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.
Slap on the wrist?
He spent the day trying to kill everyone around him, and you think he deserves a slap on the wrist?
Parents penalized? Theit kid tries to kill them, and you're going to penalize them? The victims?
Your value system is completely out of whack. Kid is a threat to himself and others, and should have been locked up. Whether as a patient in a psychological institution or an inmate in a correctional facility is an open question, but separation from society and professional supervision is not.
The cop was literally running from the kid, while the kid was swinging his weapon. The cop certainly wasn't "standing his ground".
Correct. I wasn't referring to this situation.
I was referring to the parent comment, where they suggested responding officers should wait around outside, while the kid is trying to kill his family members inside.
This kid charged as soon as the first officer made verbal contact with the occupants. So, when called to a domestic dispute, where a family member has been reported using a weapon, parent comment seems to suggest adopting a policy of "stick thumb up ass and wait until we have overwhelming force" before even approaching the scene.
Ignore that the enraged attacker is trying to kill people inside. Ignore that the occupants are calling for help. Just stand by and wait for more people.
That's what police did at Uvalde. Parent comment is recommending a policy consistent with the bungled response at Uvalde.
"Uvalde Gambit" concisely implies the problems with parent comment's suggestion: waiting consistently leads to worse outcomes than immediate actions.
Big talk from someone who has never had a garden hoe swung at their head.
Please, continue criticizing the actions of someone who has.
Nope.
This kid's family did the right thing when they asked people with guns to stop their child from murdering someone.
But the cops should be using tazers or something non-lethal to deal with this kinda altercation
Something non-lethal... Like the "bare hands" they attempted to use on their arrival?
while the other one covers them with a gun.
Yes, exactly. They work through every less-lethal option they have, with an officer ready to escalate to lethal if the subject ever puts someone at imminent risk of death or grievous bodily harm.
If, for example, an atttacker is ever close enough and aggressive enough to attempt to stick a shovel in someone's head and neck, a covering officer can immediately stop the attack with lethal force.
So, officers could start with a less-lethal option, like a baton, or tazer, or bare hands, and only escalate to lethal force if the situation actually calls for it.
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.