# police use taser on 6 year old



## Baytor (Nov 12, 2004)

I hope this doesn't stir up another flame war, but here's another aticle about police tazing a kid.  In this incident, a six year old boy was tazed after he started cutting himself with a large shard of glass.  Link and transcirpt follows.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138395,00.html

*MIAMI  Police used a stun gun on a 6-year-old boy in his principal's office because he was wielding a piece of glass and threatening to hurt himself, officials said Thursday.* 

The boy, who was not identified, was shocked with 50,000 volts on Oct. 20 at Kelsey Pharr Elementary School.

Principal Maria Mason called 911 after the child broke a picture frame in her office and waved a piece of glass, holding a security guard back.

When two Miami-Dade County police officers and a school officer arrived, the boy had already cut himself under his eye and on his hand.

The officers talked to the boy without success. When the boy cut his own leg, one officer shocked him with a *Taser* (search) and another grabbed him to prevent him from falling, police said.

He was treated and taken to a hospital, where he was committed for psychiatric evaluation.

"By using the Taser, we were able to stop the situation, stop him from hurting himself," police spokesman Juan DelCastillo told The Miami Herald.


----------



## bignick (Nov 12, 2004)

see...i think this was an acceptable use...unlike the other issue on this board where the 9 year old girl was already handcuffed...

here, he was endangering himself and rather try to fight with him over it and cause further injury to himself or the officers, the taser offered a another way out


----------



## MJS (Nov 12, 2004)

Interesting thread!!  Coincidentally, there was a similar thread to this over on Budoseek, where the police used a taser on an elderly woman.  It certainly generated some very interesting reading.  

I'll give my .02 on this.  There are quite a few things that we need to take into consideration before we can get an accurate picture of what really happened.  

A- We can't take everything that the paper says as what really happened.  

B- Are we hearing all sides of the story? Police, NEWS, witnesses, Fire/EMS.

C- We need to know the policies/procedures of that PD, as they vary from state to state/town to town.

In todays world, where law suits are happening often, many PD's have resorted to using less-lethal weapons over more lethal.  Items such as a Taser, pepperball gun, bean bag gun, or rubber bullets are a preferred choice over guns and batons.

Mike


----------



## Oak Bo (Nov 12, 2004)

Thanks for the post Baytor!
 That was an interesting read :karate:
 If what was written is true, I think it was handled the right way.

 :asian:


----------



## Baytor (Nov 12, 2004)

I also think they handled it as well as they could have for the situation.  It also looks like the dept. is backing his decision, which is always nice for the officer.  I wonder what it was that set the kid off, though.  There must be some sort of history with this kid, people don't normally just snap, there is a build up.  Hopefully, he gets the help he needs.


----------



## Baytor (Nov 12, 2004)

http://www.wftv.com/news/3913217/detail.html

Another article about the incident.  Here's part of the article.  It includes further justification used by the police for their decision, as well as criticism from a former judge.  I stand by my earlier statement that the cops made the best decision they could have in a crappy situation.

*"By using the Taser, we were able to stop the situation, stop him from hurting himself," police spokesman Juan DelCastillo told The Miami Herald. "Sure he could have been tackled and maybe injured, maybe his arm broken or maybe that glass could have cut him in a critical area." *


*Retired Juvenile Judge Frank Orlando called the incident "ridiculous." *


*"It just sounds excessive to me to Taser gun a 6-year-old when everyone else around there were adults," said Orlando, who now runs a law clinic on youth law at Nova Southeastern University. "They couldn't subdue a 6-year-old? Must have been a pretty big kid." *


*Police wouldn't say how big the child was. The case was under review. *


----------



## MJS (Nov 12, 2004)

Baytor
[b said:
			
		

> Retired Juvenile Judge Frank Orlando called the incident "ridiculous." [/b]
> 
> 
> *"It just sounds excessive to me to Taser gun a 6-year-old when everyone else around there were adults," said Orlando, who now runs a law clinic on youth law at Nova Southeastern University. "They couldn't subdue a 6-year-old? Must have been a pretty big kid." *
> ...



