Police officer shoots shotgun point blank range ....at a 12 year old

http://www.kgw.com/news/Portland-officer-investigated-for-use-of-force-on-12-year-old-girl--70571857.html

[QUOTE="Dylan_11"]Sounds like she deserved it.R3Miix

Why is there so much hate for police officers just doing their jobs? Being a cop isn't pretty at all and force does have to be used. Besides, would they have preferred the cops beat the girl senseless with nightclubs, which could have caused permanent brain damage and broken bones?

The story is also rather sparse on details, other then that the girl attacked another officer who was trying to arrest her. She could have been carrying a knife or similar weapon. To be perfectly honest, it sounds like the 12 year old deserved it. Attack a police officer and the law is going to have its way with you.

[QUOTE="Dylan_11"]Sounds like she deserved it.R3Miix

I think law enforcment should get rid of all the less-than-lethal weapons they use. Just go back to using real bullets. Then let it be known that if you don't comply and law enforment has to use force, that it will always be deadly force.

From what was given in the article, the girl was resisting arrest and giving the officers problems. Maybe she'll know better now not to.

Well, she knows not to attack a police officer with a shotgun after that. Valuable lesson there.

A 10 year old gets tazed, and a 12 year old gets shot. Both happened in different situations on the same day. :|Razor-Lazor

well they both did deserve it

i mean the 10 yr old kick the officer in the nuts

and this one was resisting arrest

so i see nothing wrong here

[QUOTE="Razor-Lazor"]A 10 year old gets tazed, and a 12 year old gets shot. Both happened in different situations on the same day. :|spawnassasin

well they both did deserve it

i mean the 10 yr old kick the officer in the nuts

and this one was resisting arrest

so i see nothing wrong here

While I agree that they could of used less force, what he did was legal and within the escalation of focrce manual.

More pigs acting up.wstfld

I bet 80% of the people will come in here and not read the article and bash the cops.

The cop shot her in the thigh with a bean bag. Sure they hurt, but the topic makes it sound like he shot buck shot in her face.

Edit: Well, it seems OT is getting marginally smarter...

More pigs acting up.wstfld

did you even read what happened:|

[QUOTE="wstfld"]More pigs acting up.spawnassasin

did you even read what happened:|

I bet 80% of the people will come in here and not read the article and bash the cops.

The cop shot her in the thigh with a bean bag. Sure they hurt, but the topic makes it sound like he shot buck shot in her face.

Edit: Well, it seems OT is getting marginally smarter...

What you should of said is that he shot a beanbag at a child's leg after she attacked him.

Lol beanbag. Shoot her in the face if you have to.

You forgot to mention it was a bean bag shooting shotgunBrainkiller05

Which can still kill.

As someone above said, we're seeing a nasty trend of some (not all) cops using "less-lethal" weaponry as an excuse to either make their jobs easier, or to stick it to people.

I have the utmost respect for law enforcement, but I don't see how anyone can dispute that there are a LOT of people who become cops simply because being a cop gives them power over others. LOTS of people become cops because they like to be jerks. They get off on the power that a badge brings, and try to exercise their power as far as is possible without getting breaking the law. Now you give those people tasers and beanbag shotguns, and you're damn right they're gonna look for excuses to use them.

I'm not advocating doing away with less-lethal weapons. But maybe do more thorough psychiatric evaluations before letting people join the force. I don't know, do SOMETHING.

She deserved it. I'd feel the same way regardless of how old the subject was.

At least he just fired at her thigh, although he seems a little "trigger happy" when he tackled that one guy and broke 26 of his ribs.get-ka12

If he was aiming at her thigh, then he didn't need to shoot. It's as simple as that.

If you EVER need to shoot someone with ANYTHING, then you shoot center mass, right at the torso. THAT is what is going to be most likely to stop the target, and that is what is going to make it more likely that you HIT the target.

If he needed to hit the target, if he needed to stop the target, and if the use of that level of force was warranted, then he should have shot her in the torso.

[QUOTE="get-ka12"]At least he just fired at her thigh, although he seems a little "trigger happy" when he tackled that one guy and broke 26 of his ribs.MrGeezer

If he was aiming at her thigh, then he didn't need to shoot. It's as simple as that.

If you EVER need to shoot someone with ANYTHING, then you shoot center mass, right at the torso. THAT is what is going to be most likely to stop the target, and that is what is going to make it more likely that you HIT the target.

If he needed to hit the target, if he needed to stop the target, and if the use of that level of force was warranted, then he should have shot her in the torso.

Being hit with a beanbag gun hurts way worse than you might think. Hitting the person virtually anywhere is going to stop their activity because it hurts really really bad.

Have you seen "Jackass The Movie?" One of the stunts in that is for the guy to get shot in the stomach with a beanbag from a shotgun just like the girl in the story, however, that guy also had padding on in order to protect him and lessen the impact, and when he got shot, it still hurt horribly.

She deserves it. Play with fire, you get burnt.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="get-ka12"]At least he just fired at her thigh, although he seems a little "trigger happy" when he tackled that one guy and broke 26 of his ribs.get-ka12

If he was aiming at her thigh, then he didn't need to shoot. It's as simple as that.

If you EVER need to shoot someone with ANYTHING, then you shoot center mass, right at the torso. THAT is what is going to be most likely to stop the target, and that is what is going to make it more likely that you HIT the target.

If he needed to hit the target, if he needed to stop the target, and if the use of that level of force was warranted, then he should have shot her in the torso.

Being hit with a beanbag gun hurts way worse than you might think. Hitting the person virtually anywhere is going to stop their activity because it hurts really really bad.

