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.
This headline happens so frequently that I was confused at first and thought it was from a couple of years ago.
Why would you call the cops on someone you care about? How often would a armed person that can kill with impunity help a situation?
Defund the police was an unpopular slogan. ‘Redistribute some police funding to social services, education, mental health, and unarmed crisis interventions’ doesn’t fit on a T-shirt. When faced with a dangerous family situation, there’s no one else to call for help.
Defund the police was unpopular because the rightwing weaponised it and made it so.
Any phrase you use will be made unpopular, even something as basic, positive, and explanatory as “walkable cities”.
The issue isn’t the phrase you use, it’s not defending them well enough from malicious actors.
The right-wing weaponized it and most news outlets did nothing to push back against them.
There were various reports of “huge crime spikes” in certain cities following announcements by local politicians that the local PD were going to be defunded, but in most cases that never even happened, and in some cases the spending on police even went up by a couple of percent.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/defunding-claims-police-funding-increased-us-cities/story?id=91511971
Sorry, I strongly disagree. It’s a dumb slogan that says, “Get rid of the police!”. Once that idea is in people’s heads, there no explaining what it really means.
nah man, abolish the police… fuckem ACAB
Exactly. Abolish police. Abolish prisons. Abolish people’s right to carry guns. Only then can we have the truly peaceful society we want.
This happened a few years ago with a different teen IIRC, so I was equally confused until I saw the picture
‘raises concerns’? Bro, those concerns have been raising steadily for quite a while now. They’ve almost escaped the atmosphere.
The bar is low and the concerns are high
How many times does an issue need to be raised before it is resolved?
As many times as it takes to affect rich people
Rich people don’t call the police on their troubled children, they send them to private school.
To the police and the people who make rules for them, this isn’t an issue, it’s a job perk.
∞
+1
The only feasible reaolution for this sort of situation is more drastic interventionary measures after earlier incidents. Once he is swinging a hoe at family members and officers, it is entirely too late to expect a non-forceful resolution.
This was not the first time the family called for police to intervene. We need to look at those previous incidents to figure out how to recognize kids that will come to pose a danger to themselves and others.
raises concerns
I’m not sure how much higher they can raise.
ACAB
Whether you are an ACAB type or a Thin Blue Line type, you should be in favor of being less dependent on cops for things like basic civil service, mental health care, wellness checks, traffic enforcement, etc. Cops have to wear too many hats. They’re expected to be professionals, experts even, in too many fields. It is not fair to them to expect that level of competence in so many specialties and it’s not fair to the community that needs experts to rely on people who have minimal training outside of arrest techniques and self defense. Instead of 30 generalists in all fields in a community, we should have 30 specialists in different fields. Some cops, some emergency mental health experts, some social workers, some traffic enforcement specialists (yes, this should be separated from general law enforcement), etc.
Edit: Additionally, I believe that separating these duties to different people with different authority, techniques and mind sets will also make it safer for both cops and the public. How many cops are killed during basic traffic stops because a criminal was expecting to be caught or feared the cop’s sidearm? How many innocent citizens have been killed in basic traffic stops because the cop was trained to be afraid for his life? How likely is a civil worker going to be to feel the need for lethal force if they aren’t armed at all times? How likely is an addict going to be to shoot on sight when an EMT knocks on the door for a wellness check?
It’s also counter-intuitive, but cops and the public will be safer when they only have to deal with dangerous situations, when they’re exclusively dealing with criminal suspects. They can rely on their defensive training without worrying about as much situational circumstances. And they’re not interacting with the general public as if their the nails they’re trained to hammer.
This is essentially what the Defund The Police idea was all about before it got killed politically. Instead of putting additional $millions per year into the local PD, spend that money on additional outreach programs and first-responders with counseling training instead of having armed cops showing up on every scene.
Exactly. Unfortunately, the fundamentally good and sound idea, “defund the police”, got named a phrase that, while understandably cathartic and snappy for those on the side of police reform, was an easy target to the opposition. It played into their misrepresentation of the actual goals of the movement as being fundamentally lawless, chaotic and anarchistic. They made the idea of reprioritizing our tax dollars to more directly meet the public needs into a scary idea that will destroy property and endanger lives. And the police helped with that too. I really feel like if the name attached to the idea was less seemingly antagonistic towards the police and more descriptive of the actual goal, we’d still at least be talking about it in legislatures.
Yeah, it’s sad how such a promising idea essentially got killed because the poor choice of name stuck.
“Reform Police Funding” or “Budget Reallocation” would have been a lot less controversial.
“Defund the police” was the dumbest slogan. It made it too easy for people to misunderstand reallocate funds and responsibilities.
We could pull the ol name switcheroo, like many politicians do for bills. Could start the ‘Help the police’ movement but still call for reallocating funds and responsibilities. Same same, but different.
The issue within the police force is an issue of mental health, so of course they’re not equipped to deal with it. Same unfortunate story.
I have said this elsewhere but police only seem to know how to escalate situations. As a person in this field calling the police is the last resort in our crisis plan…technically…but I’m afraid if it gets to that point that I can’t handle it, introducing an individual armed and ready to escalate would be a death sentence and I couldn’t live with myself. I make sure my kiddos who have autism know the risk of police using misunderstandings to murder them as well. I hope this cop recieves punishment , but I won’t hold my breath.
LA Times. Uh, could you . . . Y’know. Make a better effort at describing this kind of event as an absolute horrifying epidemic and maybe less of “oops that shouldn’t be” sort of spin?
Okay that’d be great, yeah thanks
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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.
It sounds like he was violent. What’s a cop supposed to do, exactly?
You mean there’s no step between doing nothing and kill somebody? A “violent” teen with a garden tool. American asf
I don’t know, maybe ask him to not run at him with a garden tool? The fact that they need to be trained to have this tiny amount of compassion is sad. They just want any reason to shoot neurodivergent people of color like this.
Not shoot to kill?
Taser, pepper spray, beanbag?
Not like this kid has a gun