The judge doesnt have a clue IMO!!!  He obviously is not looking at the entire picture.  In addition, he wasnt there!  Therefore, its easy to sit back and say, "Well, I'd do this, or I'd do that!" Yeah, ok...under no stress, we can 'What if' this all day, but add a little stress in, and the entire situation changes!

Mike


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 12, 2004)

Well, this brings up the issues of how dangerous delivering such an electrical shock to the very young or very old might do.  

That issue aside, and assuming the taser is safe for a 6-year-old (???), I can understand why they would want to quickly subdue the child - it sounds like he was already cutting himself up with the glass pretty badly.  

But tasers on a 6-year-old... I just wonder what that does to such a small body.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 12, 2004)

*



			Retired Juvenile Judge Frank Orlando called the incident "ridiculous."
		
Click to expand...

*


> *"It just sounds excessive to me to Taser gun a 6-year-old when everyone else around there were adults," said Orlando, who now runs a law clinic on youth law at Nova Southeastern University. "They couldn't subdue a 6-year-old? Must have been a pretty big kid." *
> 
> 
> *Police wouldn't say how big the child was. The case was under review. *


 
Classic case of an armchair quarterback swearing at the television set when his team isn't winning. He wasn't there, he didn't live it, quoting him in the newspaper just because he is a judge and a supposed respected member of the community just inflames the situation and sells more papers. IMO


----------



## MJS (Nov 12, 2004)

A little info on Tasers that I got from the net.



> A person hit with an ADVANCED TASER will feel dazed for several seconds.  Recovery is fast and the effects stop the very instant that the M26 shuts off.  Some will experience critical response amnesia and others will experience tingling sensations afterwards.  The pulsating electrical output causes involuntary muscle contractions and a resulting sense of vertigo.  It can momentarily stun or render immobilized.  Yet, the ADVANCED TASERs low electrical amperage and short duration of pulsating current, ensures a non-lethal charge.  Moreover, it does not cause permanent damage or long-term aftereffects to muscles, nerves or other body functions.






> How can the Taser be so effective yet non-injurious?
> The Taser does not depend upon impact or body penetration to achieve its effect. Its pulsating electrical output interferes with communication between the brain and the muscular system, resulting in loss of control. However, the Taser is non-destructive to nerves, muscles and other body elements. It simply affects them in their natural mode. More importantly, no deaths have ever been directly attributed to the TASER .





> Does the taser affect the heart or a cardiac?
> The Tasers output is well below the level established as "safe" by the federal government in approving such devices as the electrified cattle fence. In a medical study of the Model XR 5000Ô electronic stun gun, Dr. Robert Stratbucker of the University of Nebraska Medical Center confirmed that the T-Wave does not interrupt the heartbeat or damage a pacemaker. Any modern pacemaker is designed to withstand electrical defibrillator pulses that are hundreds of times stronger than the Tasers output. The AIR TASER current of 0.3 joules is well below the 10-50 joule threshold above which cardiac ventricular fibrillation can occur.






> Isn't high voltage lethal?
> High voltage, in itself, is not dangerous. One can receive a 25,000-volt shock of static electricity from a doorknob on a dry day without harm. The physiological effect of electrical shock is determined by: the current, its duration, and the power source that produces the shock. The typical household current of 110 volts is dangerous because it can pump many amperes of current throughout the body indefinitely. By contrast, the Taser power supply consists of an alkaline 9-Volt battery that is capable of supplying less than three watts of electrical power for a few minutes.






> Range: 15 feet.
> 
> Optimum Performance: 7 - 10 ft.
> 
> ...



--------------------------------------------------------------

Here is some info. regarding OC or pepper spray




> How do pepper sprays work?
> The active ingredient in pepper sprays is oleoresin capsicum, commonly referred to as OC. OC is a natural, oily, resin-like substance derived from hot peppers, the same peppers used to "heat up" spicy foods.Pepper sprays induce an almost immediate burning sensation of the skin and a burning, tearing, and swelling of the eyes. If spray is inhaled, the respiratory tract becomes inflamed resulting in a swelling of the mucous membranes lining the breathing passages and temporarily restricting breathing to short, shallow breaths.




