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.
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.
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.
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 think training that attitude into police would be a monumental mistake. Prideful, cocky, and overconfident in their own abilities,