As you may or may not know there is rioting in Greece due to the fatal shooting of a sixteen year old boy. He was shot in the process of "throwing a fuel-filled bomb at officers." I don't think the officer wanted to kill this kid, but think about it, you have a gun and someone is throwing a bomb at you, would you really not shoot them? It's ridiculous to think anyone wouldn't. I really hope this officer gets off on self-defense, if they even have such a thing in Greece. So what do you think, was it right for the officer to shoot him?

Yeah he should have been shot

A firebomb is a lethal weapon and therefore lethal force is justified by police to prevent it from being thrown, in my view. When a minor is threatening you with a lethal weapon, you no longer have to treat him with the restraint you might normally treat a minor and you certainly don't have to let him kill you because he's a minor and has lousy judgment. If the incident is as you describe it, it sounds like clear cut self defense. But if it is, why are there these quotes from the Interior Minister?

"On behalf of the government and the prime minister, I express sorrow for the incident and especially the death of the young boy," Pavlopoulos said in a statement.

"An investigation to clarify the incident has already begun ... There will be an exemplary punishment and, above all, measures will be taken so that this will never be repeated."

Two police officers were arrested and being questioned over the incident, according to a police statement.

If the kid was actually throwing a molotov cocktail at officers, there's no reason in the world why the cops wouldn't be able to shoot him, no reason why they would be arrested, and no reason to make sure "this will never be repeated", no reason for "exemplary punishment". Maybe it's not so clear cut that he was throwing a firebomb at the officers.

That's one reason to a carry was an attempt at their lives.
Here, afterwards, they'd shutdown the whole block, get a swat team, call the BATF, if they felt like it the National Guard or militia of choice, and arrest a bunch of believed conspirators.

If the incident is as you describe it, it sounds like clear cut self defense. But if it is, why are there these quotes from the Interior Minister?

Not how I described it, I was just quoting what I read.

Molotov cocktail == small WMD

Deadly force authorized.

end of story.

A similar thing happened in Genova, Italy, during 27th G8 summing in 2001.

A policeman shot dead a masked guy who was throwing him a fire extinguisher (photo). You can see it in the act of assaulting the officer inside the car (from where he fired).

There's still a really big deal here in Italy on the subject - like they always do many politicians are not interested in the factual truth but rather on the mediatic one.

I have to say that I don't like this at all. If you are engaging a fight with officers, devastating private properties and such you are on the wrong side, no matter what do you protest for. Many horrible things happened from both the armed protestants and the officers side and many of them are still in trial, waiting for a judgement.
Some officers (luckily few) tore down earrings and piercing from surrendering women and girls - there were unjustified assaults and I hope everyone will end paying from what he/she did.

But I don't think that Carlo Giuliani (that's the name of the guy) is a hero dead in the middle of a rightful protest, like most left wing (semi-)politicians would like the world to believe. I have no particular sympathy for the other side (i.e. the officers and others (semi-)politicians) but that imho can't change the factual truth.

Back on topic (and I apologize for the long interruption), I don't think that the teenager deserved to die - but surely he deserved jail. And the officer acted (being the facts as they're described) out of self defence and shouldn't be blamed.

Let's mourn the dead that we didn't succeded in re-educate but definitely let's not turn them in victims.

(sorry for my english - I hope I didn't made much mistakes...)

In my country, if the boy had survived (he was old enough to know what he was doing) and it was a kids can do what ever they want and CANNOT BE ARRESTED if uner the age of 16. that is why the gangs here use 'em. they can go in as kids, take what they want and walk out. if they get away 'great' if they get caught, stuff is confiscated and no action can be taken, as long as no weapons were involved. kids are allowed to beat up on teachers and teachers DO NOT have the right to defend themselves in any offensive manner without losing their licence, job and doing time for assault on a minor. the kids are back in school inside 1-3 months.

no problems with crime in this country...

none at all.

kids can get arrested when they are 7

>So what do you think, was it right for the officer to shoot him?

I have been trying to find out more information on the actual shooting but there is not much - mostly what I see is the rioting. I did find some history on the subject of police/youth conflicts. I am unable to form an opinion on this particular situation but agree that, if the student was about to firebomb the officer, he was justified in shooting.

Yes, it is a bit odd that the officer has been charged, yet the only detail of the incident said that the kid was about to throw a fuel-bomb at them.

The last thing any government wants is for the crowd to start believing that the police will never shoot back, no matter how much you provoke them.

Like all deterrents, it only actually works (as a deterrant) if you actually carry out the threat, and establish the credibility that you will use it if pushed hard enough. Some messages can only be written in blood.

Sure they can say "never again", but that's just measly policios trying to cover their arses. It'll happen again when everyone's forgotten the lessons from this time.

After the dust has settled, anyone with any sense at all will have wised up to realise that if they want to stay alive, don't walk around with a bomb in your hand. Unless you really want a guest spot on darwin awards.

And a lot safer for all it will be. The crowd won't be armed to the teeth, and the police will have a lot less incentive to consider shooting at unarmed people.

Be thankful it's a democracy and it's only one death, a lot of apologies, and lots of media coverage.

Pick any despotic dictatorship, and you're looking at mass executions, summary trials and coverups.

The last thing any citizenry wants is for the government to think that it can kill one of them without consequence.

commented: also true +24

maybe it would be better if they did not shot the kid dead.... i have to agree they should shoot him coz he may injure a lot of people..

theres no such thing as shooting not to kill

guns are desigmed to kill people, there is no reliable way to just wound someone