Mike


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 12, 2004)

Ya, agreed that none of us here were there so armchair quarterbacking is all we can do if we want to speculate on what "I would've done" kinda of talk.
IMO tasing a child is WRONG WRONG WRONG! A teenager sure... but we're talking about a child that is still (relatively speaking) a baby. I'm thinking of long term effects physicalogically and phychologically. 
I'm ticked about it overall. Excessive use of force IMO. I'm sorry but I'm sticking with that.  :asian: 
The kid was obviously disturbed enough that he gets the idea to start cutting himself and actually going near his eye. Makes you wonder what the _hell_ is going on at *HOME* that makes the kid, a child, a baby go to such extremes? 
What did the principal say to the kid to set him off? Why was he sent to the principal's office in the first place?  
Too many questions not enough answers. But they should start the investigation at home or at least end there either way. 
  :angry:  :miffer:  :ticked:  :disgust:  and ultimately


----------



## MJS (Nov 12, 2004)

Good points MACaver.  The child is obviously showing abnormal signs, and this is the time to investigate it, not when the kid is 23 and has possibly done something worse than what hes already done.  

As for the use of force...again, we don't know the policies of that dept. so its hard to judge what was excessive and what was not.  

I think it would be interesting to hear some views on what we would have done, had we been in that situation.  This is not intended to steer the thread in a different direction, but seeing that the use of force debate seems to be lurking on the horizon, I think its an important part of the discussion.  Again, it'll be hard because we were not there, and we might start sounding like the judge they interviewed.  

IMO, trying to talk the boy down wouldn't work.  He appears to already be past the point of talking.  Attempting to grab him could be dangerous due to the fact that he was holding a piece of glass and had already cut himself.  In this case, the situation appears to be getting worse rather than better.  Would OC spray be a better option?  Maybe/maybe not.  Keep in mind that there are other people in the room that have the potential of being effected by it as well.  

Mike


----------



## OULobo (Nov 12, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> A little info on Tasers that I got from the net.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...



Serious question, did you get that info from the Taser manufacturers? I tried to do some web research on the effects of tasers, but every comment and study I found was related to a study that the taser manufacturers performed. 

I have been threatened by a 7 year old with a knife and intent, and it wasn't much to walk up and take it from him. I would guess that he might have given me a little bit of a gash (he didn't), but it didn't take much to just walk up, grab his wrist, take the blade and start swatting his rump. I have to imagine that an officer in good shape could do atleast as much to a younger child.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 12, 2004)

Well put MACaver... this is a baby we are talking about and my heart hurts for him.  The pain he must have been feeling to be so enraged to do something like that.  Lets hope that he can get the help he needs to find peace.  Lets hope this is the last time he ever feels desperate enough to weild broken glass at someone.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 12, 2004)

Without having all the facts, this sounds like good police work to me.

btw...hilarious avatar, OULobo.  :uhyeah:


----------



## MJS (Nov 12, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Serious question, did you get that info from the Taser manufacturers? I tried to do some web research on the effects of tasers, but every comment and study I found was related to a study that the taser manufacturers performed.



In the search field I typed in "Effect of a taser on the human body" and looked at the results from there, and yes, you're correct, it does appear that the info. is from the mfgr.

My intent was to just provide some info on the taser, not to justify that it was definately the best weapon to be used.

I guess though, that even with the less lethal weapons, an injury still occurs.  Then again, look at the girl who got hit in the eye with a rubber bullet while in the streets of Boston during the game.  She died from that injury.  

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Nov 12, 2004)

Child stopped from harming himself, nobody else injured (any further), other than the tool that was used, things could have been worse. 

Either the Taser is a non/less lethal tool that can be used on all resistors or it isn't, dependent on the departmental policy. The use of force on a subject isnt qualified by age only by what the person "reasonably" believes to be necessary. Was this reasonable? I suppose it depends on how you view the taser. If there was a weapon that could physically immobilize a subject with no pain or risk of injury than we could use it on everybody. Every use of force on a person contains some risk. Percentage wise, the taser seems to be statistically "safe".


