How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[WildCat]

Yes, the cop should not have gone out with his gun, he should have used another option

And if he went outside to discover the person pounding on the window was being assaulted by a group of armed men? Tell them to all sit tight while he goes back inside to retrieve his gun?

You make a lot of assumptions you have no logical reason to make. Or maybe you think the cop was psychic, and knew before he went outside what he was going to encounter.

 

[WildCat]

And now he is backed up by one of the reporters who went to a viewing of the CCTV recording.

You must not have viewed the video of the reporter describing the shooting, because it's radically different than the description by the family lawyer.

 

[000063]

You have failed to follow this discussion, I have repeatedly asked TragicMonkey and others, is shooting really the only option? I am not making the claim shooting is the only option, the complete opposite is what I have been arguing for.

Liar. You're trying to create an equivalence between all similar incidents and this one, to create a false binary so you can get people to say all drug suspects should be shot or none, studiously ignoring the part where they keep saying some should be shot. If you were interested in the truth, you'd be asking about apparently high suspects who rushed cops with guns drawn after repeated attempts to stop.

I see shouting stop and maintaining a distance as part of and not separate to pointing a gun at someone. You cannot point a gun at someone, say nothing and then walk right up to them or walk miles away from them.

Actually, thousands of cops do precisely that every day. You're not arguing that the cop should've just stood there while the suspect ignored his commands, are you?

Now if the cop had opened a window and tried to speak to the student, or had come out with baton or cuffs whilst his armed partner headed back to the police station, I would have seen that as trying something else.

I like how you say he shouldn't have shot the kid and tried other things, but say him trying to avoid shooting the kid and trying other things doesn't count.

But walking out with a gun pointing at the student, shouting stop and maintaining a distance needed to get off an accurate shot, that is only one option.

Nope. Cops are in that exact same situation on a daily basis, and most don't shoot anyone. Most cops never shoot anyone. You are wrong.

 

[Nessie]

A key point. He also chased the cop and ignored commands to stop.

Why, yes, in order to protect himself and the public, as per protocol. What he also went into was a situation which was also a "potential" peaceful arrest.

People have been shot and successfully assaulted their attacker from further ranges.

In fact, officer presence should've been enough, if the suspect was logical and compliant. We both know he wasn't. The officer also tried verbal commands, which also didn't work. He tried running away, and that didn't work. The claim that he was expecting to shoot the guy is false. Almost every single claim you've made in this debate has been wrong.

Actually, I support both, as the situation warrants. There are situations where it's a good idea for a cop to kick someone in the nuts, such as being in a physical cinch, but this wasn't one of them.

And injury to the suspect, and risk to the officer, and that it's not effective stopping people who are high.

Shooting, actually. You don't actually need your beans and franks to run forward and beat up someone. You do, however, need a working heart. And you're ignoring the fact that you need to be in melee range of a suspect to nutshot, which is objectively a bad idea when the suspect is a non-responsive drug-crazed belligerent who seems to be trying to attack you even though you have a gun out.

I'm friends with a police officer, my sister has two black belts, and I am personally quite well read on self-defense techniques, weapons, and warfare. I'd ask you yours, but it's irrelevant, since you clearly have much much less. Why do you keep ignoring things I prove you objectively wrong on?

I do not agree with your descriptive of he chased the cop. He was walking towards the cop and behaving oddly.

Initially the cop heard banging at the window, and has been said that could be someone desperate for help and panicked, but he went out gun drawn.

If the cop was not expecting to use his gun, why did he walk out of the police office with it drawn?

I see no point in getting bogged down in kicking in the nuts vs shooting.

I am a police officer, 23 years experience, 21 of which have been front line. I worked on my own in a single manned office for a number of years. I had people banging on windows. I would turn on the outside light if required, put on my utility belt with baton, cuffs and CS and go out and investigate shouting as I went who is there or similar. I would not have my CS or baton drawn. I would wait to see who was there and consider options of just speaking to them, going back inside or drawing my baton or CS.

That is exactly what that cop should have done first. Going out with his gun drawn severely limited his options and now a student is dead.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Not only is it needless, but people on drugs have shrugged off gunfire, much less crushed nuts. And, as I said, needless risk to the officer.

He tried retreating, and the suspect aggressively and repeatedly pursued. And despite Nessie's tears, the cop did ask the suspect to stop, repeatedly. The police are under no obligation to retreat indoors, even assuming there was a lockable door nearby, and if the person proceeded to hurt others, the cop is up for negligence.

