You may have heard the story, but i will refresh it. A mother calls 911 for help for her 18 year old son who was diagnosed with schizophrenia . three cops show up all from different departments. The officers come in to find the boy threatening his mother with a screw driver. he was first tased and tried to be restrained but he fought it. the cop had a split second to make a decision, and as a result the boy was shot.
THAT IS THE FACTS OF THE STORY
According to CNN the boy was threatening his mother and the officers with the screw driver. the boy was resisting arrest, and not complying with any orders. the cops were called there to get the boy and take him to an institution or hospital. they were NOT there to counsel the boy. they did there job in protecting themselves and others. they did it in an objective reasonably manner. "That term comes from a 1989 Supreme Court ruling, Graham v. Connor, and means that an officer -- and ultimately, higher authorities -- must decide on the spot whether there is a valid presumption of an imminent, serious risk that would warrant the use of force." said CNN. they did what they had to do. i dont like the fact that the boy was killed. its not fun to tell these kind of stories. but the cops did what they had to do, and thats what they are trained to do.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/10/us/north-carolina-teen-killed/index.html?hpt=ju_c2
Replies
Be sure to pose a question so students have something to reply to. Also, be sure to capitalize!
I agree to an extent with the decision of the officers. Acting in a high pressure situation like that with no time to think over their options, I can understand why they would have resolved the situation in the way that they did. On the other hand, we need to remember that we are talking about a person. The officers should have taken into consideration the fact that they were dealing with a schizophrenic boy, which in my opinion completely changes the situation. They boy didn't have control over the way that he was acting, and the officers could have used different ways of controlling him before they resulted to shooting him. We aren't talking about a dog that bit someone and needed to be "put down." We are talking about a disabled boy who didn't have control over his actions.
i agree with the first part, but they should not have called law enforcement to deal with this stuff. because the law enforcement is trained to treat all people the same.
I think that this is a very controversial topic and should be discussed in depth before making a decision on whether or not this cop should be punished.
I think that the officer that killed the teen should have shot the teen in the foot or leg or somewhere where it would have not killed him. An 18 year old could get his life turned around after some time in a mental facility.
Okay, but I still don't think killing the kid was the answer.
law enforcement is trained to shhot to kill. if he was harmful he would still be with a shot in the leg.
Even though there must have been confliction in the cops mind before they shot the kid, it was the right thing to do. If the kid was threatening his mothers life, he need to be put down. I don't, however, believe that the cop should have shot to killed. I think if shooting was the answer, then he should have shot him in the leg or something, so he wouldn't die.