----------



## Tgace (Nov 12, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> Then again, look at the girl who got hit in the eye with a rubber bullet while in the streets of Boston during the game. She died from that injury.
> 
> Mike


Actually, she was hit in the eye by an OC projectile fired by an FN 303. A "pepperball" type weapon that fires a paintball type projectile with a plastic stabilizer. Its significantly higher velocity gives it more range and "pain compliance" than the pepperball system. And obviously more risk as well.


----------



## MJS (Nov 12, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Actually, she was hit in the eye by an OC projectile fired by an FN 303. A "pepperball" type weapon that fires a paintball type projectile with a plastic stabilizer. Its significantly higher velocity gives it more range and "pain compliance" than the pepperball system. And obviously more risk as well.



Ahh....thanks for the clarification!! :asian:   Now, are the pepperballs designed to be fired directly at the person, or towards the ground near the target?  I would think at the ground if you were using it to disperse a large crowd.

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Nov 12, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> Ahh....thanks for the clarification!! :asian: Now, are the pepperballs designed to be fired directly at the person, or towards the ground near the target? I would think at the ground if you were using it to disperse a large crowd.
> 
> Mike


Direct fire actually, the pain causes an intake of breath that "gets ya" with the OC. As well as gaining compliance/dispersal in and of itself. There are water filled and UV paint filled projectiles as well. Ideally you should be aiming at the bottom of the ribs down to minimize hitting the face. Pepperball is not supposed to cause eye damage, but I wouldnt want to test it.

If somebody is in a car, closet, room and you cant see them, you can fire at the walls or ceiling to disperse the payload. The powder disperses much better with gravity downward than upward from the ground. They are only .68 cal. balls after all.


----------



## Baytor (Nov 12, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Ya, agreed that none of us here were there so armchair quarterbacking is all we can do if we want to speculate on what "I would've done" kinda of talk.
> IMO tasing a child is WRONG WRONG WRONG! A teenager sure... but we're talking about a child that is still (relatively speaking) a baby. I'm thinking of long term effects physicalogically and phychologically. *(1)*
> I'm ticked about it overall. Excessive use of force IMO *(2)*. I'm sorry but I'm sticking with that. :asian:
> The kid was obviously disturbed enough that he gets the idea to start cutting himself and actually going near his eye. Makes you wonder what the _hell_ is going on at *HOME* that makes the kid, a child, a baby go to such extremes?
> ...


 Wow, in the time it took me to write this, there have been 9 posts, and I got logged out. 

MACaver, I respectfully dissagree with you on some points, but agree on others.  I put some numbers in your post to address them.
1-  I think that the physiological effects are quite a bit less sever with a taser than with a chemical irritant.  I have not taken a taser shot yet, but I have taken pure pepper spray, pepper+teargas mix, and pure tear gas.  I can tell you that they all suck.  A lot.  The pain and confusion from those chemical agents would, in my opinion, cause longer term effects on the child.  
First, the decontamination process would probably take anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes, depending on what chemical agent was used, and how the kid reacted to it.  As MJS already noted, the primary effect of pepper spray is inflamaiton/heat irritation of the mucus membrane in the nose, eyes and lungs.  If the chemical was tear gas+pepper, as many agencies now use, then you also have a very hard time breathing.  This can cause panic.  I know, the first time I got pure tear gas I knew what to expect and I still started to panic because I couldn't breathe.  Then I focused on breathing, and was ok.  My point is, the confusion and panic that can be caused by chemical irritants, along with the (sometimes)lengthy decontamination can make the taser a more appropriate tool for the situation.
Now lets talk about the effects of using a baton on the kid.  Physical effects would include bruising of muscle mass.  There is the potential to cause bruising of the bones and/or ligaments.  There is also the potential to break a bone.  If you were to use the baton to strike the arm to cause him to let go of the glass, you have a good chance of missing your target and stiking the elbow or hand, which could result in broken bones.  The pain from taking a beating would probably last for quite some time.  The memory of getting clubbed like a harp seal would probably cause a lot of issues down the road, inlcuding but not limited to an intense dislike of authority.  Not to mention, to use the baton on him, you would have to bridge the gap which would put you in danger of taking a shard of glass to the gullet.
My real bottom line for point 1:  The phyical and phycological effects could be as bad or worse by using other intermediate weapons.

