How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[fuelair]

I have no issue with the concept, cops have a hard job. Nor do I have an issue with, sometimes they have to make tough decisions.

What I do have an issue with are the knee-jerk thread posters who insist there is no such thing as incompetent police, no cops who do a poor job, and no officers who over-react or pull their guns and then in the excitement of the moment squeeze too hard on the trigger.

The victim killed in this case was a kid, probably intoxicated, highly unlikely to have been a lethal threat to any police person given he was small in stature and unarmed.

Is the university to blame for putting an undertrained, understaffed officer in the position he was in? Maybe. Was the cop too gung-ho, unable to handle any challenge to his authority? Maybe. Was the kid really so intoxicated or too [whatever the underlying issue was] that the unfortunate outcome was inevitable? Doesn't seem as likely as options 1 &/or 2.

That's fine to say, we don't know. But the knee-jerk defense of this cop on the premise they have to protect themselves is, IMO, very shortsighted.

Of course there are incompetent police - I certainly and bikewer (just for two)certainly have never said there weren't - in fact we have both said the opposite a number of times. BUT there is already knowledge (unless lying by not the police occurred) that the student was given LSD. Since LSD is often mixed with other materials (not pure) and since the student's behavior was not typical of simple drunkeness nor simple LSD influence it is rather likely that the student was not ordinarily high. We shall see...........

 

[Giz]

I have no issue with the concept, cops have a hard job. Nor do I have an issue with, sometimes they have to make tough decisions.

What I do have an issue with are the knee-jerk thread posters who insist there is no such thing as incompetent police, no cops who do a poor job, and no officers who over-react or pull their guns and then in the excitement of the moment squeeze too hard on the trigger.

The victim killed in this case was a kid, probably intoxicated, highly unlikely to have been a lethal threat to any police person given he was small in stature and unarmed.

Is the university to blame for putting an undertrained, understaffed officer in the position he was in? Maybe. Was the cop too gung-ho, unable to handle any challenge to his authority? Maybe. Was the kid really so intoxicated or too [whatever the underlying issue was] that the unfortunate outcome was inevitable? Doesn't seem as likely as options 1 &/or 2.

That's fine to say, we don't know. But the knee-jerk defense of this cop on the premise they have to protect themselves is, IMO, very shortsighted.

I don't think that many people are saying that the cop was definitely justified (or that there are no such things as bad/incompetant cops). Just that he may well have been justified. (And that Nessie's judgement of the cop being definitely at fault is a premature rush to judgement).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This was a "routine" traffic stop. All it took was one sucker punch from a suspect, and the officer damn near lost her life. Just as common as a drunk college student.

Nessie has claimed that a fight should be considered part of the job, and a risk you take, and one you should take before using deadly force.

Sorry, but I disagree, 100%.

WRT your previous post, yes, there are bad shootings. Are they often? No. Common? Not even close. Rare? Yes. In fact, I cannot think of an officer involved shooting in Florida where it was determined that the officer was not justified in shooting.

There are no parallels in the OP case to the traffic stop.

As for the percentage of bad cop actions, we both have a dilemma. The number of sensational cases the news media latches on to can be misleading. But the idea the police find themselves innocent most of the time? That's equally problematic data.

I work with police in my business, a number of different departments. I find the internal culture to be disturbing. While there are many decent and competent cops, my experience is the culture itself suggests the number of real problems is significant.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think that many people are saying that the cop was definitely justified (or that there are no such things as bad/incompetant cops). Just that he may well have been justified. (And that Nessie's judgement of the cop being definitely at fault is a premature rush to judgement).

5'7", 135# is a small guy. Acting crazy and having no weapons lessens the threat. I think Nessie is right to conclude the evidence suggests this was an unnecessary shooting and a preventable death.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Of course there are incompetent police - I certainly and bikewer (just for two)certainly have never said there weren't - in fact we have both said the opposite a number of times. BUT there is already knowledge (unless lying by not the police occurred) that the student was given LSD. Since LSD is often mixed with other materials (not pure) and since the student's behavior was not typical of simple drunkeness nor simple LSD influence it is rather likely that the student was not ordinarily high. We shall see...........

