Police shoot 12 year old with bean bag round

[grydth]

I would suspect that research would show isolated fatalities from just about every means of apprehension.... the devil is in the details, however.

One also should consider the danger posed to police and public from this out of control person. Surveillance video shows a train in station - suppose her struggles has pushed somebody there?

For those who criticize the police here - what should they have done? (That being within the limits of the training and equipment these officers had)

 

[Carol]

Are there any cases and/or links that will show that people have died from a beanbag hit? Not sure where the person was hit that would cause death, but a hit to the body should not cause death.

U.S. Department of Justice, October 2004 - There are plenty of details in the report. Essentially, in a survey from 106 agencies, 373 impact munitions were fired. 8 deaths occurred from impact munitions, 2 deaths occurred when the officers intended to fire a less lethal round but instead fired a lethal round. Of the 8 deaths, at least 5 were from a bean bag round. The report lists one case of the target getting hit in the throat with a bean bag round, another case is listed as the target dying of a punctured lung, which was caused when the bean bag round hit their ribs.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/206089.pdf

Iowa, June 2009 - a beanbag round was used in an attempt to apprehend a suicidal person (which from what I understand is the most common use for this type of round), the person died from the impact.

http://www.whotv.com/news/who-story-standoff-death-060909,0,5218697.story

Georgia, April 2005 - target dies after getting shot in the spleen with a bean bag round

http://www.policeone.com/less-letha...fter-Ga-Police-Shoot-Him-with-Bean-Bag-Round/

Massachusetts, October 1998 - A report in the New Bedford (MA) Standard-Times describes use by the Dartmouth PD, along with a notation that the round can kill when deployed at close range or when impacting the head or neck. This does not cite specific instances.

http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/10-98/10-27-98/a01lo006.htm



The first PoliceOne article is sponsored by TASER so...I think its safe to say they are biased They mention several bean bag round deaths but do not provide incident specifics. The second is the counter called "In defense of the beanbag" and notes that a fatal injury in 1972, when a 14 year old New Mexico boy was fatally shot with the round, resulted in agencies shelving the tool for 18 years.

http://www.policeone.com/less-letha...role-it-plays-in-death-and-injury-prevention/

http://www.policeone.com/police-pro...328-In-defense-of-the-12-gauge-bean-bag-round


Assuming the details in these articles are correct, a hit to the body most certainly can cause death -- however, it is not likely to cause death.

 

[KenpoTex]

You can't simply say "she was resisting, so anything from a punch in the jaw to bean bags was OK." I don't know the department's policies, nor do I know how he justified using the bean bag. If he was within policy, or justified it -- he's fine, and I'll back him up in that. As should his chief and commissioner.

When did I say that any form of "resisting" justified getting punched in the jaw or bean-bagged. I said that based on what I see in the video, it appeared that she was being combative--actively fighting--not just engaging in passive resistance or trying to get away. "I'm going to kick your ***," vs. "I don't want to cooperate."

But they had a 3-on-1 situation. They had already taken the girl to the ground. Jumping to the upper end of the less-than-lethal force options is going to have to be justified. And I have a hard time figuring out a justification based on what's been presented. Were the girl to have been trying for one of the officers's guns, or turn out to have had a knife that became visible during the struggle, it'd be a different question. But I think that those details would probably have come out by now.

Well I guess until further details come out, we could go in circles on this forever. My position remains that based on what I saw in the video, officers dealing with a combative subject, their use of a less-lethal tool was justified.

While a bean-bag may be on the "upper end" of the less-lethal force continuum, in this case it was used in a manner that had virtually no chance of causing serious injury. A baton is a less-lethal tool that can also be used in a deadly manner. Would you have a problem if they had whacked her across the leg with an asp?

As far as the gun-grab thing...if she had tried to grab one of their guns, AFAIC they would have been justified in using deadly force.

 

[Twin Fist]

i would give the cop a medal, then promote him, and put him in charge of training

 

[Rich Parsons]

I came across this elsewhere. Quick summary: Disorderly kids on a Portland commuter train. Portland PD officers respond, and try to take a 12 year girl into custody for trespass after being banned. She bucks; some accounts say she struck one of the cops. Cop on scene has a bean bag shotgun... and uses it at close or contact range, shooting her in the thigh. She is not hospitalized. Police chief backs the cop somewhat, wanting to put him on a desk job; commissioner overrules the chief and suspends the cop -- who was already under investigation or scrutiny for another excessive force complaint.