2- This is really just semantics.  If I remember correctly, excessive force would be force used after control has been established.  Unreasonable force would be to use more force than is necessary to establish control.  As control had not been established, your opinion would be that the force is unreasonable for the situation.  While I understand that you feel that tasing this kid is unreasonable, cops are taught to follow a continuum.  It would only take one lucky move to cause great bodily harm to the officer involved if he chose to bridge the gap.  The ususal continuum response to great bodily harm is lethal force.  By using the tasers, a less than lethal response could be made, without placing the officers in greater risk of harm.

3-  I completely agree with you here.  I said as much in my other post.

The bottom line here is that the officers had a very difficult decission to make in a very short time.  No cop would start the night saying "lets go hurt some kid", they go out trying to stop that kind of thing from happening.  They used the tool that they believed would end the incident as quickly and safely for everyone as possible.  Could another option have been used?  Maybe.  I'm just glad it wasn't me stuck making that call.


----------



## MJS (Nov 12, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Direct fire actually, the pain causes an intake of breath that "gets ya" with the OC. As well as gaining compliance/dispersal in and of itself. There are water filled and UV paint filled projectiles as well. Ideally you should be aiming at the bottom of the ribs down to minimize hitting the face. Pepperball is not supposed to cause eye damage, but I wouldnt want to test it.
> 
> If somebody is in a car, closet, room and you cant see them, you can fire at the walls or ceiling to disperse the payload. The powder disperses much better with gravity downward than upward from the ground. They are only .68 cal. balls after all.



Thanks again for the clarification!!

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Nov 12, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> Thanks again for the clarification!!
> 
> Mike


 :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Nov 12, 2004)

Taser article....

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5035741.html


----------



## MJS (Nov 12, 2004)

Baytor said:
			
		

> 1-  I think that the physiological effects are quite a bit less sever with a taser than with a chemical irritant.  I have not taken a taser shot yet, but I have taken pure pepper spray, pepper+teargas mix, and pure tear gas.  I can tell you that they all suck.  A lot.  The pain and confusion from those chemical agents would, in my opinion, cause longer term effects on the child.
> First, the decontamination process would probably take anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes, depending on what chemical agent was used, and how the kid reacted to it.  As MJS already noted, the primary effect of pepper spray is inflamaiton/heat irritation of the mucus membrane in the nose, eyes and lungs.  If the chemical was tear gas+pepper, as many agencies now use, then you also have a very hard time breathing.  This can cause panic.  I know, the first time I got pure tear gas I knew what to expect and I still started to panic because I couldn't breathe.  Then I focused on breathing, and was ok.  My point is, the confusion and panic that can be caused by chemical irritants, along with the (sometimes)lengthy decontamination can make the taser a more appropriate tool for the situation.



Yes, it does suck!!  When I was working for the Dept. of Corrections, all of the new recruits in the academy had to get a taste of the OC.  They sent groups of people into a shed, where they had shot off some OC.  One at a time, we all had to say our name as well as a few other things.  Nobody could leave until everyone in the shed had gone through that process.  Needless to say, I was the last person in line and couldnt wait to get the hell out of that shed.  Every single person that went in and came out was coughing, red, watery eyes, etc.  Did I suffer long term efftecs? Not at all, but it was a good 15-20 min, before I was back to normal.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Nov 12, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Taser article....
> 
> http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5035741.html



Great article!!  I find it interesting in that it stated that many of the people that died, supposedly already had some underlying condition, IE- Drugs, med. condition, etc.  Now, you can take OC and pretty much end up with the same results.  If someone had a breathing problem such as asthma, the spray could very well put them into an attack.  

So....it appears that the LEO are faced with a very tough decision.  

1- Use a lethal or possibly lethal weapon such as a gun and baton and risk causing some very serious or fatal damage.

2-  Use a weapon termed 'less lethal' and still risk ending up with a fatal result.

What else is left??

Mike


----------



## dearnis.com (Nov 12, 2004)

It is a shame the kid got zapped.  It is a shame the kid was raised in an environment that led him to have these issues.  It would be much more of a shame if he had inflicted a catastrophic injury on himself or a rescuer before he was contained.  
And to the retired judge, who doubtless in his long career sent many a juvenile recidivist back to the streets and condemned many a young sole back to the custody of abusive guardians, the six year old wasn't the threat; the sharp object was.  We aren't just talking about a 6 year old having a temper tantrum here people.


