Idaho police shoot and critically wound knife wielding teen
18 Apr 2025, 11:30 am
More specifics and probably body cam footage will likely come out. The unfortunate reality is that knives are a lot more dangerous than people realize and tasers or pepper spray are less reliable than people think.
I'm not personally familiar enough yet about this case, but the reality of police shootings is usually messier than people think.
I'm familiar with the 21 foot rule, I've read two of the main books that have contributed to police becoming so trigger happy in some places (Dave Grossman's On Killing and On Combat).
That said, police seem to both be overly willing to place themselves in poor situations and then escalate based on the danger they've placed themselves in, rather than because they were forced to escalate.
When you're dealing with an armed suspect who's no longer a threat to civilians, the goal should be deescalation, not just shooting them. Especially when they're dealing with someone with ASD, mental illness, intellectual impairments or extreme distress.
If you have enough space to maintain a distance of more than 20 feet, you have a lot more flexibility when it comes to use of force simply because the op can't close that distance in time to actually use their weapon. If you can get them to drop the weapon, you're no longer dealing with an armed suspect. The goal shouldn't be to kill the suspect, it should be to get them to surrender. I understand deadly force is sometimes required, but it seems like they chose violence before they even understood the entire situation or made any attempt to deescalate.
Clearly the goal shouldn't be to kill the suspect, that's really never an optimal outcome, even if it is sometimes unavoidable. I've seen enough cases over the years being covered where more information led to different conclusions.
It's a shame that tasers and pepper spray aren't as reliable as people tend to think. I do hope that in the coming years that we can start to see some of those Boston Dynamics robots fitted up with non-lethal options for subduing people in situations like this. I'm sure that eventually somebody will be able to work out how to fit one with a net gun or a bolawrap that would neutralize the threat in a way that wasn't likely to hurt anybody.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
18 Apr 2025, 4:05 pm
It's a shame that tasers and pepper spray aren't as reliable as people tend to think. I do hope that in the coming years that we can start to see some of those Boston Dynamics robots fitted up with non-lethal options for subduing people in situations like this. I'm sure that eventually somebody will be able to work out how to fit one with a net gun or a bolawrap that would neutralize the threat in a way that wasn't likely to hurt anybody.
I don't think a situation like this requires more gadgets, just a change of doctrine.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
18 Apr 2025, 4:51 pm
It's a shame that tasers and pepper spray aren't as reliable as people tend to think. I do hope that in the coming years that we can start to see some of those Boston Dynamics robots fitted up with non-lethal options for subduing people in situations like this. I'm sure that eventually somebody will be able to work out how to fit one with a net gun or a bolawrap that would neutralize the threat in a way that wasn't likely to hurt anybody.
I don't think a situation like this requires more gadgets, just a change of doctrine.
I do, as a practical matter cops are limited in their ability to back down the way that a private citizen would normally be expected to. Changes to doctrine really only go so far, at some point, people who are wielding weapons need to be confronted or contained so they can't get to other people long enough to calm things down. There's really only so much you can do in terms of that in terms of changes to training or doctrine.
kokopelli
Veteran
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind
18 Apr 2025, 6:14 pm
this information:
zapping him and handcuffing him would of solved the problem
A water cannon might have helped.
Perhaps making him run at them on a conveyor belt.
Or maybe in molasses up to his waist.
Taking sleeping pills might have made him slow down.
Best of all might be having a moat full of alligators between them.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
18 Apr 2025, 11:21 pm
It's a shame that tasers and pepper spray aren't as reliable as people tend to think. I do hope that in the coming years that we can start to see some of those Boston Dynamics robots fitted up with non-lethal options for subduing people in situations like this. I'm sure that eventually somebody will be able to work out how to fit one with a net gun or a bolawrap that would neutralize the threat in a way that wasn't likely to hurt anybody.
I don't think a situation like this requires more gadgets, just a change of doctrine.
I do, as a practical matter cops are limited in their ability to back down the way that a private citizen would normally be expected to. Changes to doctrine really only go so far, at some point, people who are wielding weapons need to be confronted or contained so they can't get to other people long enough to calm things down. There's really only so much you can do in terms of that in terms of changes to training or doctrine.
Where did I say anything about them backing down. A change to doctrine might reinforce containing and deescalating in order to take the person into custody in situations like this, as opposed to just murking them on-sight.
Yes, it will involve more time, but that's an acceptable cost.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
18 Apr 2025, 11:38 pm
Where did I say anything about them backing down. A change to doctrine might reinforce containing and deescalating in order to take the person into custody in situations like this, as opposed to just murking them on-sight.
Yes, it will involve more time, but that's an acceptable cost.
