You propose that being impaled through your chest or your gut has zero chance of killing you?
Hey, it’s Super Dio. Bullets bounce right off, too.
There is no irony in it. I never whine and call people names and accuse them of trolling because they diagree with me.
I propose that the kid had zero chance of impaling or killing anybody. I’m calling that suggestion a load of crap. A bullshit excuse. My ass he could kill anybody.
A poster with a stick up his ass sure is lethal to a thread. The SDMB history is my cite.
Or your neck.
Yeah, if the stupid cops are afraid to impale themselves on this wooden spear, they shouldn’t be cops!
There was no chance of impalement. That is a load of shit.
I’m sure you’d be more than willing to provide us the evidence that you alone apparently have that would lead you to believe that a raging, emotionally-disturbed child who had spent a good part of the morning screaming death threats at his classmates and teacher, and trying to bash in a door to get at them with his wooden spear, who wouldn’t even calm down when the POLICE came, who said “Come get me, fuckers!” TO the police, would not have succeeded in majorly injuring someone.
Well, now you’re arguing in circles. I said a lethal weapon is a lethal weapon regardless of the age of the person wielding it. First you dispute that it’s lethal, then you say it’s not lethal only because of the age of the person wielding it.
So which is it? Is it lethal or not? And if you struggle with someone over a lethal weapon, are you proposing zero chance that either of you will fall on it? Setting aside the fact that the kid was in an hysterical rage and would certainly have tried to intentionally impale anyone who got near him.
Frankly, I don’t see the risk of someone dying as a better option than subduing him with a tool that would wear off completely in a couple hours with no lasting effects.
I didn’t say the age had anything to do with it. It wasn’t a “lethal weapon,” period.
So you ARE proposing that being impaled couldn’t possibly kill you.
Gotcha.
I, uhm, disagree, obviously.
He didn’t have a “spear.”
I’m saying the piece of wood he had couldn’t have possibly “impaled” anybody. That’s a crock of shit.
I notice that nobody has answered my question about whether it would have been acceptable to shoot the kid dead. If he was truly a threat to the lives of the officers, then it would have been perfectly acceptable to kill him, right?
In related news, cop pepper sprays baby squirrel. I think it’s interesting that the same rational is used to justify both incidents:
Has the pepper spray used in this case ever been tested on children?
Police departments have policies regarding the escalation of force. They start with non-lethal, and if that works (which it did), there’s no reason to escalate further.
I note you didn’t answer my question:
Just as an aside on the topic of impalement, consider the following thought experiment:
On occasion, a human will throw a stick for a dog, only to have the stick get stuck in the ground, and the running dog can be impaled on the stick. (1, 2). I suggest that a pissed off 8 year old could reasonably generate a similar amount of force. I further suggest that a stick in the eye or neck can have very significant consequences.
On an unrelated note, to back up Qadgop, this story immediately reminded me of the 8 year old kid I used to see eating at the doughnut shop at the hospital with his security guard minder. He was doing much better- he used to have 2 full time security guard minders.
Also, Jayjay, I’m stealing the irony line. 
(1) Paddy
(2) Flick
Why?
If that were the only way to remove the threat, then yes, it would have been acceptable (though tragic). But since there was another method available, the officers used that instead.
I did answer your question. It contained a false premise. There was no lethal weapon.
Because it could not have gone through a human body, that’s why.