News accounts:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/11/portland_officer_suspend_after.html (has videos)
http://www.kptv.com/news/21713828/detail.html

I can't find a way to justify this one... The bean bag round just seems a bit of overkill for the circumstances. I'd be 100% behind the use of a Taser, and obviously some force was called for...

JKS,

I grew a lot when I was 12. The Hospital where I got my Tonsils out thought I was an adult. Many people thought I was 18 or older as I was 6'1" and still growing and was adult size.

If you were wrestling with me at that time would you consider the use of the bean bag weapon (* being your only option at the time *)?

I am not trying to trap you, and I understand what I described is different then most 12 girls.

Just curious, as I could see if they were wrestling and she grabbed for it because he had it in his hand and it went off during the conflict. Still not was described, but like I said curious.

 

[MJS]

U.S. Department of Justice, October 2004 - There are plenty of details in the report. Essentially, in a survey from 106 agencies, 373 impact munitions were fired. 8 deaths occurred from impact munitions, 2 deaths occurred when the officers intended to fire a less lethal round but instead fired a lethal round. Of the 8 deaths, at least 5 were from a bean bag round. The report lists one case of the target getting hit in the throat with a bean bag round, another case is listed as the target dying of a punctured lung, which was caused when the bean bag round hit their ribs.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/206089.pdf

Iowa, June 2009 - a beanbag round was used in an attempt to apprehend a suicidal person (which from what I understand is the most common use for this type of round), the person died from the impact.

http://www.whotv.com/news/who-story-standoff-death-060909,0,5218697.story

Georgia, April 2005 - target dies after getting shot in the spleen with a bean bag round

http://www.policeone.com/less-letha...fter-Ga-Police-Shoot-Him-with-Bean-Bag-Round/

Massachusetts, October 1998 - A report in the New Bedford (MA) Standard-Times describes use by the Dartmouth PD, along with a notation that the round can kill when deployed at close range or when impacting the head or neck. This does not cite specific instances.

http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/10-98/10-27-98/a01lo006.htm



The first PoliceOne article is sponsored by TASER so...I think its safe to say they are biased They mention several bean bag round deaths but do not provide incident specifics. The second is the counter called "In defense of the beanbag" and notes that a fatal injury in 1972, when a 14 year old New Mexico boy was fatally shot with the round, resulted in agencies shelving the tool for 18 years.

http://www.policeone.com/less-letha...role-it-plays-in-death-and-injury-prevention/

http://www.policeone.com/police-pro...328-In-defense-of-the-12-gauge-bean-bag-round


Assuming the details in these articles are correct, a hit to the body most certainly can cause death -- however, it is not likely to cause death.

Thanks for the links. I think that much like the Taser, which also gets a bad rep, that isolated incidents will happen. From what I've heard, in many cases with the Taser, a pre-existing condition was usually the cause of the fatality, ie: heart condition, under the influence of drugs, etc.

What I find interesting is considering how much contact, we as martial artists get during training, especially guys who fight in the cage, yet the number of deaths have been rare.

So, is it possible to get a broken rib? Apparently so, from the article.

 

[Ray B]

Take gender and age out of the equation and what do you have?
120-130 lb person forcebly resisting an officer. If this was a 25 year old, male prison inmate, we wouldn't be here discussing the matter.

 

[MJS]

Take gender and age out of the equation and what do you have?
120-130 lb person forcebly resisting an officer. If this was a 25 year old, male prison inmate, we wouldn't be here discussing the matter.

Great point! Then again, I'd be willing to bet that if force other than empty hand compliance was used, some members of the bleeding hearts club, would probably still have something to say. Oh well....this is why I always say...the LEOs of the world are damned if they do, damned if they dont.

 

[Carol]

What about a 5' 7", 165 pound adult? I saw that as the description of the girl when I was surfing around looking for links.

