How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[DreamingNaiad]

And what if the suspect had wandered off? Then he has to leave to continue to keep an eye on him.

He did. You're saying he should've ran back inside and locked the door at the first sign of trouble. He tried to repeatedly evade the suspect and get him to stop. It didn't work.

If he felt his life was in danger then yes, he should have removed hiself from the situation until help arrived. Instead of killing someone.

And unless this kid was The Flash it would be easy to keep an eye on him through the window and gain his attention by going out again if he started to wander off.

Perhaps with the pepper spray that campus admin said the cops had. Without the gun there would have been no fear of the guy getting hold of it and shooting anyone.

Problem solved, everyone lives.

Do you ever wonder how officers in other countries subdue offenders without guns and serious injuries? It's called training.

This guy had no weapon, the cop escalated the situation by bringing a gun that he claims he then had to use on the off-chance the suspect tried to take it. Even though he apparently wasn't trying to.

 

[WildCat]

Quote what she did say please. And what the lawyer said.

She specifically said the guy was acting aggressively and moving "like a boxer".

The lawyers job is to spin and collect money.

 

[WildCat]

If he felt his life was in danger then yes, he should have removed hiself from the situation until help arrived. Instead of killing someone.

Why have cops at all if they're supposed to just run away from danger?

This thread just keeps getting dumber and dumber.

 

[Giz]

If he felt his life was in danger then yes, he should have removed hiself from the situation until help arrived. Instead of killing someone.

If the shooter was an average citizen with a concealed carry permit, absolutely he should have tried to remove himself/avoid confrontation.

As a cop, the shooter probably felt that he had a duty to go and control the situation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If he felt his life was in danger then yes, he should have removed hiself from the situation until help arrived. Instead of killing someone.
<snip>
This guy had no weapon, the cop escalated the situation by bringing a gun that he claims he then had to use on the off-chance the suspect tried to take it. Even though he apparently wasn't trying to.

This thread has moved on a bit since my last post and I admit I haven't read much of it, but I just read a more detailed account of the story, and the guy apparently was given LSD by someone (apparently, not with the guy's consent), and he flipped out but was apparently trying to go to the police for help. This took place at the campus police station.

So I don't how understand the idea that the officer only had the gun available is an excuse for improper use of lethal force. Aren't whatever non-lethal things he had right there at the police station? Did the officer somehow let himself get cut off such that he couldn't go back inside?

If so, that incompetence is not much better as an excuse than the improper use of deadly force.

Also, if this account (being given by the family and their lawyer) is true, then I hope they track down and catch whoever drugged the guy and book him for some form of manslaughter (possibly even upping the charges under the felony murder rule). And since neither the lawyer nor the guy's family were present at the alleged drugging, I assume they have witnesses and information that could lead to catching the responsible person.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why have cops at all if they're supposed to just run away from danger?

You don't think there are situations when a police officer should call for backup and wait to act until backup arrives?

And why couldn't he "run away from danger" to the extent of going back into the station to retrieve his non-lethal means of subduing someone that he foolishly didn't bring with him in the first place when responding to the guy?

Am I wrong in my reading of the news articles that this happened at the campus police department?

This thread just keeps getting dumber and dumber.

This sort of pointless comment doesn't make the thread any less dumb. If you don't choose to engage in this discussion in good faith, you're free not to.

 

[000063]

Show how I am supposedly lying by going back over my comments in this thread and make links to evidence your claim I am a liar.

The liar part is in reference to how you say you claimed shooting wasn't the only option. You did not merely claim that. You also tried to say that if one person on drugs shouldn't be shot, none should. You even linked those posts below. Which is laughable.

In post #470, you also lied -or were wrong- about the gun being drawn being the only "key point". You said talking doesn't count as verbal skills, then you backpedalled to it "barely" counting. You repeatedly asserted that the cop did not "try" anything but shooting. #438, you said that I had asserted a big guy is necessarily going to be better in a fight. You keep asking if the only resource for dealing with a drug-addled suspect is shooting, no matter how many times people tell you its a straw man. All of these demonstrate dishonesty, incompetence, or both.

This a theme, do not scare an American or they will shoot. Americans cannot take a slap or handle themselves in any form of confrontation and go straight to lethal force.

