of a choice and criminals have nothing to gain from shooting policeman. Not even murderers because we do not have the death penalty and 15 years of prison sounds better than being shot dead by police).

The officially stated reasons iirc is that guns being drawn tends to make people make bad decisions (like panicking) and besides, if you have to use a gun to secure compliance you probably have no business being a police officer in the first place in Germany.

It might have to do with firearms but I guess it is also based on culture. Just looking at the different cop shows being broadcasted - US shows usually feature guns prominently even on routine tasks like entering a subjects home etc whereas German shows are more interested in interaction and mental tasks.

[Alyeska]

What is the German policy on a subject rushing the cop? No weapon evident but he is rushing the cop in a manner apparent that he is going to attack with fists or a knife. As in an all out brawl.

There is a concept in law enforcement about dealing with an opponent at a distance of 21 feet or less. The time it takes for an individual to cross that distance can be as little as 1.5 seconds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

An unarmed opponent can cross a distance of 21 feet in less time than a cop can reliably draw a weapon. I've also seen a video of a Highway Trooper who pulled over a car for speeding. The driver was talking with the cop when he suddenly lunged. They rolled into the ditch where the driver grabbed the gun and killed the Trooper.

An unarmed opponent can still be very lethal. In certain distances there is insufficient time to provide any warnings what so ever. What sort of policies do the German police operate when unarmed opponents are acting highly aggressive before the police can attempt warning?

[jcow79]

To add some more context, this article had some additional information. It appears definitive that the 14yo did not emerge armed but the officer did claim to have been struck in the face by the door when he emerged.

In his report Alvarado wrote that he was approaching the shed with his gun drawn when the door flew open, hitting him in the face.

No witness recalled seeing any injuries to the officer's face after the shooting.

'The suspect bull rushed his way out of the shed and lunged right at me,' Alvarado said.

'The suspect was literally inches away from me, and I feared for my safety.'

Also, the 14yo did have a troubled history.

Lopez was known to be a troublemaker - he had had a troubled childhood, and had been expelled from one school and moved from many others before ending up at Bexar Juvenile Detention Centre in San Antonio.

And this is a quote from the school district regarding what they knew of the officers prior infractions.

Spokesman for Northwest Independent School District, Pascual Gonzalez, said: 'We are aware of officer Alvarado's work history.

'While there are some documented incidents, it's important to note that they were administrative in nature, and had nothing to do with student safety.'

[Thanas]

What is the German policy on a subject rushing the cop? No weapon evident but he is rushing the cop in a manner apparent that he is going to attack with fists or a knife. As in an all out brawl.

The doctrine of appropriate force would still apply...if he rushes with his fists it would end up in a brawl as the officer would not have time to go for a weapon and might not be allowed to do so....


********************

To the topic:

'I saw an assault in progress,' he told the operator. 'He punched the guy several times.'

This fact does not tally with the account of the boy who was assaulted, a schoolmate of Lopez's, who said: 'He just hit me once. It wasn't a fight. It was nothing.'
[...]
While no-one by Alvarado saw the actually gun-shot, the owner, a retired nurse, thought it odd that the defenceless teen had been fired at.

Alvarado had already withdrawn his gun 'when he came up the driveway', she recalled.

After rushing out to the backyard with a towel to help the still-breathing boy, and applying pressure to the wound with the officer, she asked: 'Why did you shoot him?'

'He came at me,' he apparently told her.

In his report Alvarado wrote that he was approaching the shed with his gun drawn when the door flew open, hitting him in the face.

No witness recalled seeing any injuries to the officer's face after the shooting.

'The suspect bull rushed his way out of the shed and lunged right at me,' Alvarado said.

'The suspect was literally inches away from me, and I feared for my safety.'

The bullet was traced going through teen's chest as it ricocheted off the pancreas, colon, right liver and left kidney and exited the stomach.

A post-mortem noted a lack of gunpowder on Lopez's bloodstained T-shirt - the report concludes: 'There is no evidence of close range firing of the wound.'

So:
- Subject unarmed
- no sign of door hitting face (may not mean much)
- no forensic evidence of close range.

The officer's story makes little sense. If the door hit him as the guy charged out then why is there no evidence of close range gunpowder?

Can't see how this is justified.

