How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Nice links. The safety of everyone overrides the safety of one, especially when that one is the threat to everyone else's safety. Yes or no?

What you should be looking at is the degree of danger posed by the one to the everyone. If it's not all that high, then there is insufficient justification to override in a drastic and potentially fatal way the safety of the one. If it's really high, there is. A sniper in a bell tower picking people off definitely merits a bullet. A naked guy being an idiot, maybe not.

Trying to buffalo people into committing either to shooting the naked guy or to not shooting the sniper is the kind of argumentative tactic that you shouldn't expect to get away with around here. It's a textbook false dichotomy, and you should feel bad for trying it.

 

[drewid]

Once you get into the drugged up naked guy situation he's crossed the line.
He's a bad guy wearing a black hat so that automatically makes him a valid target for a good guy with a gun.

Such is life in a society where Dirty Harry is seen as a role model rather than a fictional anti-hero.

 

[Nessie]

So you are claiming he went out to shoot the naked guy!

What was the gun for?

Why leave his other equipment in the office and go straight to the gun? I have not seen it confirmed but it appears he did not even take cuffs. So how was he to affect an arrest on a disturbed person?

He went out with the intention of stopping a naked guy from behaving scarily. With a gun drawn. I am quite sure his intention was to stop him from behaving scarily and that was by either he complied with instructions whilst at the point of a gun, or shoot him. There is no middle way, it is not as if he would pistol whip the guy or just throw his gun at him. But even if he complied with instructions, what then, what was the cuffless cop to do then?

I have repeatedly asked how the female officer who was punched was supposed to arrest the guy she had stopped. No one has answered (as of writing this). So same question about the cop and the student, how was he supposed to arrest the student with only a gun?

I do not think any of you have really thought this through.

 

[Nessie]

Nope, that was a question. See the ? at the end of that sentence?



Excellent. In a controlled environment, correct? How about outside of a secure facility?



Keep in mind also that British and German police also don't have to contend with a relatively large portion of their citizens being able to access guns either. And also take into consideration that is not going to change anytime soon.



Really? Did you watch the video? The officer was in the process of "cuffing" the suspect, and it almost cost her dearly.

Speculation? Hardly.



I'll agree, the officer should have had LTL tools at his disposal. However, the rest of your statement is speculation, as you don't know if even if he had a tazer/mace/baton/etc that it wouldn't have escalated to the officer using deadly force in the end.

The STUDENT'S actions and personal choices, got the STUDENT killed. Nobody else MADE him do what he did.

How would you have arrested the male stopped and wanted on warrant?


If it had escalated and all other options failed, then yes finally go for deadly force. But here we see examples of straight to deadly.

So the student decided to take drugs till he went mad? Or was the student spiked? Or did he take a level of drugs that should not have made him go that way, but something went wrong? Or was he being daft, trying drugs for the first time (students do that) and it went horribly wrong?

How would you deal with people high on drugs? From your argument here it is to shoot them dead. Wow, life is cheap and not worth preserving.

 

[Nessie]

Way to miss the point completely. Awesome. Are you intentionally being obtuse?



Arresting someone? None, I am not a LEO. I do have plenty of real world experience dealing with patients who are high, and extremely combative.



With any means necessary to protect the safety of the officer and anyone at risk of injury.

Please answer the questions. Do not dodge them.

Is it right to only use a gun against a guy high on drugs?

How should the female cop have arrested the male, since people say what she did was wrong?

 

[Nessie]

So, you guys in Scotland don't have latex gloves?

I bet you do, and I bet that 99.9% of the time, when handling a patient, you use them, don't you.

And BTW, a bite is high risk for Hep. A, B, and C infection. Not so much with HIV/Aids, but certainly there, especially if the person has a bloody mouth.

I understand those risks very well. I take EVERY precaution to protect myself, including a splash mask. However, an officer doesn't really have the luxury of calling a time out to put on gloves and other PPE.

Interesting how you are OK handling people high and combative without a gun, yet you leap to the defence of a police officer who saw his only option was to use a gun.

 

[Nessie]

First off, if an officer draws his weapon, it is for one of two reasons. #1 is to protect his safety, and compel a suspect to surrender peacefully. The second one is to protect his life, and the lives of those around them, and will almost always resort in a suspect being taken off in a body bag.