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 12, 2004)

Anything I wanted to say has been well addressed already.  Good thread, guys.  

In the end, it was likely a decision made by the officer on scene in the context of saving this troubled young guy from hurting himself further.  

Did the officer use the appropriate method?  I just can't say, not enough personal experience with the various LEO implements to know for certain.

The decision to intervene, however, sounds like it was made for the right reason, irrespective of the method used.  This cop tried to help the kid from harming himself further.  

Good for him. :asian:


----------



## still learning (Nov 12, 2004)

Hello, this is just one more story. The taser is not the answer for every situations..but in some..it may make a difference?
 Many years ago on the News, a man in his carport were holding four police officers at bay...they try very hard to get the man to drop the knife,and to end this.....he charge the police...they had no choice but to shoot....guess  who got the bullet holes?
 Would a taser have made a difference?...we will never know,but maybe? In Honolulu a few officers are train to carry and use the taser....but this is not good for "Now"  situations..because only a few are allow to carry this taser.  I believe this is one of the many tools every police officer should carry or have in the cars.  
 But when you think about...the cost to keep a prisoner alive today? is it worth it?  Honolulu figures is about $32,000 per prisoner per year, and $8,000 per child for school educations.  Plus they get medical,dental,vison, and surgery too, plus tv's, radios, fans, and whole brunch of good stuffs, 
 They also get combat training(street fighting skills) ...that actually works...Lucky know and free too...who is getting the better education?....Just my thoughts.....aloha....whoo...what was that shock!! UGH!


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 13, 2004)

Baytor said:
			
		

> <snips...here and there >
> MACaver, I respectfully dissagree with you on some points, but agree on others.  I put some numbers in your post to address them.


Okay. I don't have a problem with different opinons to mine own. That's what discussion forums are all about  I'm snipping points from your reply that I, myself want to address. 


			
				Baytor said:
			
		

> 1-  I think that the physiological effects are quite a bit less sever with a taser than with a chemical irritant... My real bottom line for point 1:  The phyical and phycological effects could be as bad or worse by using other intermediate weapons.


Weapons... against a six year old child??  Even if the kid is armed with a piece of glass or a knife or hell even a gun. Using an equal or greater weapon on a child?? Yes, the risk is great for bodily harm to the officer and I can appreciate that no-one wants to get hurt on the job... but this... is... a... child that is six years old... not 16. There had to been another way. 


			
				Baytor said:
			
		

> 2- This is really just semantics.  If I remember correctly, excessive force would be force used after control has been established.  Unreasonable force would be to use more force than is necessary to establish control.  As control had not been established, your opinion would be that the force is unreasonable for the situation.  While I understand that you feel that tasing this kid is unreasonable, cops are taught to follow a continuum.  It would only take one lucky move to cause great bodily harm to the officer involved if he chose to bridge the gap.  The usual continum response to great bodily harm is lethal force.  By using the tasers, a less than lethal response could be made, without placing the officers in greater risk of harm.


 I see that and can appreciate it if not totally understand/empathize with it because I'm not a LEO and don't deal with violent people on a daily basis (depending upon the area/city) but again I will state this was a child. The logic and a cop's physical size and experience will undoubtedly win everytime. A child (that age) is by no means stronger and wouldn't have been difficult to manage the hand/arm holding the glass. The rest would have been subdued in short order, kicking legs and flailing arm and probably biting. 



			
				Baytor said:
			
		

> 3-  I completely agree with you here.  I said as much in my other post.
> The bottom line here is that the officers had a very difficult decission to make in a very short time.  No cop would start the night saying "lets go hurt some kid", they go out trying to stop that kind of thing from happening.  They used the tool that they believed would end the incident as quickly and safely for everyone as possible.  Could another option have been used?  Maybe.  I'm just glad it wasn't me stuck making that call.


