Yeah, and another thing - it always seemed unrealistic in Saving Private Ryan that a big deal was made about the Germans defending the beach from within bunkers. I mean, if the Germans can shoot out, then the American can shoot back in, right? Where's the big advantage?
(And why didn't the GI's just hold the bunker doors shut until the Germans calmed down and came quietly?)
Yeah, and another thing - it always seemed unrealistic in Saving Private Ryan that a big deal was made about the Germans defending the beach from within bunkers. I mean, if the Germans can shoot out, then the American can shoot back in, right? Where's the big advantage?
(And why didn't the GI's just hold the bunker doors shut until the Germans calmed down and came quietly?)
So aiming a Tazer gun, and pulling the trigger, requires "extensive training"?
No different than firing their sidearm.
Look, in the end, there's more to this than meets the eye.
The simple reality is that 15 or 20 years ago, campus security was not typically armed with semi-auto handguns.
When I was going to college, they had a radio, and a flashlight, thats it.
With some of the campus (and other) mass shootings that have taken place here in the US over the last years, I'm not surprised to see a major change in this policy.
However, it makes absolutely no sense that this officer wasnt armed with at least two other non-lethal means, such as pepper spray or the above mentioned tazer gun.
I'm fairly confident a major college campus could afford a tazer gun, in addition to a sidearm for their officers.
To not do so show's a lack of judgment in my opinion, and ultimately may result in major legal problems for them, regardless if the officer is cleared of the shooting or not.
It's more a question of common sense, and making sure your security forces have adequate tools to do the best job they can.
Recently, here in NY, (well NYC) there was a man shot and killed in/near the Times Square area, who was allegedly carrying a knife, and had brandished it at officers who were following him. Instead of using a non lethal means, which I'm honestly not sure are issued to them or not, he was shot multiple times and killed.
From the following video, you can clearly see there were multiple police officers on the scene, and in my opinion it would have been easy enough to subdue him with out riddling him full of bullets.
Now, I'm quite aware this is a different situation, but there are also some similarities in the choice to use deadly force. If you only give an officer one tool as an option, he/she will most likely choose that option.
As the information has come in about the shooting of the college student, there are several glaring errors in my opinion.
1) should have been armed with at least one non-lethal option.
2) should have been more than one officer to respond to this type of incident.
3) proper training in risk assessment, and how to handle oneself, could have prevented the shooting .
It's just really unfortunate, and all the armchair quarterbacking at this point is not going to bring the young man back.
I would hope that it would result in some changes to procedure and how campus security forces go about protecting the student body, which is their first responsibility.
A cop shoots a wheelchair bound double amputee armed with a pen, "Another officer opened fire, saying was forced to take action, "fearing for his partner's safety and his own safety", after the man refused to calm down and remain still, police told"
A unarmed man is shot in his car after a road rage incident with an unmarked police car in NY. "A spokesperson for the department told the New York Times that there were reports of movement inside Polanco’s car, which may have caused concern that the driver may have been armed.
“We looked for a weapon, we didn’t find any; we found a drill,” chief spokesman Paul J. Browne said in a news briefing. “I’m not saying it played a role. I’m just saying we looked for a weapon. We did not find a weapon. The only thing we found was that drill.”"
Here the police, heavily out numbering a man with a knife and mental health problems, get bored of negotiating with him after three minutes and as he takes a few steps, having already been walking about in front of the police, they all fire. So all of them were at risk, or none of them were at risk, or which one was at risk?
Do USA police have shields in their cars? Do they wear stab proof vests? Is this another case of forgot to bring it with me? Or do they just go straight to lethal force no matter what equipment they have?
I suspect that training with a tazer probably involves more than just 'point and shoot'. They'd probably have to know details about ranges, possible side effects, possibly in-field repairs, etc.
I'm fairly confident a major college campus could afford a tazer gun, in addition to a sidearm for their officers.