[TheHammer]

To add some more context, this article had some additional information. It appears definitive that the 14yo did not emerge armed but the officer did claim to have been struck in the face by the door when he emerged.

In his report Alvarado wrote that he was approaching the shed with his gun drawn when the door flew open, hitting him in the face.

No witness recalled seeing any injuries to the officer's face after the shooting.

'The suspect bull rushed his way out of the shed and lunged right at me,' Alvarado said.

'The suspect was literally inches away from me, and I feared for my safety.'

Also, the 14yo did have a troubled history.

Lopez was known to be a troublemaker - he had had a troubled childhood, and had been expelled from one school and moved from many others before ending up at Bexar Juvenile Detention Centre in San Antonio.

And this is a quote from the school district regarding what they knew of the officers prior infractions.

Spokesman for Northwest Independent School District, Pascual Gonzalez, said: 'We are aware of officer Alvarado's work history.

'While there are some documented incidents, it's important to note that they were administrative in nature, and had nothing to do with student safety.'

Thanks for the link, but Why would you cherry pick those bits from the article and leave some of the better parts untouched?

Of note #1

The 17-year veteran ordered the pair to stop in their tracks, but Lopez ran off and after the police officer lost the teen on foot he called his office for help.
'I saw an assault in progress,' he told the operator. 'He punched the guy several times.'

This fact does not tally with the account of the boy who was assaulted, a schoolmate of Lopez's, who said: 'He just hit me once. It wasn't a fight. It was nothing.'

Of note #2

'The suspect bull rushed his way out of the shed and lunged right at me,' Alvarado said.

'The suspect was literally inches away from me, and I feared for my safety.'
The bullet was traced going through teen's chest as it ricocheted off the pancreas, colon, right liver and left kidney and exited the stomach.
A post-mortem noted a lack of gunpowder on Lopez's bloodstained T-shirt - the report concludes: 'There is no evidence of close range firing of the wound.'

Of note #3

And files, recently obtained by San Antionio Express News, show that the 46-year-old has been reprimanded on at least a dozen times since 2006 - and half of those occasions were because he had gone against orders.
In other cases, Alvarado failed to show up for assignments, and his supervisors appeared to suspect him of lying.

Of note #4:

In March 2006 one superior officer wrote an official letter to him and it read: 'Your complete disregard toward my directive was evident upon checking your reports that are still incomplete and in some cases not written at all.'
Some weeks later, Alvarado's supervisor scolded him for making 'no effort to complete said cases' and many other letters followed.

Many letters followed and in January 2008 he was suspended for one day for failing to show up for assignments.
'Any further incidents of failing to follow a directive, an assignment, or violating practices will result in immediate termination of your employment,' the suspension letter stated.
More violations followed - including two separate cases when Alvarado was suspended for collecting evidence that disappeared, including an MP3 player and fingerprint cards

Of note #5, immediately following the final quote you posted

However David Klinger, a former police officer who's now a professor of criminology was alarmed by Alvarado's disciplinary history.
'It sounds like they knew this guy was a problem,' Mr Klinger told mysanantonio.com.

'If someone's insubordinate in a bunch of circumstances, it's logical to believe they'll be insubordinate in an important circumstance.'

Key Take aways:
- Per note #1, the victim asserts that it "wasn't even a fight, it was nothing" - one punch.
- There is no indication the boy was ever armed with even so much as a garden rake.
- The officer claims he was "bullrushed" and struck in the face, but no such injury was noted.
- The boy's body was retrieved from within the shed. Had he truly "bullrushed" out, striking the officer in the face with the door and the officer been forced to fire the body would have been outside the shed.
- Futher, per note #2, no indication of a close range weapon discharge is evident.
- Further per subsequent notes, it seems this officer had a history of insubordination, failure to perform his duty, lieing, and was also quite possibly a theif himself.
- Per the final note, its clear that the department and or school district should be held liable for keeping this guy on the force.

[jcow79]

Thanks for the link, but Why would you cherry pick those bits from the article and leave some of the better parts untouched?

Because I was looking for facts related to specific questions that were unclear that kept coming up throughout the thread.