 

[MJS]

IMO, anyone thats resisting the police is at risk of having force used against them. Every PD out there has a use of force policy, so as long as its followed, then IMO, it shouldn't matter if its a 15yo kid, a 30yo adult or an 80yo man....if they're resisting, and empty hand controlling methods are not working, then OC, taser, baton, pepperball, beanbag, K9, should be used accordingly.

 

[jks9199]

IMO, anyone thats resisting the police is at risk of having force used against them. Every PD out there has a use of force policy, so as long as its followed, then IMO, it shouldn't matter if its a 15yo kid, a 30yo adult or an 80yo man....if they're resisting, and empty hand controlling methods are not working, then OC, taser, baton, pepperball, beanbag, K9, should be used accordingly.

Absolutely. But, as I've said, the force must be reasonable and appropriate to the resistance encountered. My sole question here is simply that; was the use of the bean bag round reasonable and appropriate to the resistance encountered?

I think there's some room for debate. There were three officers on the scene, trying to arrest one unarmed person. She was actively resisting and assaulting the officers -- but did the level of resistance justify the force used? If it did, if it was within the policy of the agency and the officer's training in the weapon used, they're fine, and I support them. If it didn't -- I support the officer, but not the choice.

One use of force chart that I like for how it relates the balance of control with resistance, including the recognition of too much control and too much chance of injury, is found HERE. (A detailed explanation can be found here.) It's probably a couple of years old, and it's not perfect. Nor should it be viewed as some sort of stairstep or rigid hierarchy. And, unless the force used is significantly out of proportion -- the error should go to the officer, in my opinion. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, examined, and reviewed.

 

[Carol]

Thanks for the links. I think that much like the Taser, which also gets a bad rep, that isolated incidents will happen. From what I've heard, in many cases with the Taser, a pre-existing condition was usually the cause of the fatality, ie: heart condition, under the influence of drugs, etc.

What I find interesting is considering how much contact, we as martial artists get during training, especially guys who fight in the cage, yet the number of deaths have been rare.

So, is it possible to get a broken rib? Apparently so, from the article.

Excellent point as well. Especially with the cage fighters, I think that speaks volumes about their overall conditioning, as well as the safety rules that are put in place (no bare knuckles, no hand sword chops to the throat, referee can stop the fight, etc.)

Also something to keep in mind is the speed of impact. I could take a lead bullet and try to press it to a person's chest and likely not create anything more than a bruise. However, when propelled from a firearm at 800 - 1100 fps, that same bullet becomes a lethal projectile.

The BBC reported that boxer Ricky Hatton's fastest punch was 32 MPH, with an average speed of 25 MPH.

By contrast, the beanbag round is propelled at 300 fps, or ~205 MPH.

 

[SensibleManiac]

U.S. Department of Justice, October 2004 - There are plenty of details in the report. Essentially, in a survey from 106 agencies, 373 impact munitions were fired. 8 deaths occurred from impact munitions, 2 deaths occurred when the officers intended to fire a less lethal round but instead fired a lethal round. Of the 8 deaths, at least 5 were from a bean bag round. The report lists one case of the target getting hit in the throat with a bean bag round, another case is listed as the target dying of a punctured lung, which was caused when the bean bag round hit their ribs.

a hit to the body most certainly can cause death -- however, it is not likely to cause death.

These were ALL from shots to the torso, and not the limbs.
A shot to the limbs is ALMOST impossible to be lethal.

 

[MJS]

Absolutely. But, as I've said, the force must be reasonable and appropriate to the resistance encountered. My sole question here is simply that; was the use of the bean bag round reasonable and appropriate to the resistance encountered?

I think there's some room for debate. There were three officers on the scene, trying to arrest one unarmed person. She was actively resisting and assaulting the officers -- but did the level of resistance justify the force used? If it did, if it was within the policy of the agency and the officer's training in the weapon used, they're fine, and I support them. If it didn't -- I support the officer, but not the choice.

One use of force chart that I like for how it relates the balance of control with resistance, including the recognition of too much control and too much chance of injury, is found HERE. (A detailed explanation can be found here.) It's probably a couple of years old, and it's not perfect. Nor should it be viewed as some sort of stairstep or rigid hierarchy. And, unless the force used is significantly out of proportion -- the error should go to the officer, in my opinion. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, examined, and reviewed.