But, you're just building these strawman over and over the place. It's getting crowded in here with all of them just lying about. Can you clean some up please?

Most departments in the US issue a baton, mace, and a tazer to their officers. And they use them. Often. You're basing your entire argument off of ONE incident, which is NOT the norm. There's a logical fallacy there. Can you name it?



Oh, you mean like every department in the US does? Oh, right....njsdijbkjb av'
fv
dsf
vfdk


Damn, tripped over one of your damn strawman. Almost dropped my weapon too. Get them cleaned up, pronto. Before someone gets hurt.

Please show my strawmen arguments and I will clear them up for you.

 

[Nessie]

I'm not backing down from anything. PEOPLE WHO VIOLENTLY ATTACK A COP SHOULD EXPECT TO GET KILLED. It's very sad when they commit their criminal assault as a result of mental illness, but it's not unexpected. The tragedy in those cases is the mental illness, not the reasonably expected outcome.

You stick your hand in fire, you get burned. You jump into the tiger enclosure at the zoo, you get your head bitten through. You attack a cop, you get shot. These are natural, expected, reasonable consequences of actions. If you aren't in control of your actions, that's very sad for you. But we aren't going to outlaw fire, defang the tigers, and disarm the cops because one of the million people who stick their hands in fire, jump in with the tigers, and rush screaming at the cop to assault him are sadly mentally crazy in the cabeza. The world doesn't get bubblewrapped because a tiny slice of the population is too sadly wacky to be able to refrain from committing crimes.

If you try to attack a police officer, expect to be shot, yes. Absolutely, 100% of the time.

Attack cop= forfeit your life. I'm down with that rule.

(I know, this is gonna make you SOOOO mad!!)

No just sad.

So you will have students with one bad trip and people who are mentally ill killed along with the people who are intentionally out to harm police officers?

I suspect you will cry strawman, but if you say attack the police and die, you need to accept there are differing reasons why people attack. Then you need to define attack and how far the police should go with non lethal means of protection before they go for deadly.

Your attitude suggests life is non complicated and cheap.

 

[Dcdrac]

If you try to attack a police officer, expect to be shot, yes. Absolutely, 100% of the time.

Attack cop= forfeit your life. I'm down with that rule.

(I know, this is gonna make you SOOOO mad!!)

As an ex officer to me that is an open invitation to disaster, there are enough loose cannons in the force for a tragedy to happen and an innocent getting killed, it was why we were trained in unarmed disarming techniques, which on the whole with a few very few exceptions work.

 

[000063]

Police officers who cannot handle a fight with a drugged or crazed man should not be police officers. Police who cannot protect their guns in a potential fight/arrest should not have guns.

No. I've seen multiple videos about weapon retention, and the recurring theme is that any attempt to get at one's weapon counts as an attack.

The police should be prepared for and accept that their job can get physical and if they want to avoid that by using a gun as their only means of dealing with someone, they should not be in the police.

Straw man. He tried to run away from the suspect, who actively pursued him. That's an attempt to deal with the situation.

Do you favour escalation of threat or are you advocating going deadly straight away, no matter what, even to avoid a minor scuffle and maybe a slap?

False binary. There is at least one cop who was shot and killed even after shooting a suspect on drugs.

Do the police only have guns? Do they not also have cuffs and batons?

Tazer, mace, what about calmness, patience, verbal skills or even in the case of a naked man a boot in the bollocks first?

You don't actually know much of anything about weapons or policing or even hand-to-hand combat, do you?

 

[000063]

Yes and you do not have to be a Navy Seal to do that.

It seems that being armed is now a self fulfilling prophecy, whereby you shoot to stop people from getting your gun. The mere presence of a gun instantly escalates the situation to one where deadly force is used, without recourse to minimal use at first.

Which is why the vast majority police officers in the US go their entire careers without shooting people, even before less-lethal methods like Tasers and pepper spray were common.

Oh, wait.

There was time when that was the case. Now all sizes and the ladies are expected to police front line and be able to handle themselves. IME size is no indicator of ability in a fight and ladies can fight like demons.

Size is a major advantage. Cops are, again, told specifically to avoid physical combat whenever possible, because it's dangerous. Heck, even your average self-defense instructor tells people to avoid fights if possible. And the cop in question tried that. Didn't work.

I find it odd how you're avoiding questions about whether the student was being reasonable.

