How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[DreamingNaiad]

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.

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?

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.

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.



No, the choices were between "suspect is shot and maybe 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.

To the first bolded : Seriously? Of course if they are armed and attempting to hurt people they should be stopped. That is not this situation.

To the second : I agree. Take them down. Hard. Death should be the last resort.

And you can't seriously bring a gun then shoot someone in case they go after this gun you brought. He should have picked up his pepper spray before leaving and kept his gun holstered. And then he could have used the spray before the guy was 5 feet from him. Would it have stopped him? Maybe, maybe not. But it would have affected his eyesight and slowed him down a bit. After that it is either wait for back up or shoot if the danger becomes too great.

That is what makes this seem wrong to me. That out of all the measures available, the cop went for the gun. If he had pepper-sprayed him and the guy had kept coming and tried to attack him I wouldn't be so against him. Because at least he would have used more than just words to try to prevent a death.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

how compliant he was is in the eye of the beholder

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.

At one point he knelt down. He also had his hands up, palms toward the officer at another point. I grant that he should not have walked toward the officer, but he did not run.

 

[Belz...]

He was running around biting people before he went and assualted precinct 13. If the cop hadn't gone out to confront him then we'd be having a conversation about "Why do they even employ this guy, he won't even go out and stop a 5' 7" kid who's running around attacking women?"

Which makes me think that maybe it's not the incident per se that's the problem, to these people, but cops in general. They just don't like them, and anything they do is wrong.

 

[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?...

He shouldn't have let it get to the point that the guy was 5 feet away.

Nice dodge. The answer, of course, is no, you couldn't, much less get inside and lock it, especially if you're facing your assailant who is already moving.

When he came at him and he realized that he couldn't subdue him alone he should have retreated and waited for back-up.

HE TRIED THAT. The suspect actively pursued him.

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.

Only if your opponent is allowed to follow you.

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.

So no amount of risk justifies any amount of fear. If a guy is shooting at them, police shouldn't fire back. Cops have no responsibility to protect themselves and fellow officers. That's what you're saying.

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.

Except that he told the suspect to stop several times, and attempted to stay where the suspect couldn't reach him.

And if he had failed during the physical confrontation, which is a very good chance if the suspect is high, then the suspect could injure him in such a way as to prevent him attempting anything else. Heck, he could even get the cop's gun and run away, or shoot him. Cops are told to avoid physical combat for precisely those reasons. Also, brawling with a suspect who may be on drugs carries the risk of disease somehow transferring during the fight.

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.

They also have to protect themselves.

 

[Belz...]

It is not a jab and you have confirmed what I thought. Scaring an American is enough to get yourself killed.

 

[Belz...]

You have to remember the guy was a baddie. There are good guys and bad guys and nothing in between.

It's funny that you say that, since the people defending the officer have been consistently saying that it's a matter of judgment, and that they don't have all the information. It's the opposite team that are claiming to have all the answers, a much more black-and-white way of thinking.

 

[Belz...]

The problem with that argument is that a baton is a close-range weapon. If the individual is close enough such that a baton was an option, the officer would not have had the time to draw a gun, and probably would not be in a good position to shoot.

Why ? All he has to do is hold down Shift to run faster.

 

[000063]

To the first bolded : Seriously? Of course if they are armed and attempting to hurt people they should be stopped. That is not this situation.

What if a suspect is attempting to choke someone with their bare hands, or trying to slam their victim's head into a pillar, or to curb stomp them?

To the second : I agree. Take them down. Hard. Death should be the last resort.

And it was.

And you can't seriously bring a gun then shoot someone in case they go after this gun you brought. He should have picked up his pepper spray before leaving and kept his gun holstered.

People are more likely to attack officers without a gun drawn. Most incidents where cops approach suspects with guns out end peacefully, so clearly that wasn't the deciding factor.

And then he could have used the spray before the guy was 5 feet from him. Would it have stopped him? Maybe, maybe not. But it would have affected his eyesight and slowed him down a bit. After that it is either wait for back up or shoot if the danger becomes too great.

Which would've left him enough momentum to reach the cop before he even finishes reaching for his eyes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjSjgsonUvE

Note how the suspect is still going even with multiple applications of pepper spray. Pepper spray's primary utility is in the pain it inflicts, and pepper spray is less effective on "the insane, drug addicts, intoxicated, or hysterical persons."

That is what makes this seem wrong to me. That out of all the measures available, the cop went for the gun. If he had pepper-sprayed him and the guy had kept coming and tried to attack him I wouldn't be so against him.

I'm sorry, if you attack someone wielding a lethal weapon, all bets are off, especially if they are a police officer who you have threatened, chased, and who has asked you to stop several times.

It is very difficult to draw pepper spray while moving. The cop did not have time to put away his weapon and draw pepper spray, even assuming he had it.

Because at least he would have used more than just words to try to prevent a death.

I like how you ignore the part where you were wrong about the choices. Either way, someone is getting seriously hurt, possibly killed. Better it be the guy on drugs who's a threat to the community, than the cop and possibly several other people.

 

[000063]

At one point he knelt down. He also had his hands up, palms toward the officer at another point. I grant that he should not have walked toward the officer, but he did not run.

So he was acting erratically, threatening the cop, and ignoring commands to stop, at best. And, as it turned out, he was actually a threat. And that's assuming eyewitness accounts were correct.

 

[000063]

It's funny that you say that, since the people defending the officer have been consistently saying that it's a matter of judgment, and that they don't have all the information. It's the opposite team that are claiming to have all the answers, a much more black-and-white way of thinking.

Well, it's not like this thread was made implying there couldn't be any justification and the OP has made repeated bigoted anti-American statements in i-

Oh.