To not do so show's a lack of judgment in my opinion...
There are occasionally calls to 'outlaw' tazers (usually after the death of someone that it was used on). The argument is usually as follows: Tazers can cause deaths, but they're seen as "non-lethal". Because of that, officers may use them unnecessarily. If you restrict them to only guns, they will be more controlled in their response.
(I don't necessarily accept that argument myself, but it may be used to justify why some departments don't use tazers.)
As the information has come in about the shooting of the college student, there are several glaring errors in my opinion.
1) should have been armed with at least one non-lethal option.
Possibly. But he's being faced with a potentially life-threatening situation. He should be expected to protect his own life, and given the situation there's no guarantee the non-lethal methods would have been sufficient.
2) should have been more than one officer to respond to this type of incident.
Probably. But things happen. Maybe the other officers were on patrol. Maybe the administration considered it a "low risk" time of the day and decided to cut costs. At this point I don't see a reason to blame the officer for his actions.
3) proper training in risk assessment, and how to handle oneself, could have prevented the shooting .
You're assuming that "risk assessment" would have told the guy "no need to shoot". It seems that many (possibly most?) of the people here have concluded that "risk assessment" would have necessitated him shooting.
I was being asked what experience I had. Answered it and then will now stop to prevent this going further off topic.
Her a police officer is cleared of killing a man who appears to have been having a mental health episode. The justification being he did not do what the officer told him to. There are further similarities with the college incident in that the officer in that he did not use a baton for fear of the male and could not use a tazer as he was not certified. Yet he was still allowed out on patrol
"Sandberg told investigators he didn't use a baton to subdue Loggins because he thought Loggins could overpower him. He could not use a Taser because he was not certified at that time and there wasn't another deputy present with one."
"At 4:46 a.m., an officer stated over the radio that Loggins was returning. Over the next 27 seconds, Sandberg repeatedly commanded Loggins to stop and said, "Show me your hands," and "Don't you get in the car or I'll shoot you."
Loggins ignored Sandberg and was heard saying, "I have somewhere to go" and "Give me my kids back." Another deputy said Loggins appeared stiff and had a "very determined and very mean" expression."
So the police officer got scared and went straight to deadly force.
So aiming a Tazer gun, and pulling the trigger, requires "extensive training"?
No different than firing their sidearm.
Look, in the end, there's more to this than meets the eye.
The simple reality is that 15 or 20 years ago, campus security was not typically armed with semi-auto handguns.
When I was going to college, they had a radio, and a flashlight, thats it.
With some of the campus (and other) mass shootings that have taken place here in the US over the last years, I'm not surprised to see a major change in this policy.
However, it makes absolutely no sense that this officer wasnt armed with at least two other non-lethal means, such as pepper spray or the above mentioned tazer gun.
I'm fairly confident a major college campus could afford a tazer gun, in addition to a sidearm for their officers.
To not do so show's a lack of judgment in my opinion, and ultimately may result in major legal problems for them, regardless if the officer is cleared of the shooting or not.
It's more a question of common sense, and making sure your security forces have adequate tools to do the best job they can.
Recently, here in NY, (well NYC) there was a man shot and killed in/near the Times Square area, who was allegedly carrying a knife, and had brandished it at officers who were following him. Instead of using a non lethal means, which I'm honestly not sure are issued to them or not, he was shot multiple times and killed.
From the following video, you can clearly see there were multiple police officers on the scene, and in my opinion it would have been easy enough to subdue him with out riddling him full of bullets.
Now, I'm quite aware this is a different situation, but there are also some similarities in the choice to use deadly force. If you only give an officer one tool as an option, he/she will most likely choose that option.
As the information has come in about the shooting of the college student, there are several glaring errors in my opinion.
1) should have been armed with at least one non-lethal option.
2) should have been more than one officer to respond to this type of incident.
3) proper training in risk assessment, and how to handle oneself, could have prevented the shooting .
