Woman with Asperger's Killed by Policemen

[Snap Crackle Pop]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ergers-meltdown-video-killed-police/79867822/

What is everyone's take on this?

 

[hereyago]

She lunged with a knife, , cops defended themselves.

 

[Magpie]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ergers-meltdown-video-killed-police/79867822/

What is everyone's take on this?

It's tragic, but if she did indeed lunge at a police officer with a knife, then getting shot is a fairly predictable consequence.

From the story, it sounds as if the officers were trying to handle things correctly - ie, waiting for an officer trained in crisis intervention, trying to access a non-lethal weapon (was it in the car?). It would have been better if they'd all had body cameras, but at least that appears to be on the way.

This may have been an autistic meltdown that went wildly out of control, or it may have been "suicide by cop". Either way, I'm sure it's a nightmare scenario for the family of any person prone to out of control behaviour, regardless of the cause.

I am curious as to where her service dog was at the time, and whether he's safe now.

 

[kimblebee]

I understand why it's done but I wish police officers didn't have to shoot to kill. A shot to the leg would have stopped her and would have ended the situation. Their lives were in danger and they didn't know who they were dealing with so in that situation, they did what they felt they had to do.

It's gotta be an awful decision to make..

ETA- a non-lethal weapon..is that a stun gun or a beanbag gun?

 

[mommysaurus]

It's tragic.

Although I do agree that if she truly lunged at them with a knife then it's understandable. Disability or not.

 

[PollyannaMom]

It's sad, but I don't really blame the officers. If someone is lunging at you with a knife and you have a gun in your hand, I think it's normal to defend yourself.

 

[Magpie]

I understand why it's done but I wish police officers didn't have to shoot to kill. A shot to the leg would have stopped her and would have ended the situation. Their lives were in danger and they didn't know who they were dealing with so in that situation, they did what they felt they had to do.

It's gotta be an awful decision to make..

ETA- a non-lethal weapon..is that a stun gun or a beanbag gun?

A non-lethal weapon here is usually a taser.

And officers MUST shoot to kill. Why? Because any bullet not placed right in the center of mass (the chest) has the potential to go through limbs and then through walls and doors, potentially killing innocent civilians. It also raises the likelihood of the officer missing his shot completely... and then again possibly hitting other people nearby.

Also, you can't "just shoot them in the leg". Leg shots can kill. Easily. All it takes is a nick to the artery inside the leg, and your victim will bleed out shockingly quickly.

Plus, people who are in full freak out mode often don't stop just because they've been injured. In fact, it can worsen the situation, as they essentially "hulk out" on whomever injured them. So, in the event you don't accidentally kill the lady with the knife, now you have to deal with her stabbing you. And you'll probably start firing wildly... and there go those innocent bystanders again.

Every officer, and every soldier (I was in the Canadian Reserves), is taught that you don't pull your weapon unless you intend to fire it. And you don't fire your weapon unless you intend to kill. And the only place for your bullets is safely in the body of your target.

 

[kimblebee]

A non-lethal weapon here is usually a taser.

And officers MUST shoot to kill. Why? Because any bullet not placed right in the center of mass (the chest) has the potential to go through limbs and then through walls and doors, potentially killing innocent civilians. It also raises the likelihood of the officer missing his shot completely... and then again possibly hitting other people nearby.

Also, you can't "just shoot them in the leg". Leg shots can kill. Easily. All it takes is a nick to the artery inside the leg, and your victim will bleed out shockingly quickly.

Plus, people who are in full freak out mode often don't stop just because they've been injured. In fact, it can worsen the situation, as they essentially "hulk out" on whomever injured them. So, in the event you don't accidentally kill the lady with the knife, now you have to deal with her stabbing you. And you'll probably start firing wildly... and there go those innocent bystanders again.

Every officer, and every soldier (I was in the Canadian Reserves), is taught that you don't pull your weapon unless you intend to fire it. And you don't fire your weapon unless you intend to kill. And the only place for your bullets is safely in the body of your target.

I get that's why they can't just shoot to maim, I said as much in my post. Any weapon has to the potential to be lethal..tasers can kill too. They did do the right thing in the right situation, it's just too bad it had to end up that way.

 

[Magpie]

I get that's why they can't just shoot to maim, I said as much in my post. Any weapon has to the potential to be lethal..tasers can kill too. They did do the right thing in the right situation, it's just too bad it had to end up that way.

You said, "A shot to the leg would have stopped her and would have ended the situation." I was explaining why a shot to the leg wouldn't necessarily have ended the situation or stopped her, and why it might very well have made the situation a whole lot worse. Sorry if I misunderstood what you wrote!

I do agree it's too bad it ended the way it did.

 

[dclpluto]

The officers did nothing wrong. It's a shame for the lady but they did nothing wrong.

 

[RitaE]

I really don't know enough about proper Police Procedure to know if they did anything wrong or not. It sounds like they are undertrained in crises intervention. It also sounds like the front line officers went into the situation without much in the way of information, who she was, what her disability consisted of, whether or not anybody else lived in the house with her. I really doubt they went into that house looking to shoot a disabled woman, but they probably needed to get into the house to see if there was anybody else in danger and then she attacked them and at that point they didn't have many options.

It's a tragedy.

 

[AnnaFloridaLover]

I understand why it's done but I wish police officers didn't have to shoot to kill. A shot to the leg would have stopped her and would have ended the situation. Their lives were in danger and they didn't know who they were dealing with so in that situation, they did what they felt they had to do.

It's gotta be an awful decision to make..

ETA- a non-lethal weapon..is that a stun gun or a beanbag gun?

A shot in the leg? This isn't the movies. Police are taught to shoot to kill and aim for the torso as it's the largest target. They are never taught to shoot to maim. They could take 6 shots at "the leg" and miss and someone could be stabbed in the meantime in a main artery and die (bleed to death) within minutes.

 

[kimblebee]

Ok, I agree a shot to the leg is t a great idea..I was just trying to say do something rather than kill them right off the bat. I also said I see why it was done. They did what they had to do in the situation but it's too bad it ended up the way it did.

 

[Chelley00]

You shoot center mass. Less likely to miss a moving target if you aim for the broadest part. If you go for a leg or an arm (or the head) you risk missing and possibly putting someone else in harm's way. Unfortunately lots of chest wounds can be fatal.

There was a recent story of a man who had some mental issues in Indiana who went after police with a weapon and they tried tasing him first and it didn't stop him. He was in such a charged rage it didn't even phase him.

 

[aristocatz]

I'm confused. Was the person autistic or transgender or both or did I click on the wrong article?

 

[low-key]

every cop I know personally I like, there all good people, but as a group not a fan

 

[minnie mum]

I'm confused. Was the person autistic or transgender or both or did I click on the wrong article?

I think the article was pretty clear in describing the person. He was transgender, attempting to transition from female to male. He was also on the spectrum, apparently Aspergers.

 

[Magpie]

I'm confused. Was the person autistic or transgender or both or did I click on the wrong article?

The article changed!

The original article clearly referred to a woman. I suppose family or friends must have contacted the media to update them on his gender identity.

 

[Magpie]

I think the article was pretty clear in describing the person. He was transgender, attempting to transition from female to male. He was also on the spectrum, apparently Aspergers.

That wasn't in the original article. In that article there was no mention of the person being transgender. It used female pronouns and only referred to his struggle with autism.

 

[aristocatz]

I think the article was pretty clear in describing the person. He was transgender, attempting to transition from female to male. He was also on the spectrum, apparently Aspergers.

I actually found the article pretty confusing to follow....though it could have been due to all of the annoying pop ups as I was trying to read it.