Fatal shooting of autistic teen raises concerns about police response to people with mental health issues
Fatal shooting of autistic teen raises concerns about police response to people with mental health issues
Ryan Gainer's death has heightened concerns from activists about law enforcement's use of force against people suffering from mental health issues and the lack of supportive services available for families when they call police for help.
Ryan Gainer, a teen with autism, was a cross-country runner who worked out his frustrations with six-mile runs and dreamed of becoming an engineer.
On Saturday afternoon, the 15-year-old became upset that his parents had demanded he complete his household chores before he would be allowed to play video games or listen to music on his computer, according to DeWitt Lacy, a civil rights attorney representing Ryan’s family.
“He got upset. Any teen would be upset by that,” Lacy said. Some people with autism experience more heightened emotions and on that day Ryan responded by breaking glass on the front door, Lacy said.
A family member called 911 for help, asking dispatch to send deputies to “take him in” because he was breaking glass and hitting his sister, according to a portion of the call released by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department.
But instead a responding deputy fatally shot the teen, saying he had threatened the deputy with a garden tool.
You're viewing a single thread.
While tragic, I don't think anyone can reasonably argue the shooting was unjustified.
Just watched it. You’re absolutely full of shit and a coward.
Why were cops there in the first place? He needed help with his mental health, not some state-sanctioned bully with a gun to shoot him.
He had a fucking gardening tool.
It’s pathetic how you said that so matter of fact “I don’t think anyone can reasonably argue…”
According to US customs, I believe it might actually be fine and dandy. Legally in the clear. But you've got some funny customs over there.
What training and instruction have you had on the laws governing use of force in defense of self or others?
Why were cops there in the first place?
Because the family reported that he was attacking them.
He had a fucking gardening tool.
Yes. It appears to be a hoe. A hoe that is perfectly capable of causing death or grievous bodily harm when swung at the unprotected head and neck of an individual.
That "fucking gardening tool", when wielded in this manner, is a deadly weapon. I certainly believe you would make such an argument were I to attempt to strike you with such a weapon.
I stand by my assertion: there is no reasonable argument to be made that this was unjustified. This use of force was reasonable in the circumstances.
If there is any fault here, it is on the fact that the kid was not institutionalized after a previous incident.
I have trained in quite a bit of self defence with various different martial arts.
The hoe could be lethal in a very unlucky scenario, as you say, if it struck an exposed neck, or major artery. However it is a very ungainly weapon. It is significantly less dangerous than a knife, for example. Police in the UK are not equipped with guns, yet they deal with knife attacks all the time with just a baton.
It seems to me like the cops in the US are far too reliant on their firearms. Dealing with a poor weapon like a hoe should be quite easy to someone who is suitably trained. With all long weapons like this hoe, baseball bat, etc, anything that needs to be swung, you have to get in close, quickly. Then the assailant cannot hit you anymore. Then it should be quite straightforward to make the situation safe in a non lethal manner. This sort of response is completely ridiculous and should not be normalized.
I have trained in quite a bit of self defence with various different martial arts.
What training and instruction have you had on the laws governing use of force in defense of self or others?
The hoe could be lethal in a very unlucky scenario, as you say, if it struck an exposed neck, or major artery.
Is it reasonably capable of causing "grievous bodily harm"? Being rendered unconscious or otherwise unable to defend oneself, or losing an eye or other significant organ would qualify as "grievous" in these circumstances.
Would a person reasonably fear either "death" or "grievous bodily harm" from an individual wielding a hoe as a weapon?
I am not interested in the nitty gritty of the legality of what the cop did. I don't think he should have done it, and to me speaks of a lack of training (and the fact that they are reliant on their firearms)
I am aware of the principle of proportional response, and I know the line is generally; if you fear for your life then it is legally acceptable to maim the assailant. But to kill them I think is a step too far.
I do not think the hoe is "reasonably capable of causing "grievous bodily harm"". I think it is reasonably capable of causing injury, sure, such as cuts, lacerations, blunt trauma. I think GBH would be a very unlikely outcome and if confronted with that as a weapon I would not be preparing myself to kill or even maim them. It is a pretty easy weapon to disarm.
am not interested in the nitty gritty of the legality of what the cop did.
Then there is no discussion to be had. The law is the foundation of officer training and policy. To discuss the officer's actions, we must first understand the legal climate under which he acted. He knows it: he has been trained on the law.
if you fear for your life then it is legally acceptable to maim the assailant. But to kill them I think is a step too far.
Under US law It is never acceptable to act with intention to kill or main the assailant. Having the intention of maiming the assailant is not self defense: it is aggravated battery. Having the intention of killing the assailant is not self defense: it is attempted murder.
The only intention contemplated by the laws governing the use of defensive force is "stop the threat". The only valid purpose any imperiled person or other defender can have is "stop the threat".
If they have time to decide between "killing" or "maiming" the attacker, the attack is not sufficiently imminent to justify any use of force. Their imperfect use of defensive force then qualifies as criminal. That they were attacked is only a mitigating factor; it does not exonerate the criminality of their actions.
I do not think the hoe is "reasonably capable of causing "grievous bodily harm"".
I think training that attitude into police would be a monumental mistake. Prideful, cocky, and overconfident in their own abilities,
Unless said person is a small child, very old, or unaware, no I don't think it's reasonable to fear even moderate injury from a teenager welding a hoe.
That's rediculous and cowardly.
*ridiculous.
sigh now where'd I put that hoe...
I fucking haaate the police. 100% ACAB. But yeah I'm with you on this one. Somebody charging at me full speed about to swing a 4 foot long anything is getting deadly force.
The cop on the defensive isn't even the one that fired. He tried to outrun the kid. One of his homies did the shooting and possibly saved his head from getting split.
I'm sure we could dig into these officers' history and find something to be pissed about but this isn't it.
I read or heard a report that both officers fired. I believe the first officer was trying to run away as he fired, and the camera was on his chest. It didn't see his gun arm outstretched behind him.
The position he was in was kinda like a driver aiming at the back, passenger-side seat: the body cam would only see the steering wheel.