I'm giong to go out on a limb and assume the door to the campus police office is lockable.

And he certainly is obligated to defuse the situation in the least violent way possible. Which would mean going inside, locking the door, grabbing a taser, calling for back-up and keeping an eye on the guy through the window.

And the shooting occurred approx. 30 secs after the cop came out. It doesn't seem like he tried to talk him down for very long before resorting to deadly force.

Are cops in the US really so terrified of physical conflict that they would rather shoot people than risk it?

 

[000063]

Yes, the cop should not have gone out with his gun, he should have used another option. That is what I have been arguing from the start. Not that you have followed this from the start.

False binary. You are trying to say everything he did with his gun drawn counts as one option, and everything without a gun counts as another. You have said things that are objectively wrong, then tried to rewrite the dictionary.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm giong to go out on a limb and assume the door to the campus police office is lockable.

And he certainly is obligated to defuse the situation in the least violent way possible. Which would mean going inside, locking the door, grabbing a taser, calling for back-up and keeping an eye on the guy through the window.

And the shooting occurred approx. 30 secs after the cop came out. It doesn't seem like he tried to talk him down for very long before resorting to deadly force.

Are cops in the US really so terrified of physical conflict that they would rather shoot people than risk it?

There are no tasers in the office as far as all reports I have read.

The police can't leave a naked nut free to assault people. So running away, or locking themselves inside the office are not options for the officers.

Had the police ignored Collar and stayed in the office, and Collar left the area and assaulted whoever he encountered next, everyone would say the police were wrong for not dealing with Collar immediately.

 

[Nessie]

Which would be negligent of him. And he tried to maintain distance. The suspect wasn't having it.

Sorry, I misspoke. There are very few situations where nut-kicking is the appropriate response, and it is not used as a go-to technique for good reasons.

Speaking generally, not absolutely. Nice nitpicking. What may be appropriate for shoplifters might not be appropriate for people on drugs. Incidentally, mall security officers have been shot by shoplifters, so it's clearly not as safe as one might think.

Irrelevant. You ignored TriForCharity, who is, IIRC, a firefighter with experience subduing violent people.

No, you specifically said that it means someone gets shot. You even said that

​

Which is flatly contradicted by the vast majority of situations where this exact procedure is followed, and deadly force is not used. It can't be the most likely option if it is an exception.

Here's an idea; find a small guy and have him punch you in the shoulder stongly. Then have a large man punch you in the other shoulder. Do this several times, with several different men. No cheating and using little guys who happen to be weightlifters. Which generally hit harder? Or just ask a physics teacher if big dudes generally hit harder than little dudes.

So speaking doesn't count as verbal skills now.

All right. That's it. You are now worthy of only my mockery.

Yes, because clearly you've demonstrated so much knowledge of how weapons and cops work.

You made a false claim about shoplifters, revealing your ignorance, nice to see you acknowledge you were wrong.

I cannot remember TriForCharity's comments. But if firefighters can subdue people without shooting, so should cops be able to do the same thing, unless they have run out of all options.

I have been saying getting your gun out and having no other equipment means you only option is to shoot, referring to the instance with the student.

Hey how about getting some random guys big and small to hit you and then start to record who has the hardest punch and then back up your claim big guys hit harder than smaller ones. Physics teacher? How about boxing coach?

Shouting stop when you have a gun in your hand is barely verbal skills. It is the bare minimum. Verbal skills means much, much more, but that is where your ignorance shows through.

Mockery, I may just show that of you

 

[DreamingNaiad]

You apparently just read the end of this thread. The kid had already attacked several other people prior to this.

Unless the cop knew that before the shooting it is irrelevant in regards to his actions. Which is what we're discussing.

 

[Dan O.]

And if the naked guy was ponding on the cop shop door because he had just been assaulted and was desperately trying to escape his attackers?

The cop didnt know why the naked guy was pounding on the window, whether he was a perp or a victim or what else was waiting outside.

I can imagine Dan O. escaping from people assaulting him, and luckily finding a cop nearby who... stands by while you continue to get assaulted while he waits for backup to arrive, maybe in 10 seconds or maybe in an hour.

With the way cops are expected to behave, it's not safe to go to them in an emergency.