Of course. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. IMO, I think alot of times, when people see 3-4 cops piled on someone, trying to cuff them, they assume its overkill, when in reality, just because you're down, doesnt mean that you still can't resist. So in their eyes, pulling out OC, which should be perfectly well within the use of force, is overkill, when its not, nor would be a taser.

A quick example: We have a few homes in the city where I work, that house people with some mental issues. Guy calls 911 and starts rambling about crazy stuff, then hangs up. Of course a cop is sent to verify everything is ok. Less than a min. later, a staff member calls, stating that the guy is out of control, throwing things and then runs out of the house.

A few more officers are sent. One of them comes across the guy walking down the street, carrying and emptying a fire extinguisher. Cop hangs back a bit until the others arrive. One of the responding officers has a K9. The Supervisor that was also going, made it clear that if more force was needed, to use the Taser first, before the dog.

 

[Guardian]

I applaud the officers for using the bag instead of fighting with this kid and possibly hurting her or themselves. Put him back on the street and let's press, dang kids now a days are running rampant and it's just getting worse.

 

[shesulsa]

These were ALL from shots to the torso, and not the limbs.
A shot to the limbs is ALMOST impossible to be lethal.

The round to the torso which killed by rupturing the spleen was taken at approximately 25 feet.

The round fired to the girl's thigh was within 3 feet. While the femur is quite difficult to break, it does happen and it also happens to often be a life-threatening situation when either the femoral artery or vein rupture from either the broken bone or a seriously powerful blow to the area.

 

[shesulsa]

I want to be clear - something needed to done with this girl, I only question the proximity of the shot.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Are there any cases and/or links that will show that people have died from a beanbag hit? Not sure where the person was hit that would cause death, but a hit to the body should not cause death.

A beanbag to the chest could crack the sternum or mechanically shock the heart and cause it to stop (or so I was told). If you hit the liver or kidneys, I think internal bleeding is a possibility too if said organ ruptures.

If you hit the inner thigh I suppose an artery rupture is also a possibility if it gets squashed against the femur.

 

[SensibleManiac]

The round to the torso which killed by rupturing the spleen was taken at approximately 25 feet.

The round fired to the girl's thigh was within 3 feet. While the femur is quite difficult to break, it does happen and it also happens to often be a life-threatening situation when either the femoral artery or vein rupture from either the broken bone or a seriously powerful blow to the area.

I'm just trying to keep it relevant to the case here.
I find that talking about torso shots can confuse the issue.
Let's keep in mind, she was not shot on the torso but on her leg.
She ONLY received a bruise and did not require to be brought to a hospital.

As you know if the police injure someone or are injured themselves, they have to go to the hospital.
If the person they arrest is injured, they have to take them to the hospital.

The FACT that no one is making a stink that she wasn't taken to hospital, and even the news claiming that she wasn't required to be brought to the hospital as she only had a bruise speaks volumes.
She wasn't injured.
Many lawful arrests involve more serious injuries and no one ever says a word.
Injuries like scrapes that could be infected and cuts, fractures, and other more serious injuries that never involve bean bags.
I'm not saying this weapon can't be abused, I'm just saying in this instance, it clearly wasn't.
As for the range, what would you rather, 3 feet and a clear shot to the leg or a further shot and possibly injuring a fellow officer or more seriously the girl.
He made sure he fired from where it would be very hard to miss and hit her on the thigh which would make it very difficult to fracture a bone considering that is the meatiest part of the leg.

 

[shesulsa]

I didn't know she wasn't taken to a hospital - is that a requirement in Washington state? I don't think so unless there is obvious injury.

I personally think the reasons they're looking at this case closer are 1. the officer firing the round has been investigated for excessive force before and 2. the girl is "only twelve."

I'm really happy to see officers speaking out to defend their own and their need for force in situations like this - the public needs to be more aware of what these men and women go through every day and why they need the weapons they carry.

This is a good example of a less-than-ideal situation.

There are a few other things I see wrong in the video, but more to the officers' safety. I think I'll just shut up now.