That's not just incorrect, that's outright bigotry.

You will find that the reason why I have asked if all drugged up people should be shot is because I think that claim is utter nonsense. You will find I have pointed out that people can be supposedly drugged up for all sorts of reasons.

I'll start you off

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8683291#post8683291

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8685016#post8685016

And I have asked you who in this thread made such a claim. You never responded, IIRC.

No I am not arguing the cop should have just stood there. I am arguing he should have dealt with this incident completely differently and shooting was excessive and the cop got it horribly wrong.

And I am arguing that your conclusion is based on your ignorance and aggressively ignoring certain facts.

I do not agree going out with your gun drawn and the tactics that go with that by shouting stop and maintaining distance is an attempt not to shoot the kid. Going out with full kit, gun holstered and trying other methods first is trying not to shoot the student.

Well, you're not now.

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.

That's very clearly a general statement about how merely having a gun present means someone gets shot. It's still wrong, because the cop tried a lesser use of force; verbal command. Unless you're arguing that telling a suspect to stop is the same as shooting them.

I am arguing attempting not to shoot the kid by staying away from him and asking him repeatedly to stop is, by definition, an attempt to resolve the situation without violence, and one which failed.

That most cops do not shoot proves my point that on this case, the cop got it wrong.

Actually, it contradicts your assertion that cops going out with guns drawn is likely to lead to a shooting, since most cops in similar situations don't shoot. That makes it, by definition, unlikely.

 

[Segnosaur]

If he felt his life was in danger then yes, he should have removed hiself from the situation until help arrived. Instead of killing someone.

So, what you're saying is that all police officers must have the ability to instantly teleport themselves out of harm's way.

The guy was shot when he was (I think) 5 feet away and coming at him. Just out of curiosity, how long does it take you to open a door? Think you could open a door and enter (note that your back might be turned away at the time) in the time it takes someone to run 5 feet?

Do you ever wonder how officers in other countries subdue offenders without guns and serious injuries? It's called training.

Its sometimes also called confronting people with more than 1 officer (something that was not possible).

Its also sometimes called being confronted by people who aren't currently running at you and/or are rational enough to follow orders.

Its also sometimes called being lucky.

This guy had no weapon...

I'll tell you what... we'll put you in a ring with Chuck Lyddell, or Jose Aldo (according to Wikipedia, the current "featherweight" UFC champion, roughly the same size as the student in this case) with absolutely no weapons. And let them have a go at you, and see how safe you will be when faced with someone with no weapon.

Any fight is dangerous. Any fight can result in serious harm or even death. I see no reason why an officer should have to take unnecessary risks.

the cop escalated the situation by bringing a gun that he claims he then had to use on the off-chance the suspect tried to take it. Even though he apparently wasn't trying to.

Nope, he had to use the gun on the very real chance he was going to get into a fight (a very dangerous situation) with someone who was coming towards him quickly and was not listening to orders to stop.

 

[000063]

From what I am reading people are saying the cop was justified in shooting as he was supposedly facing a deadly threat. But so far none have shown that shooting is the only option when faced with someone high on drugs.

No one made that claim.

That cop went for his gun only, straight to lethal force to deal with a kid on drugs.

Lie/wrong.

Are people here saying that shooting people on drugs is the only option?

No. No one said that. That's your straw man.

In any case the lame excuse is the real issue.

If no "excuse" can justify the shooting, why are you even here? Clearly, your mind isn't going to change, and you're batting 0 for changing others.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

I find interesting that Nessie will try and get people to commit to his strawmen about police shooting all drug users, but ignores the fact that most cops who draw guns on a suspect never use them.

The strangest thing is, I know he's not dumb, yet he's stuffing his fingers in his ears and going la-la.

Just for the sake of argument, here are some of the options for a cop who approaches a suspect with their gun out.

• 
  * Put the gun away.
  * Talk to the suspect (tried repeatedly, failed)
  * Keep away from suspect (tried repeatedly, failed)
  * Arrest suspect. (N/A)
  * Try to physically subdue suspect (contraindicated by just about every single police instructor or self-defense instructor)
  * Kick suspect in nuts. (requires melee range)
  * Put gun away and use taser. (no time to draw)
  * Put gun away and use pepper spray. (no time to draw)
  * Shoot them.