I've never heard/read that LSD makes one dangerous except maybe behind the wheel. And I've never seen anyone tripping that was aggressive.

Alcohol is certainly known to make people aggressive. But they are also sloppy. A drunk man can beat a smaller female, but rarely does a smaller drunk man win a fight with a larger sober man.

The bottom line, a competent cop should have been able to handle this situation without killing the kid.

 

[RedRatSnake]

I've never heard/read that LSD makes one dangerous except maybe behind the wheel. And I've never seen anyone tripping that was aggressive.

Have you ever taken LSD ?

Tim

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Have you ever taken LSD ?

Tim

I suppose there's little harm in admitting it now. Yes, dozens of times, maybe more.

 

[WildCat]

Yeah, this sounds more like PCP than LSD.

 

[tyr_13]

The victim killed in this case was a kid, probably intoxicated, highly unlikely to have been a lethal threat to any police person given he was small in stature and unarmed.

Like I said, some people have an unrealistic sense of safety. It's only big guys or armed guys who are dangerous or deadly.

I object to 'lethal threat' being the level at which potentially lethal force is justified. I value my ability to walk or reason more than I value the life of an attacker. Maiming is too damn easy and it infuriates me when people say something like, 'well at least no one died' when someone is left with brain damage.

I object that it is highly unlikely to have been a lethal threat. A strong and skilled martial artist, which he was, is a deadly threat especially hopped up on something that lets him shrug off pain to the point where he stood back up after being shot. That he's in the 135 weight class doesn't change that. Also, what size is the cop? Even a big guy can get slammed to the concrete and die shockingly easily. At any rate, neither of us has the amount of information necessary to show that he was a lethal threat at that point but I'm not about to discount it.

I object to the 'small in stature' means 'not a threat'. This has been gone over in previous threads but this assertion continues to be poorly supported. Feel safe all you want around small guys, it doesn't make you so.

 

[RedRatSnake]

I suppose there's little harm in admitting it now. Yes, dozens of times, maybe more.

Ok i was just asking so i could get a better picture of where you were coming from, i did a ton of stuff myself just to put it out there.

If the person was in the mood to be violent, then using that stuff could certainly give them an advantage, i have had a few fights using lsd back in the day was just out of control violent.

Tim

 

[RedRatSnake]

Yeah, this sounds more like PCP than LSD.

Acid, Mescaline and stuff like that can make ya just as nut's as any other drug. It all depends on the mood you go into it with and what happens just prior to it taking affect.

Tim

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/1...teacher-in-pittsburgh-alley/ ?test=latestnews

Smaller teen...

 

[drewid]

Spot the difference.
Someone being unexpectedly sucker punched and someone "certifed" heading out of a police station door to tackle an unarmed guy causing trouble.

 

[richardm]

(how would he have known it was a student btw?)

Well he's supposed to have known that the guy was a "strong and skilled" and "Highly Trained Martial Artist", which is justification for considering him to be a lethally dangerous threat. So why wouldn't he know he was a student too?

WRT your previous post, yes, there are bad shootings. Are they often? No. Common? Not even close. Rare? Yes. In fact, I cannot think of an officer involved shooting in Florida where it was determined that the officer was not justified in shooting.

Well it's hardly surprising; in a mindset where confronting a police officer in any way is apparently grounds for a shooting, finding an unjustified one is likely to be very difficult.

 

[Nessie]

He wasn't patrolling. He was in the station, probably doing desk duty of some sort. Writing reports, answering the phone. Perhaps his baton was in his locker at the back of the station, near the door to the squad car parking lot. Maybe it was in the squad car. We don't know that he had it immediately available when the emergency arose, and yet you are assuming this to be the case.