Was the guy outside being assaulted? No. That's just your imagination dreaming up excuses for the shooting. Was backup on the way? Yes. Was there a way to determine when the backup would arrive? Yes, the same way they were summoned.

There was also another person inside the police station that came outside immediately after the shooting. We're they notified earlier of the situation? We're they able to witness what happened?

In the news and in the movies, cops always seem to be able to pull a blanket out of their patrol cars whenever someone is underdressed or exposed to the weather. Blankets seem to be part of the standard equipment they have on hand. I would think that a naked person coming to the door of the police station is more in need of being handed a blanket instead of having a gun pointed at them.

 

[WildCat]

Unless the cop knew that before the shooting it is irrelevant in regards to his actions. Which is what we're discussing.

I didn't claim the cop knew that. I was refuting Dan O.'s apparent belief that the kid wasn't a danger to anybody. He was.

The cop had no idea what he was going to find on the other side of that door and felt it prudent to have his gun drawn just in case, as I've already explained in several posts now.

 

[Nessie]

And every cop who draws their gun and asks a subject to stop is probably going to shoot them.

I don't suppose your majesty would be willing to provide the article, would you?

It's not like having someone high on drugs run around is a bad idea, and puts the people cops are sworn to protect at risk or anything.

No not every cop, but it does limit their options.

Artilces so far in this thread

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...of-naked-college-student-mother-asks-why?lite

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/10/11/3045664/video-shows-naked-student-calm.html

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/oct/11/surveillance-video-released-of-gil-colla-63591-vi-147259/

 

[WildCat]

Was the guy outside being assaulted? No.

Thank you Captian Hindsight.

Are you claiming the cop could have known why someone was pounding on the window prior to stepping outside?

 

[Nessie]

And if he went outside to discover the person pounding on the window was being assaulted by a group of armed men? Tell them to all sit tight while he goes back inside to retrieve his gun?

You make a lot of assumptions you have no logical reason to make. Or maybe you think the cop was psychic, and knew before he went outside what he was going to encounter.

Since he is not psychic, he should have gone out with all of his equipment. Or if he was that concerned, he should have waited for back up, which we now know was nearby. That is all I have argued from the start. He was wrong to limit his option to gun only.

 

[Belz...]

The complaint is that such a situation should never have been dealt with by use of a gun. That is a grossly excessive use of force.

Here's another idea: don't attack cops.

 

[Nessie]

You must not have viewed the video of the reporter describing the shooting, because it's radically different than the description by the family lawyer.

You will now list those supposed differences. All I see is phrasing differences. Both agree to movements, speed of movement and as why only have a gun?

 

[WildCat]

Since he is not psychic, he should have gone out with all of his equipment. Or if he was that concerned, he should have waited for back up, which we now know was nearby. That is all I have argued from the start. He was wrong to limit his option to gun only.

You asssume his baton was readily available to him, another one of the assumptions you keep making without any evidence to support it.

 

[WildCat]

You will now list those supposed differences. All I see is phrasing differences. Both agree to movements, speed of movement and as why only have a gun?

The reporter describes an aggressive person in a fighting stance.

Yeah, just a phrasing difference.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

There are no tasers in the office as far as all reports I have read.

The police can't leave a naked nut free to assault people. So running away, or locking themselves inside the office are not options for the officers.

Had the police ignored Collar and stayed in the office, and Collar left the area and assaulted whoever he encountered next, everyone would say the police were wrong for not dealing with Collar immediately.

I'm not saying he should have hidden under a desk. I have seen the building and it has a lot of huge windows. He could have kept an eye on him until back-up arrived.

Then it would have been 2 against 1 and the likelihood of death would have decreased dramatically.

I'm not sure if police dispatchers are trained in any way in physical conflict (as it appears even cops aren't) but there was one in the building. And back-up arrived seconds after the shooting.

No one is saying that deadly force should never be used, only that in this case it wasn't the only option. And that the non-death option should always be attempted.

 

[Dan O.]

The reporter has quite a different take than the family's lawyer does. Shocking, I know...

Totally shocking. She says they were alway walking, walking. Where is the rushing that was being reported earlier? And where is the missing video between where he was shot and where he died?


Chris, no sign of an intercom there. But there had been signs on the door and windows with big red arrows and a bunch of small text. Maybe they pointed to the intercom or police call box. Why were these signs removed for the news reenactment?