Have you seen "Jackass The Movie?" One of the stunts in that is for the guy to get shot in the stomach with a beanbag from a shotgun just like the girl in the story, however, that guy also had padding on in order to protect him and lessen the impact, and when he got shot, it still hurt horribly.

basically this getting shot with a beangun anywhere is going to hurt like hell

besides beanbags to the torso can be dangerous especially to a 12 year old

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="get-ka12"]At least he just fired at her thigh, although he seems a little "trigger happy" when he tackled that one guy and broke 26 of his ribs.get-ka12

If he was aiming at her thigh, then he didn't need to shoot. It's as simple as that.

If you EVER need to shoot someone with ANYTHING, then you shoot center mass, right at the torso. THAT is what is going to be most likely to stop the target, and that is what is going to make it more likely that you HIT the target.

If he needed to hit the target, if he needed to stop the target, and if the use of that level of force was warranted, then he should have shot her in the torso.

Being hit with a beanbag gun hurts way worse than you might think. Hitting the person virtually anywhere is going to stop their activity because it hurts really really bad.

Have you seen "Jackass The Movie?" One of the stunts in that is for the guy to get shot in the stomach with a beanbag from a shotgun just like the girl in the story, however, that guy also had padding on in order to protect him and lessen the impact, and when he got shot, it still hurt horribly.

What hes trying to say is...I'm a military man myself, so police standards may be different, but when we shoot a target, we are taught to shoot in one position and one position only. Center mass. Any shot not aimed at center mass is against training. If he had to second guess himself that center mass was "too lethal" for the target, then he shouldn't be shooting in the first place.

He had every right to shoot that girl in the chest, but you can tell he knew his force was excessive, and went for the thigh instead.

Being hit with a beanbag gun hurts way worse than you might think. Hitting the person virtually anywhere is going to stop their activity because it hurts really really bad.

Have you seen "Jackass The Movie?" One of the stunts in that is for the guy to get shot in the stomach with a beanbag from a shotgun just like the girl in the story, however, that guy also had padding on in order to protect him and lessen the impact, and when he got shot, it still hurt horribly.

get-ka12

Here's what I saw: I saw a police officer trying to restrain the girl. I saw another police officer back away INSTEAD of helping to restrain the suspect. This officer then pulled out a shotgun, walked towards the struggle, carefully took aim, and then shot the subject with a shotgun in the leg.

Yes, it hurts horribly. That's how "less-lethal" devices work. In the 10-year-old taser topic, we had a LOT of people dismissing the use of a taser as "a little shock". This is so misleading that it's not even funny. Tasers work by making most of your muscles strart contracting at once, which completely disables you because your muscles don't work right any more. It's a full body muscle cramp that leaves you crippled, and this is INCREDIBLY painful. "A little shock"? Please.

Beanbag guns? They WORK because the physical trauma is so painful that most people simply stop and scream in agony. It works because it's painful, but it is STILL blunt force trauma, and it can kill.

You notice that these kinds of weapons are usually described as "less-lethal" instead of "non lethal" because the very way that they work DOES make it possible to KILL people.

I have a problem with people using these weapons in instances in which they would NOT use a lethal weapon. Because these weapons SHOULD be treated as lethal weapons. They should be used as a second-to-last resort, with the LAST resort being actual shells. If you don't HAVE to resort to tasers and beanbag shotguns, then you shouldn't use them.

[QUOTE="spawnassasin"]

[QUOTE="Razor-Lazor"]A 10 year old gets tazed, and a 12 year old gets shot. Both happened in different situations on the same day. :|Asthma_Is_Sexy

well they both did deserve it

i mean the 10 yr old kick the officer in the nuts

and this one was resisting arrest

so i see nothing wrong here

thank you

would it also offend you if i said i was for capital punishment

:twisted:

[QUOTE="Asthma_Is_Sexy"][QUOTE="spawnassasin"]

well they both did deserve it

i mean the 10 yr old kick the officer in the nuts

and this one was resisting arrest

so i see nothing wrong here

spawnassasin

thank you

would it also offend you if i said i was for capital punishment

:twisted:

What hes trying to say is...I'm a military man myself, so police standards may be different, but when we shoot a target, we are taught to shoot in one position and one position only. Center mass. Any shot not aimed at center mass is against training. If he had to second guess himself that center mass was "too lethal" for the target, then he shouldn't be shooting in the first place.

He had every right to shoot that girl in the chest, but you can tell he knew his force was excessive, and went for the thigh instead.

Blue-Sky

EXACTLY.

The "second guessing" is actually what most clues me into the belief that the force WAS excessive. If he actually HAD shot her right in the chest, then at least one could say that the danger was so immediate that he had no choice but to shoot a 12 year old girl. But the way I saw him carefully take aim at her leg? If he had the luxury of doing THAT, then I suspect that he wasn't at the level at which he needed to resort to the shotgun.

Similarly with that 10-year-old tasering that got discussed here a few days ago. A cop ASKED the mom if it was okay to taser the girl. She consented, the cop tasered the girl. People were DEFENDING the fact that the mom gave consent. But honestly, screw that. If the cop was in a position in which he actually had the luxury of ASKING for consent, then he had no business resorting to the taser.

If you NEED to use that level of force, then you DO IT. ACT, don't ask the suspect's mother if shooting is okay. If you need to shoot someone with a shotgun, and are JUSTIFIED in resorting to the shotgun, then that's contradictory with the act of carefully aiming a well-placed shot at the thigh. If you have to resort to the shotgun at all, then you aim at the chest, and consequences be damned. And if the threat is NOT so immediate that you have to aim at the chest, then you don't aim anywhere else either. These people are well-trained professionals, solve that conflict without using their guns.

Well, she knows not to attack a police officer with a shotgun after that. Valuable lesson there.

T_P_O

That was a pretty tall 12 year old lol