1)Was there any claim by the officer the kid was armed? - Doesn't appear so. Although I'd like to read his full report.
2)Did the kid have a prior history of violence? – My reading of the article indicates this is a high possibility although it's not specific. Also no indication of how familiar this officer was of the kids record.
3)What was the nature of the officers prior infractions? - The selected quote indicated the school district was familiar with them and unconcerned. So it's still within the realm of possibility that "pooping in the precinct" was the nature of some of those infractions. And the infractions that you cited also indicate they were procedural infractions and not necessarily related to his actions in the field. A guy not filling out his forms isn't much of an indictment against him shooting a kid but it sure serves as good character assassination when that's all the author presents. Where's the list of his commendations and performance reviews?

When reading articles like these I keep in mind the author is is commonly focused on one side of the story. If an article was written like:

A highly decorated and veteran police officer witnessed a violent teenage thug brutally assaulting another teenager. The thug fled when approached by the officer and hid in a tool laden garden shed preparing to ambush. When the officer was tipped off to the thugs location by the sheds owner, and approached the shed, the thug burst out attempting to overcome the officer...

I'd still try to parse relevant facts from the article despite that it's obviously one-sided, and in my made-up example, exaggerated and lacking in relevant details. The full picture is not in front of us. What I would like to read would be the officers reports, witness statements, the full post-mortem not just the line cited by the article, and the full findings of the investigation...for starters.

[TheHammer]

Thanks for the link, but Why would you cherry pick those bits from the article and leave some of the better parts untouched?

Because I was looking for facts related to specific questions that were unclear that kept coming up throughout the thread.

Actually you cherry picked the parts about the "juvenille deliquent" and did your best to minimize the officers infractions by portraying them as "adminstrative". Nice try though...

1)Was there any claim by the officer the kid was armed? - Doesn't appear so. Although I'd like to read his full report.

I'm sure if a weapon, any weapon had been involved it would have appeared in one of these accounts. Yet every one of them describes the boy as unarmed. The officer's report is likely worth as much as used toilet paper given that he's got a track record of lieing. Unfortunately for him the home owner got back there too quickly for him to plant a weapon in the kid's hands, so he had to go with the "He was coming right for me" defense.

2)Did the kid have a prior history of violence? – My reading of the article indicates this is a high possibility although it's not specific. Also no indication of how familiar this officer was of the kids record.

A "high possibility"? You are basing this on... what exactly? First, regardless of his history, the incident involved was a single punch as described by the victim. Second, if the officer did in fact know the kid and thus the kid's record he would have known exactly how to find him in a manner which did not involve chasing him into a neighborhood at gun point.

3)What was the nature of the officers prior infractions? - The selected quote indicated the school district was familiar with them and unconcerned.

The district is being sued. They can't come out and admit that this officer was a liar, insubordinate, known to be derlict of his duty on occaision and quite possibly a thief. They would be quick, much as you are, to try and minimalize any infraction.

So it's still within the realm of possibility that "pooping in the precinct" was the nature of some of those infractions.

Except that's specifically NOT the nature of the infractions cited.

And the infractions that you cited also indicate they were procedural infractions and not necessarily related to his actions in the field. A guy not filling out his forms isn't much of an indictment against him shooting a kid but it sure serves as good character assassination when that's all the author presents.

Except the infractions cited go well beyond "not filling out paperwork" as anyone who read them can plainly see.

Where's the list of his commendations and performance reviews?

Commendations? Probably don't exist.

Performance reviews? Probably confidential, but extra kudos if you can get them

When reading articles like these I keep in mind the author is is commonly focused on one side of the story. If an article was written like:

A highly decorated and veteran police officer witnessed a violent teenage thug brutally assaulting another teenager. The thug fled when approached by the officer and hid in a tool laden garden shed preparing to ambush. When the officer was tipped off to the thugs location by the sheds owner, and approached the shed, the thug burst out attempting to overcome the officer...

While I'm sure that's what the officer would like to believe happened, that's not what the facts and eye witness testimony support.

I'd still try to parse relevant facts from the article despite that it's obviously one-sided, and in my made-up example, exaggerated and lacking in relevant details. The full picture is not in front of us. What I would like to read would be the officers reports, witness statements, the full post-mortem not just the line cited by the article, and the full findings of the investigation...for starters.

I'd believe in your impartiality had you done a better job in your last post of showing more information from that article other than "Kid was a thug" and "Officer's only issues were administrative". No one is saying the kid was an angel. He shouldn't have hit the other student, and shouldn't have run from the cop. But he also shouldn't have been shot for it.