Yeah, me too, I appreciate but not envy the LEO's position in our society and the world they have to face day to day. I'm sure there are rewarding moments but the bad has to be faced too. 
I just disagree with using the method ... there had to been another way... even in the heat of the moment.  Just so damn sad that it had to happen that way. 
Hope that kid gets the help he needs for whatever set him off in the first place.
 :asian:


----------



## dearnis.com (Nov 13, 2004)

"Weapons... against a six year old child?? Even if the kid is armed with a piece of glass or a knife or hell even a gun. Using an equal or greater weapon on a child?? Yes, the risk is great for bodily harm to the officer and I can appreciate that no-one wants to get hurt on the job... but this... is... a... child that is six years old... not 16. There had to been another way. "

What would you suggest?  The fact that a deadly threat is innocent of deadly intention- the child who knows no better, or can not distinguish fantasy from reality- does not diminish the deadly threat.


"I just disagree with using the method ... there had to been another way..."

Again, such as?  Tasers were uncommon even 2 years ago; among departments that have switched over and added them as a tool injuries to suspects and officers are way down.  Suppose the Taser was not an option in this case?  Someone was going to hospital with additional injuries; probably the well-meaning officer who tried to wrestle the glass away from the kid.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 13, 2004)

Okay - after the other thread, which heated debate I was involved in, I have done some serious soul-searching on this kind of thing, and I have come to the following, momentous conclusion:

I don't know.

Both arguments are so appropriate.  This is a six-year-old child and I can get anything away from my own 6-year-old little ninja, though he rarely has glass shards in his hands.  But, if the child has psychological issues (we have no idea, reading the article, and for the sake of discussion only) who knows what he would/wouldn't be able to do.  I'm sure the LEO's confidence level plays in here as well.

It would be nice if we can find another way - just one more way.


----------



## OULobo (Nov 13, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Both arguments are so appropriate.  This is a six-year-old child and I can get anything away from my own 6-year-old little ninja, though he rarely has glass shards in his hands.



That is my point exactly. I am pretty confident (without being arrogant) that I can take just about anything away from a six year old. Hell if the kid had a machete, straight razor, or Ka-bar, I'm still confident I could get it without significant injury to myself. The only thing that would make me think twice is a firearm and I don't think most 6 year olds can handle the trigger pull on most guns.


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 13, 2004)

> I'm still confident I could get it without significant injury to myself.


 But are you confident you could do that before the child hurt themselves?  Without hurting them yourself?

Good lord, that has to be the worst looking English I think I've seen for a while.  What's the right way to say that?  Before the child hurt themself?  Themselves?  No, no, it all looks wrong.


----------



## MJS (Nov 13, 2004)

Well, looking over the past few posts, I have to say that this is certainly turning into a very interesting debate!!  Its interesting to see the 2 different sides to this.  

One thing I'd like to comment on is the glass.  Now, again, we weren't there, so, short of all of us sounding like the 'judge', how can we say that it would be easy to take that glass from the kid?  Not trying to start anything here, just asking an honest question.  Who knows what made that kid snap, and who knows what he was capable of.  

I suggested in a prior post of suggestions of what we would do.  Again, taking into consideration that none of us were present, but what if we put ourselves in the officers shoes.  What would we haev done?

Mike


----------



## rattlerbrat (Nov 13, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> But are you confident you could do that before the child hurt themselves?  Without hurting them yourself?
> 
> Good lord, that has to be the worst looking English I think I've seen for a while.  What's the right way to say that?  Before the child hurt themself?  Themselves?  No, no, it all looks wrong.



"...before the child hurt him/herself?" Or, "...before the children hurt themselves?" (Sorry, English major, journalism minor!)

I applaud the police. Obviously, they were faced with a very tough decision and had a very small amount of time to make that decision. As for the strength of children, well...my friend's son broke her ribs when she was three. We're not talking about a kid crying for a lollipop here! We're talking about a mentally disturbed child, who was probably equal parts angry AND afraid. That's a bad, bad mixture. Add a large shard of glass to it, and we're talking trouble. I don't think the cops were too worried about their OWN safety as much as they were the child's. In just a blink of an eye, he could've hurt himself even further. And whose to say that if a policeman/woman had lunged in, he or she would've actually made their target? What do you do if you MISS?


----------