The problem with Nessie's vague "other things" is that they usually require a suspect who is reasonable. Nessie dodged my question about whether the suspect was, saying that the suspect was "acting unreasonably". The other prospects, tasers and pepper spray, could not be done in time. Physical assault puts the officer at an undue risk with a high chance of failure.

What Nessie forgets, like so many people who condemn the cops, is that cops are essentially defensive. They're supposed to react, not agress. The cop's actions were in response to the actions of the suspect. Most of the time, when people condemn the cops for doing something, it's clear they place no responsibility on the suspect whatsoever.

I wouldn't call trying to talk to the suspect for 30 seconds 'trying repeatedly'.

Yes he took LSD and got himself in that state. And he should be held accountable for that. But he was no danger to the cop until the cop brought out a gun and didn't retreat to a safe place.

He was clearly unable to understand what was happening so of course he didn't listen or back down. The cop should have taken that into consideration. The police are there to protect all members of society, even the ones who act like idiots or are compromised with drugs or alcohol. That they would rather end someone's life than 'risk' being hurt in an altercation is baffling. You may as well abolish the police force and let anyone shoot to kill when the feel threatened. Cuts out the middle-man and saves tax-payers money.

When the only two options are 'someone definitely dies' or 'someone maybe dies' they should always pick option 2.

 

[Dcdrac]

In a situation like this pulling out a weapon was the worst response, all it did was ratchet up the tension, and yes the perpretartor should have been subdued, as it has been stated back up was on the way the officer should have not pulled a gun and tried to talk the person down, calming them if possible and if not keep them in sight and talking until back up arrived.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Why have cops at all if they're supposed to just run away from danger?

This thread just keeps getting dumber and dumber.

He wouldn't have been running away, he would be waiting for back-up at a safe distance rather than killing someone because he got frightened.

Why is stopping to think, assess the situation and wait for back-up so ludicrous? He obviously felt he needed back-up as he called for it, so why not wait for it?

 

[000063]

So, what you're saying is that all police officers must have the ability to instantly teleport themselves out of harm's way.

The guy was shot when he was (I think) 5 feet away and coming at him. Just out of curiosity, how long does it take you to open a door? Think you could open a door and enter (note that your back might be turned away at the time) in the time it takes someone to run 5 feet?


Its sometimes also called confronting people with more than 1 officer (something that was not possible).
...

For instance, look at the video. One crazy guy with knife, and over a dozen unarmed cops to subdue him, some with riot shields.



There are ways to take down a suspect without weapons, but they aren't guaranteed, and often are a lot of risk to both the suspect and officer. More importantly, they simply weren't feasible in this case. Even a baton can easily result in a skull injury or limb fracture.

 

[000063]

He wouldn't have been running away, he would be waiting for back-up at a safe distance rather than killing someone because he got frightened.

Why is stopping to think, assess the situation and wait for back-up so ludicrous? He obviously felt he needed back-up as he called for it, so why not wait for it?

That's assuming he could get inside and lock the door safely. Thing is, a suspect five feet behind you can catch up and force the door open before you can close it, even assuming there's a latch on the inside. The officer tried to retreat and the suspect pursued. If he had gone inside, the suspect would've pursued him there.

 

[000063]

In a situation like this pulling out a weapon was hte worst response, all it did was ratchet up the tension, and yes the perpretartor shouldhave been subdued, as it ahs been stated back up was on the way the officer should have not pulled a gun and tried to talk the person down, calming them if possible and if not keep them in sight and talking until back up arrived.

Just so I'm clear; does an officer drawing a firearm make it more or less likely suspects will comply?

Is a suspect more or less likely to try and physically engage an officer with drawn firearm?

 

[000063]

I wouldn't call trying to talk to the suspect for 30 seconds 'trying repeatedly'.

You might want to have a word with the article in the first post, then. And saying "Stop! Stop!" is repeatedly. The suspect actively chased the cop.

Yes he took LSD and got himself in that state. And he should be held accountable for that. But he was no danger to the cop until the cop brought out a gun and didn't retreat to a safe place.

Even leaving aside the fact that the kid had already attacked people, which the cop didn't know, is it reasonable for the cop to consider someone who threatens him, charges him repeatedly, and ignores repeated commands to stop a threat?