Maybe protocol is at least one officer stays in the station, no matter what. It's embarrassing when someone calls the police with an emergebcy and nobody answers the phone.

But I'm just speculating, just like you are.


And your evidence he had more than 27 seconds is...?

I'm not going to derail the topic further with that other incident.

So he went for his gun rather than go and get his baton. There is a theme here, make sure you have a gun, the other means of affecting an arrest are optional. In Scotland you are not allowed out of the office unless you have all your equipment. The USA should have a similar rule, it would save lives as cops can use non lethal tactics first.

I am speculating in that I am going by the press releases and lame excuses that are the theme of this thread.

The evidence re 27 seconds is in the link to that incident. It also details the time the cop had to take the children out of the car if he was that fearful for their safety. Instead he left them in the car, waited for the father to get in the car and then shot him in front of the children.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The bottom line, a competent cop should have been able to handle this situation without killing the kid.

Kid? at what age does someone stop being a 'kid'?

 

[Nessie]

So, in that case, you don't really have any actual experience to back up your arguments.

Nice to know.


Wait a second... you've been attacked. But its never been 1-on-1 with a muscular charging assailant you didn't know, with no tazer. So, whenever you've been attacked, it sounds like its always been in circumstances that were less dangerous than what the officer was dealing with.

Yet, despite the less dangerous circumstances, you still ended up injured.


Please point out these 'numerous American cops'.

And are they responding in particular to this incident, or just the general concept of "don't kill if you don't have to"? If its the second, I rather suspect that at least a few would probably feel the shooting was justified.


Except the officer didn't go "straight to deadly force". He ordered the student to stop. He ran from the student.


You claim its "not risky" but you also said you've never been in precisely his same circumstance.

Bear in mind that since you have not been in precisely that type of incident, by your own reasoning you cannot claim it was a lethal threat one.

Yes I have been one on one with big guys, little guys (who are often the best fighters and hardest to control) even females (who are capable of going bezerk and are the hardest to calm down) and since I do not fear minor injuries, I deal with them primarily by use of handcuffs and fend offs. I know what it like to work on my own, man a police station alone, deal with such incidents alone. Your argument that I need to deal with a naked student on whatever alone before I know what I am talking about is just you trying to wriggle out of the actual argument.

I say no cop should deal with such a situation by going straight to deadly force. Sorry, shouting stop or I will shoot as you point a gun at someone means you have escalated straight to deadly force. As soon as you take your gun out you have escalated to deadly force. The tactic of keeping a distance between yourself and the assailant is also necessary with that tactic. Or do wait till they have a hold of you before you shoot?

 

[Nessie]

You've never dealt with anyone high on PCP or similar, have you? They've got INCREDIBLE strength, and don't respond to pain. Should the cop have risked his life by not having his sidearm with him?

Your last comment is absurd, and a foolish opinion.

You are now resorting to making stuff up. I ahve dealt with plenty of people who have no apparent pain threshold.

Bear in mind the British and German police deal with such people unarmed or without going for their guns to anything like the extent the US police do.

I go for cuffing over all other options. Then you get much better control. That is not absurd or foolish at it works, unlike your speculation.

Should the cop have risked the students life by only taking his gun with him? A risk that got the student killed.

 

[Nessie]

So, you've never seen a guy high on PCP have you?



Cool story, but it matters none. I've hilited why.

All I can say is that I have dealt with people who have had no pain threshold, but do not know what drugs they were on.

Is a USA police tactic to kill people high on PCP since apparently nothing else works?

Have you dealt with someone high on PCP?

The example shows how being unarmed does not stop people in Scotland dealing with mad men, in this case high on Allah and determined to kill themselves.

 

[Nessie]

If it was a justified shooting, within the laws of Scotland, it would matter none.

It's when it falls outside of the law when it becomes a problem.

But, it matters none really. Based on the current facts we have, and the ongoing investigation, we know that the shooting was, (at least at this point) justified.

So the only way to deal with a kid high on suspected PCP is to kill them?