 

[000063]

Once you get into the drugged up naked guy situation he's crossed the line.
He's a bad guy wearing a black hat so that automatically makes him a valid target for a good guy with a gun.

Such is life in a society where Dirty Harry is seen as a role model rather than a fictional anti-hero.

What society is that? Anyone who's actually watched the film knows Harry just makes things worse.

What was the gun for?

Why leave his other equipment in the office and go straight to the gun? I have not seen it confirmed but it appears he did not even take cuffs. So how was he to affect an arrest on a disturbed person?

He went out with the intention of stopping a naked guy from behaving scarily. With a gun drawn. I am quite sure his intention was to stop him from behaving scarily and that was by either he complied with instructions whilst at the point of a gun, or shoot him. There is no middle way, it is not as if he would pistol whip the guy or just throw his gun at him. But even if he complied with instructions, what then, what was the cuffless cop to do then?

Run away.

Oh, wait, he tried that, and the suspect pursued. False binary is false.

Please answer the questions. Do not dodge them.

Is it right to only use a gun against a guy high on drugs?

Who is making this claim? Because there are plenty of other situations where it is okay to use a gun. Perhaps you phrased it poorly.

I'm not answering the question about the female cop because I haven't been following the discussion.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Is there any reason he couldn't have gane back inside, locked the door and called for back-up?

Or kicked him in the delicates? Grabbing them and squeezing is also particularly effective.

And how hard is it to hit someone's leg from 5 feet away? I know nothing of guns (I'm Scottish) so that is an honest question.

You don't really need any special training to take someone down either. I once saw a security employee in a shop chase a shoplifter, tackle him and sit on him until police arrived. It was hilarious (the guy was screaming "Help! Brutality!" and kicking his legs while a guy who looked about 20 was sitting on him looking bored).

I also knew someone (also security) who stopped a fight in a supermarket by headbutting the guy and pinning him while he was dazed.

These people had no training whatsoever and were able to end a fight quickly without anyone dying. I expect cops to be able to do the same.

As someone has already pointed out, if the cop didn't have his gun he wouldn't have had to worry about it being taken from him. This would have ended in a scuffle and a night in the cells.

 

[000063]

Is there any reason he couldn't have gane back inside, locked the door and called for back-up?

He tried leaving. The suspect pursued.

Or kicked him in the delicates? Grabbing them and squeezing is also particularly effective.

Which is both needless cruelty, and requires him, by definition, to put his head in punching/grabbing range. Head includes eyes.

And how hard is it to hit someone's leg from 5 feet away? I know nothing of guns (I'm Scottish) so that is an honest question.

Quite difficult, if the suspect is moving. Despite the movies, a legshot can kill quite easily, especially if it hits the femoral artery.

You don't really need any special training to take someone down either. I once saw a security employee in a shop chase a shoplifter, tackle him and sit on him until police arrived. It was hilarious (the guy was screaming "Help! Brutality!" and kicking his legs while a guy who looked about 20 was sitting on him looking bored).

Shoplifters avoid conflict. A guy rushing towards a cop who has a weapon drawn is inviting conflict. Cops are trained to avoid melee, especially with people who seem to be mentally disturbed or high.

I also knew someone (also security) who stopped a fight in a supermarket by headbutting the guy and pinning him while he was dazed.

Was the guy high?

These people had no training whatsoever and were able to end a fight quickly without anyone dying. I expect cops to be able to do the same.

You are incorrect. You are generalizing about all combat from your limited experience, and using examples only superficially similar to this situation.

As someone has already pointed out, if the cop didn't have his gun he wouldn't have had to worry about it being taken from him. This would have ended in a scuffle and a night in the cells.

Actually, similar incidents have ended with the cop in the hospital, or dead, even after the suspect was shot.

 

[Nessie]

No. I've seen multiple videos about weapon retention, and the recurring theme is that any attempt to get at one's weapon counts as an attack.

Straw man. He tried to run away from the suspect, who actively pursued him. That's an attempt to deal with the situation.

False binary. There is at least one cop who was shot and killed even after shooting a suspect on drugs.

You don't actually know much of anything about weapons or policing or even hand-to-hand combat, do you?

I agree an attempt to get a weapon is an attack. I disagree running away, or in reality keeping a distance between you and the attacker is an attempt to deal with the situation which can been taken in isolation from having your gun drawn. Keeping backing off whilst the gun is holstered and using verbal skills would be.