He was clearly unable to understand what was happening so of course he didn't listen or back down. The cop should have taken that into consideration. The police are there to protect all members of society, even the ones who act like idiots or are compromised with drugs or alcohol.

And if those individuals try to harm others? What if those idiots are armed with lethal weaponry?

Society states that those who attempt to harm others themselves lose their right to protection from harm, to a certain degree. The cop had every reason to believe the suspect was trying to seriously harm him, and the suspect therefore lost the right not to be seriously harmed as the officer tried to defend himself.

That they would rather end someone's life than 'risk' being hurt in an altercation is baffling.

Actually, cops have been injured in scuffles a lot like this one, some even after they shot the suspect. One officer shot the suspect while backing away as the suspect went for his own weapon, only to have the suspect remove his rifle from his car, suppress the officer behind his patrol car, and kill him in cold blood, all with a 9mm or two in his gut.

You may as well abolish the police force and let anyone shoot to kill when the feel threatened.

If only police officers were investigated every time they had to shoot someone.

Oh, wait, they are.

Cuts out the middle-man and saves tax-payers money.

When the only two options are 'someone definitely dies' or 'someone maybe dies' they should always pick option 2.

Wrong.

The choices were between "suspect is shot and probably dies" and "suspect struggles with the police officer, possibly killing him, and likely even obtaining a firearm, putting even more people at risk". The officer attempted to get the suspect to surrender peacefully, but the suspect did not.

You've been asked whether the cop could've made it inside with the suspect literally feet behind him. You've assumed that the police station door is lockable without a key. You expect the officer to take actions that would put himself and the public at more risk, not less.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

So, what you're saying is that all police officers must have the ability to instantly teleport themselves out of harm's way.

The guy was shot when he was (I think) 5 feet away and coming at him. Just out of curiosity, how long does it take you to open a door? Think you could open a door and enter (note that your back might be turned away at the time) in the time it takes someone to run 5 feet?


Its sometimes also called confronting people with more than 1 officer (something that was not possible).

Its also sometimes called being confronted by people who aren't currently running at you and/or are rational enough to follow orders.

Its also sometimes called being lucky.


I'll tell you what... we'll put you in a ring with Chuck Lyddell, or Jose Aldo (according to Wikipedia, the current "featherweight" UFC champion, roughly the same size as the student in this case) with absolutely no weapons. And let them have a go at you, and see how safe you will be when faced with someone with no weapon.

Any fight is dangerous. Any fight can result in serious harm or even death. I see no reason why an officer should have to take unnecessary risks.


Nope, he had to use the gun on the very real chance he was going to get into a fight (a very dangerous situation) with someone who was coming towards him quickly and was not listening to orders to stop.

He shouldn't have let it get to the point that the guy was 5 feet away. When he came at him and he realized that he couldn't subdue him alone he should have retreated and waited for back-up.

If you put me in that ring with the ability to leave and call for back-up then I would take you up on it. That is maore analogous to this situation.

If people are afraid of confrontation because they could get hurt/die then they probably shouldn't be police officers in the first place. It seems like a wrong fit for them.

I am not saying he should have attacked him. But if he couldn't retreat he should have at least tried to subdue him before jumping straight to a bullet in the chest.

Sometimes the police have to protect members of the public from themselves. If they are unwilling to do that they need to find another line of work.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

account from a fellow student

This thread has moved on a bit since my last post and I admit I haven't read much of it, but I just read a more detailed account of the story, and the guy apparently was given LSD by someone (apparently, not with the guy's consent), and he flipped out but was apparently trying to go to the police for help. This took place at the campus police station.

This article suggests (although it does not exactly state it outright) that he took a drug voluntarily. I hope we get some clarification on the question in the coming days. Your inference that he was going to the police for help seems reasonable to me.

 

[Dan O.]

She specifically said the guy was acting aggressively and moving "like a boxer".

Just like you would if you had somepne pointing a gun at you and telling you to dance.

 

[Giz]

Just like you would if you had somepne pointing a gun at you and telling you to dance.

And there was me thinking that if a cop points a gun at you, the sensible reaction is to freeze and then comply with instructions.