 

[Belz...]

All you need is a cop who is prepared to have a go at tackling with non lethal methods and having the patience to keep trying verbal communication.

Judge, jury, executioner, wrestler, philosopher AND diplomat ? Well that sounds reasonable.

 

[Dcdrac]

If the officer felt threatend, the procedure I was tuaght was back off and wait for the back up then move in.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Nice dodge. The answer, of course, is no, you couldn't, much less get inside and lock it, especially if you're facing your assailant who is already moving.

HE TRIED THAT. The suspect actively pursued him.

Only if your opponent is allowed to follow you.

So no amount of risk justifies any amount of fear. If a guy is shooting at them, police shouldn't fire back. Cops have no responsibility to protect themselves and fellow officers. That's what you're saying.

Except that he told the suspect to stop several times, and attempted to stay where the suspect couldn't reach him.

And if he had failed during the physical confrontation, which is a very good chance if the suspect is high, then the suspect could injure him in such a way as to prevent him attempting anything else. Heck, he could even get the cop's gun and run away, or shoot him. Cops are told to avoid physical combat for precisely those reasons. Also, brawling with a suspect who may be on drugs carries the risk of disease somehow transferring during the fight.

They also have to protect themselves.

It's not a dodge to say that the officer should have controlled the situation better so that he wasn't 5 fee away.

Walking backwards slowly saying 'stop' is a **** poor retreat.

I wasn't saying officers shouldn't feel fear or return fire (clutch those straws!) but they shouldn't kill someone to prevent a fistfight. It's disproportionate. There was only a danger the guy could grab the gun because the officer brought it.

I think the police are refusing to release the footage so the only accounts we have are the lawyer's (who obviously has his own agenda) and that reporter (who just kept talking about what she thought the suspects actions looked like). Unless the family or media sue for it's release we will never know exactly what. happened

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

This thread just keeps getting dumber and dumber.

Your straw man is dumb, I agree.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No one made that claim.

Lie/wrong.

...

Yes, those things are what people in the thread are arguing.


Saying shooting drug crazed attackers is the only option, perhaps not.

 

[Segnosaur]

It's not a dodge to say that the officer should have controlled the situation better so that he wasn't 5 fee away.

Yes, it is a dodge.

Do you think all this took place on some football field where he was facing someone a hundred yards away?

Walking backwards slowly saying 'stop' is a **** poor retreat.

So, you think a better option is to actually turn around so that your back is facing the person threatening you an run?

So, not only do cops need the ability to teleport themselves inside buildings, they also have to be olympic class runners, lest a cop get tackled from behind when trying to get a 'safe distance' between him and his assailant?

I wasn't saying officers shouldn't feel fear or return fire (clutch those straws!) but they shouldn't kill someone to prevent a fistfight. It's disproportionate.

Who cares if its "disproportionate"? We don't pay cops so they can get into "fair fights". We expect them to make sure they keep themselves as safe as possible under the given circumstances.

I think the police are refusing to release the footage so the only accounts we have are the lawyer's (who obviously has his own agenda) and that reporter (who just kept talking about what she thought the suspects actions looked like). Unless the family or media sue for it's release we will never know exactly what. happened

Actually, its probably not being released because a person died and they don't want such a tragic incident to end up on YouTube.

And from what I understand, the police said they would give the family the option to view the video.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Yes I clearly think this all happened on a football pitch in Star Trek land.

That is word for word what I have said.

Not that the officer handled the situation poorly and should be reprimanded an retrained. Nope.

 

[Nessie]

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.

That just shows you have not read my posts. I have repeatedly said other options are available and in the case of the student should have been used. I have detailed what I have done when I was alone in an office and someone banged on the window. I have stated cuffs and open handed fends and holds are my preferred option.

I have crticised those who claim that 1 what happened with the student was a life ghreatening attack. 2 that people who attack ghe police should expect to be shot. 3 the cop failed in his duty by only considering the deadly option.

 

[000063]

There's a video on youtube where a guy gets shot by the police. Thing is, in that one, the police tried a taser to the face, which didn't work, and while the officer was attempting to put away the taser, the suspect turned and attempted to cave in his skull with a conduit bender.



The odd thing is, the comments were filled with the same "the cops could've tried something else!" bleating, even when the cops actually did. Someone said they should've unleashed the dog, which probably wouldn't've worked. Someone else said that the officer "provoked" the suspect by approaching. One said the cops should've been able to subdue him, and that the conduit bender would just leave a "bruise". I asked him if he was willing to have someone swing rebar at his head at full speed and see how much of a bruise it left. Bottom line, he represented a greater threat to an empty-handed cop, and people were still expecting them to tussle.

 

[Nessie]

Congratulations! A single brownie point!

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.

And guess what, he was!

Still wrong. If cops generally don't shoot suspects in similar situations, you need to ask yourself what was so different about this situation.

Sure, why not? I've noticed that you've made no effort to actually find out for yourself, and are aggressively pursuing an irrelevant sidetrack to try and make yourself look better.

Ah, so you admit it's verbal skills, despite clearly saying earlier it wasn't. Stop moving goalposts. My mother was an English teacher for most of my life. I know what "verbal skills" are.

You keep saying the cop should've tried measures which require the suspect being reasonable, while refusing to admit whether the suspect was or wasn't reasonable. Just say yes, no, or I don't know. It's not difficult. No "acting unreasonably" dodge.

Good luck![/QUOTE]

I have asked on a number of occasions why did this cop go straight to just using his gun, whilst many others do not and other people manage to work with drugged people with out guns at all.

Your idea of shouting stop whilst pointing a gun is different from the verbal skills involved in talming someone down. What you call a verbal skill is basic command anyone can do.