Education wont do anything if someone is a sociopath
19 Apr 2025, 1:00 am
I do, as a practical matter cops are limited in their ability to back down the way that a private citizen would normally be expected to. Changes to doctrine really only go so far, at some point, people who are wielding weapons need to be confronted or contained so they can't get to other people long enough to calm things down. There's really only so much you can do in terms of that in terms of changes to training or doctrine.
Where did I say anything about them backing down. A change to doctrine might reinforce containing and deescalating in order to take the person into custody in situations like this, as opposed to just murking them on-sight.
Yes, it will involve more time, but that's an acceptable cost.
You didn't, but there are just not that many options when things reach the point where shootings are on the table. In an ideal world, there would be fewer guns floating around, better treatment for mental health issues and prisons would be more focused on rehabilitation than on being hellholes. We do not live in that world, at least not in the US.
If the police can't back down, then you're in the same basic situation, no matter what you do in terms of de-escalation, it can still fail and there isn't always the time to do so before making a decision. It certainly sucks, but around here they were doing that sort of nonsense and it's just led to crime spiraling out of control in parts of the city.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
19 Apr 2025, 3:37 pm
Where did I say anything about them backing down. A change to doctrine might reinforce containing and deescalating in order to take the person into custody in situations like this, as opposed to just murking them on-sight.
Yes, it will involve more time, but that's an acceptable cost.
Education wont do anything if someone is a sociopath
Sociopaths probably shouldn't become cops.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York
29 Jun 2025, 6:22 pm
Family of Autistic Teen Shot 9 Times by Police Launch Lawsuit
What People Are Saying
Zoe Gross, director of Advocacy at the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN), told Newsweek: "We must increase community oversight of police forces and make it easier to hold police accountable for violence by ending the policy of qualified immunity, which makes it very difficult to sue when police harm someone. People who want to see less police violence can advocate for policy changes like these."
Gross added: "Police often profile or target autistic people, especially Black autistics and other autistic people of color. They may claim that someone with auditory processing issues is 'refusing to follow commands' that they do not understand; that someone who cannot speak is refusing to cooperate; or that someone making repetitive movements is making threatening gestures or is drunk or high. When autistic people do not understand or cannot follow a police officer's instructions, or moves in a way that police perceive as erratic or threatening, police may immediately escalate to using force, including sometimes killing the autistic person."
Attorney John Burris told the press: "[Officers] arrived on the scene just like gangbusters and within moments, not minutes, not hours, no effort to give the young man any opportunity to locate where he was or to self-identify with these officers; They shot and killed him."
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador told the media at the time of the shooting: "As with all such matters, the Office of the Attorney General will conduct a thorough and impartial review once the Eastern Idaho Critical Incident Task Force completes its investigation."
What Happens Next?
The police in this lawsuit may receive additional legal aid due to the Trump administration, as President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Justice Department to explore a program that could involve law firms providing pro bono assistance to police officers accused of wrongdoing.
_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York
04 Sep 2025, 8:23 am
Idaho officers won't face charges in fatal shooting of Victor Perez, a teen with autism
"The death of 17-year-old Victor Perez was a tragedy," Deputy Attorney General Jeff Nye wrote in a letter outlining the outcome on Wednesday.
He added: "The State would be unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the four officers who discharged their weapons were not justified in using deadly force. We will thus not file criminal charges against the officers."
The Eastern Idaho Critical Incident Task Force investigated the shooting. Prosecutors said they focused on what the officers reasonably knew at the time.
"The officers' knowledge was limited to what dispatch reported, and dispatch's knowledge was limited to what the 911 caller reported. Neither the 911 caller, dispatch, nor the officers were aware of Perez's age or his disabilities. Instead, the officers were told they were heading into a disturbance where an intoxicated male was trying to stab others with a knife," the letter states.
Officers were called to Perez's home on April 5 by a neighbor, who saw the teen holding a knife and in an altercation with members of his family in their backyard. When officers arrived, they moved to a 4-foot chain-link fence around the backyard. Perez, who also had cerebral palsy, had fallen over and was on the ground when officers arrived. Guns drawn, they repeatedly yelled, "Drop the knife!" but he instead stood up and began to step toward them. Three officers opened fire with their handguns, while a fourth fired a bean-bag shotgun, officials have previously said.
Nye wrote in the letter Wednesday that, "it would have been better for everyone had the officers kept their distance from the fence." But he said the officers acted on the information they had at the time.
Investigators later estimated the distance between the officers and Perez at about 12 feet.
Perez died at a hospital six days later after being taken off life support. An autopsy documented 12 gunshot wounds.
A use-of-force expert hired by the state found that "any reasonable officer" in the same position, with the same limited information, would have seen the person with the knife as "an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury" when the shooting began, the letter from the Idaho Attorney General's Office states.
The letter also notes that Idaho law "does not require officers to use less lethal options or to retreat when deadly force is justified." It also does not require police to try a Taser or other less-lethal tools before using deadly force.