It's just really unfortunate, and all the armchair quarterbacking at this point is not going to bring the young man back.
I would hope that it would result in some changes to procedure and how campus security forces go about protecting the student body, which is their first responsibility.
There are lots of courses besides just the course on using a taser. There are risk management courses, instructor courses, evidence collection courses, technician courses, etc.
Deciding to use tasers comes with a lot of baggage.
The students are trying to get the school to equip the force with tasers, so maybe that will happen.
There's no guarantee that a taser would have changed anything in this case, though.
Here if you are not qualified or it has run out, you are not allowed out on patrol and can be disciplined for allowing your certification to go out of date. If an armed police officer said I killed him because I had left my other kit in the office and he was scary, he would be in jail and out of the job.
Look, in the end, there's more to this than meets the eye.
The simple reality is that 15 or 20 years ago, campus security was not typically armed with semi-auto handguns.
When I was going to college, they had a radio, and a flashlight, thats it.
Nope, I would expect a police officer worth their uniform to get right up to that man to try and establish better verbal contact and they to use baton and cuffs to stop him from driving off before as a final last resort shooting at him. An option we do not have, so we are more inclined to get up close and use non lethal physical force.
Hey WildCat, what is your experience of dealing with such situations?
Have you anything to say about the actual topic and lame excuses for shooting?
If run of the mill campus security is expected (at least by some in this thread it would seem) to have marksmanship skills not seen since the remake of "Dawn of the Dead" (e.g. hit a fast moving target in a specific body part) then I imagine you Army types can do all that fancy curve-the-bullet-mid-flight stuff with your tanks, right?
Are you actually trying to draw some sort of equivalency between that experience of yours and what happened in this shooting incidence.
Between a situation where you actually had the benefit of a door that you could close to separate you from the screaming mental patient, and that of the officer who was basically face-to-face with the potential threat?
I have arrested, either on my own or with colleagues, with back up nearby or hours away, numerous people who were aggressive, I found frightening and who were under the influence of drugs, alcohol or with mental health or behavioral issues. Some I knew well, some I had never encountered before.
I see no point in trading stories as that is off topic.
First of all, You were the one that was trying to portray your past experiences as an illustration of your expertise in the area. As such, your past experience in this situation is quite relevant.
You keep pointing to all of the things you've dealt with (working alone or with colleagues, people you knew, didn't know, etc.), but at no point have you given any indication that you've been in exactly his situation (no backup, facing an attacker unknown to you (but who is obviously "in shape"), not responding to commands and chasing you, without the presence of a tazer and/or a door to protect you.) Unless you've faced that same situation (preferably multiple times), without getting a scratch on you, then you don't really have any evidence that such a situation can be resolved peacefully.
Those who have attacked me have all been clothed. I have had minor injuries, no one has died.
What, minor injuries? I thought your awesome abilities would be able to disable any and all threats with just your mind (or with your pinky and a toothpick, if you need to actually resort to violence) without ever having any sort of injury ever.
Those who have just run at me have either gone on to attack or have backed down.
No your right, he did not bother with a baton that day. As I asked are you allowed to patrol not fully equipped?
He did have other officers with him, all of whom stood back.
He spent 27 seconds trying to talk the man down as in threatening him with his gun and only after he had come back to the scene.
"More deputies arrived, spoke to Sandberg and appeared to be looking in the direction of the field, according to the letter. At 4:46 a.m., an officer stated over the radio that Loggins was returning. Over the next 27 seconds, Sandberg repeatedly commanded Loggins to stop and said, "Show me your hands," and "Don't you get in the car or I'll shoot you."
The report states the incident started at 4.40. So for six minutes he made no effort to go after the man or make contact with him. Neither did any other police officer. They all watched as he walked back to his car and got in, supposedly fearing for the children's lives, yet the police left the children in the car.
Then having made pathetic attempts at non lethal actions against the man, he was killed.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