I think we agree one situation does not make the whole.

Yes, I know a lot. Going by your argument because you disagree with me you do not know much about weapons, policing or hand to hand combat do you?

 

[DreamingNaiad]

So it's needless cruelty to hurt his man parts but shooting him in the chest is ok?

And the fight was between drug users. Not sure if they were high at the time but they were pretty incoherent.

And I still don't know why he couldn't have gone back inside. It's one thing to retreat but it's another to have a locked door between you and the unstable naked man.

 

[TragicMonkey]

No just sad.

So you will have students with one bad trip and people who are mentally ill killed along with the people who are intentionally out to harm police officers?

Yes, these things will happen. It's an acceptable risk because the alternative is to have the police (and society) put at greater risk by refusing to allow them to combat threats. Do you think someone rushing a cop will stop, take a toxicology test, submit to a psych exam, and then wait for the cop to determine whether it's okay or not to stop them?

Civilization can't suspend all its normal functions on the chance that sometimes one variable might be abnormal. That'd be like building mailboxes and mandating they all be the size of garages "because someone might want to mail you three pianos".

I suspect you will cry strawman, but if you say attack the police and die, you need to accept there are differing reasons why people attack. Then you need to define attack and how far the police should go with non lethal means of protection before they go for deadly.

No, I don't need to do anything you command me to. I believe there is such a thing as acceptable loss.

Your attitude suggests life is non complicated and cheap.

And the attitude of all the people of Scotland is unrealistic and impractical.

 

[Nessie]

Which is why the vast majority police officers in the US go their entire careers without shooting people, even before less-lethal methods like Tasers and pepper spray were common.

Oh, wait.



Size is a major advantage. Cops are, again, told specifically to avoid physical combat whenever possible, because it's dangerous. Heck, even your average self-defense instructor tells people to avoid fights if possible. And the cop in question tried that. Didn't work.

I find it odd how you're avoiding questions about whether the student was being reasonable.

I understand many do go an entire career without shooting, this is about the excuses put out when people do shoot.

Is size a major advantage? Please prove that. In Scotland we call it "wee man syndrome" when the shorter guys are found to be more aggressive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_complex

You are making the incorrect assumption a larger male will be able to out fight a smaller one.

I do think the student was acting unreasonably, I just do think his death was justifiable. Otherwise why not arrest him, try him and if the jury decides he was acting in a way that justifies his death then electrocute or use lethal injection as Alabama does?

Why justify summary execution by cop?

 

[Nessie]

....

Run away.

Oh, wait, he tried that, and the suspect pursued. False binary is false.

Who is making this claim? Because there are plenty of other situations where it is okay to use a gun. Perhaps you phrased it poorly.

I'm not answering the question about the female cop because I haven't been following the discussion.

Run away, is that really what cops are taught to do when pointing a gun at someone? Or do your really mean keep your distance as part of the training when you are pointing a gun at someone? Bear in mind it was the only thing the cop tried.

A number of people here have been arguing go for a cop and you deserve to be shot. They have also been justifying using deadly force in this case of the student. So it is reasonable to ask them is that the case for all situations where someone is high on drugs? Is shooting the only way of dealing with such people? I have not had an answer as saying that there are other ways of dealing with aggressive/mad/erratic people on drugs means they weaken their case for the cop being justified in shooting the student dead.

 

[Nessie]

Yes, these things will happen. It's an acceptable risk because the alternative is to have the police (and society) put at greater risk by refusing to allow them to combat threats. Do you think someone rushing a cop will stop, take a toxicology test, submit to a psych exam, and then wait for the cop to determine whether it's okay or not to stop them?

Civilization can't suspend all its normal functions on the chance that sometimes one variable might be abnormal. That'd be like building mailboxes and mandating they all be the size of garages "because someone might want to mail you three pianos".




No, I don't need to do anything you command me to. I believe there is such a thing as acceptable loss.




And the attitude of all the people of Scotland is unrealistic and impractical.

If the Scottish way is unrealistic and impractical, how do we manage to deal with people out of their faces, as we would put it, without killing them?

Also how do the US police manage to arrest people out of their faces without killing them?

How do paramedics and hospital staff deal with such people without killing them?