In the letter, Nye acknowledged the public outrage the case garnered.
He wrote that the situation is "tragic and heart-rending," and that if officers had known more at the time, "our conclusions might be different." But, he added, prosecutors must base decisions "only on what the officers actually knew or reasonably believed at the time," and on the law.
James Cook, an attorney for the Perez family, told CBS News they expected this outcome but will keep fighting in civil court.
"We are disappointed. However, we are not surprised," he said.
Cook said the family will file an amended complaint in their wrongful death lawsuit using information from the state's materials.
_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.
04 Sep 2025, 4:42 pm
a) The officers were within striking distance of a man with a knife.
b) If someone you know nothing about lunges at you with a knife, you have no chance; they can kill you. At such close range, it's lethal.
c) Have you ever taken a self-defense course?
Do you know what an officer with martial arts and Krav Maga experience told me?
He's very, very strong and skilled, as well as trained, and he knows what to do and what not to do, and he does it at impressive speed.
What he wouldn't be able to defend himself from a knife can be transformed into various offensive modes.
From thrust to thrust...
You have very little chance of defending yourself if you don't react immediately.
And if you react, you can still take a lethal blow.
d) Law was a passion of mine.
Beyond a reasonable doubt.
It means that, in this regard, it has been correctly observed that the expression has a merely descriptive rather than substantive function; "reasonable doubt" about the defendant's guilt still entailed acquittal.
The terminology derives from Anglo-Saxon law; I believe it falls under Article 533 of the Italian Criminal Code.
This phrase implies that they cannot be placed in conditions other than reasonable doubt. Therefore, they are innocent and have performed work that is dangerous for themselves and others, but they acted in compliance with the laws in force.
He only received 9 shots because the officers, despite being four, did not fire repeatedly. If you fire consecutively, you get about three times as many shots per officer.
So, about 27.
The point is also that each officer was probably positioned in a semicircle (my hypothesis, but I don't know the exact dynamics). Let's imagine the boy was right-handed. He could have hit any of the four officers.
I mean, one of the four police officers, I don't know which one.
The other three would have shot anyway.
The colleague would have risked his life.
Question: What if the murdered man had been a police officer?
Would it cause such a stir?
His family—mother, father, children, or brothers, sisters—what would they think about not having done anything to prevent it?
From just over 12 feet, a knife thrown can kill you.
You don't even have time to figure out the direction it was thrown.
I think they acted in self-defense.
The number of shots suggests they wanted to stop him.
In ballistics, a shot fired can ricochet or something else can happen.
Firing from such close range is risky for them too; there's no safety zone, none.
It wasn't a special team; they would have used magnesium.
They came in and didn't have a chance to talk. What they had to do was what they had to do, because it had to be decided immediately.
If I had been an officer and alone, I could have made a different decision.
Risk my life.
But this way, four lives were at stake. And they are your colleagues, whom you spend so many shifts with every day.
You wouldn't want anything to happen to them.
One important thing: they will have been interviewed by experts and psychiatrists.
Not together, but one at a time.
It means their statements and questions received the same answers.
Afterward, they won't feel at peace with themselves.
Killing a person is devastating.
If the investigation continues, they will be wiretapped; everything they do afterward will be scrutinized.
A high-profile case leads to preventive suspensions.
Those in charge don't want to make a fuss, so they'll keep them in office, but they won't be operational until any other internal investigations are completed.
The first ones who don't want these things are their own colleagues.
They could suffer from internal social isolation.
They might lack solidarity.
Now the weakest are all families, including their own.
And themselves.
04 Sep 2025, 5:01 pm
(I hadn't seen) a fourth officer fire a rifle.
That type of weapon in a small space is lethal.
It crushes the human body. If anything, I'd make an assessment on this. Because he shouldn't have had it in his hand there.
One shot is enough.
I've seen the part about Idaho state laws, and they would be consistent with what happened.
That rifle, however, could trigger an investigation.
We need to understand if he fired, where, and for how long.
There's a disproportionate number of weapons.
If I were a family member, that's what I'd ask for an assessment on, because you'll see, it will prove to be an improper weapon.
In that context.
kokopelli
Veteran
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind
04 Sep 2025, 9:32 pm
That type of weapon in a small space is lethal.
It crushes the human body. If anything, I'd make an assessment on this. Because he shouldn't have had it in his hand there.
One shot is enough.
I've seen the part about Idaho state laws, and they would be consistent with what happened.
That rifle, however, could trigger an investigation.
We need to understand if he fired, where, and for how long.
There's a disproportionate number of weapons.
If I were a family member, that's what I'd ask for an assessment on, because you'll see, it will prove to be an improper weapon.
In that context.
Have you ever had any experience with rifles?
I've shot many rifles. I've been around others shooting a variety of rifles. Not once have I ever seen them crush a body.
