[Vision2020] Local News - Victim's father delays inquest after coroner bars his testimony

[Chasuk]

On 11/16/05, The Idaho Statesman <contact at idahostatesman.com> wrote:

> There really has to be a better way to subdue children and youth who are acting violently than shooting them with real bullets.  As near as I can tell from this shooting, the cop could have used a tazer, rubber bullets, or mace instead of killing this kid.  Hopefully some good will come from this inquest.

I read this differently.  Officer Andrew S. Johnson arrives at the a
scene of a disturbance in which a young man, Matthew Jones, is in
possession of a rifle, and that rifle has a bayonet attached.  This
young man has already struck the bayonet into the drywall ceiling of
his father's home.  The father of the boy yells "Look out!" and the
officer turns and fires.  My reaction would likely have been the same.

The father indicates that his son got as near as 12 feet of the
officer, and the words "Look Out!" certainly implies that the boy was
in the act of charging the officer.  If my back was turned to a
violent young man who was carrying a weapon -- and that young man was
possibly as near as a few quick strides away -- I would certainly heed
the warning of his father and take whatever action was necessary to
prevent myself from coming to harm.  This is how I read the story.

I don't know whether police officers are routinely equipped with
tasers, rubber bullets, or mace.  If they are, then it can perhaps be
wondered why they were not used, but in a life-threatening situation
with no time for indecision, the instinctual response is often the
most lethal one, and this truism applies no less to police officers
than it does to anyone else.

The question is: did the boy actually hit Johnson in the back with the
bayonet, as he claims? Yes or no, I consider the officer's actions
justified.