How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[000063]

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

Except that he tried it, and it didn't work. The suspect chased him when he tried, verbally threatened him, and ignored requests to stop.

I'm sorry, but I really can't balance a moral equation where shooting some guy who is attacking a cop is better than risking him harming and killing the cop and several other people.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Segnosaur, I didn't say they were refusing to release it for some nefarious purpose I just said that they weren't releasing it so we only have accounts from third parties.


Also if a taser to the face doesn't stop you and you try to bash someone's head in with a pipe, you are leaving the officers no option but to take you down.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

depends on one's inferences

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.

How do you infer a threat from a guy kneeling down? From a guy with his hands up? With respect to some other comments on the thread, I have not yet seen a corroborated news report detailing what he did previously.

 

[Segnosaur]

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

Well, that's pretty much what you've been implying.

You suggest that he shouldn't have let the guy get within 5 feet... You do realize that there are often obsticles in settings like that (walls, trees, etc.).

And you criticize him for "walking back slowly"... what do you think his options really are? Do you really think turning and running are appropriate? Do you honestly think its a smart thing to do to turn your back on a possible threat?

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

Oh, I recognize that you claim the officer "handled the situation poorly"... but your only "solutions" seem to be ones that either require the officer to have magical teleportation abilities, or turn his back on a possible threat.

 

[000063]

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

But it doesn't answer the question of whether he would make it to the door safely, which is what you were asked. Your only response is to blame him - and only him - for getting into the situation in the first place.

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

And yet, just showing up and saying "stop" is generally enough to stop anyone who doesn't want to actively harm a cop.

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 not a straw man. You specifically said that cops shouldn't fear death or injury.

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.

Unless you meant physical confrontation, in which case the problem is in your poor phrasing, not any strawman of mine. Even the gap between "fistfight" and "gunfire" still leaves things like perps armed with knives.

Incidentally, a fistfight with an insane or drugged up suspect carries a much higher risk of physical injury than other hand-to-hand fights, specifically because of their resistance to pain and lack of logic. A police officer represents a valuable asset to the community, worth tens of thousands of dollars in training alone. He is under no obligation to risk a suspect getting a hold of his weapon. Heck, it's serious business of someone steals a cop's badge.

It's disproportionate. There was only a danger the guy could grab the gun because the officer brought it.

And he bought it because he did not know what threat he would face. The danger is not merely that the perp could get the gun, but that the perp injures the officer. People have killed cops after being shot.

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

Or unless if comes up in court.

 

[Giz]

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

And all for what, $45k a year? Now that's a bargain!
(Though I think you need to add pre-cognition to your list of skills)





(A quick google search gave me 45k a year as the average police salary in Alabama)

 

[Segnosaur]

How do you infer a threat from a guy kneeling down? From a guy with his hands up?

Actually, I'm not familiar with reports that suggest he was kneeling at any time during his actual confrontation with the officer. (Its a long thread so maybe I missed it.)

However, there are 2 things to keep in mind:
- The cop has to react to the last thing that the done, not the first thing. (The individual could have been 'faking' giving up when kneeling to trick the cop, they could have been having some sort of psychological problems that make them change moods rapidly, etc.) If the student was really giving up, they would have continued kneeling

- I'd also have to know what was meant by 'kneeling'. While that might imply a submissive "get on the ground and show you're giving up", it could also include something similar to a 3 point "football" stance, which would still be quite dangerous to the officer.

 

[Dan O.]

He obviously felt he needed back-up as he called for it, so why not wait for it?

Actually, we don't know if the idiot with the gun is the one that called for backup. There was also a female in that police station that was aparently smart enough to stay inside. That makes it a higher probability that she did other smart things like calling for backup and monitoring the situation on the campus CCTV.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

He might have already been freezing. What was the weather in that area at the time?

 

[000063]

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.

And I showed that they had been used, even when you said they hadn't. In fact, you had to backpedal on claiming that saying stop wasn't "verbal skills". At the very least, it objectively proves that shooting the suspect was not the first resort.

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.

Guy rushing toward you, probably high on drugs, almost certainly resistant to pain, you have a gun in your hand. All you have to do is drop your weapon and attempt to grapple with him. No big.

No, wait, any police department in America would have you riding pine if you tried that. Because it's completely stupid. Even the gun cops in the UK would ask you what you thought you were doing. You said earlier that you haven't faced any situations even close to this; all the ones you've been in have involved other officers, not a lone cop.


You don't try to subdue someone crazed like that with a single cop, and he couldn't run without risking an attack. The suspect was clearly aggressive.

I have crticised those who claim that 1 what happened with the student was a life ghreatening attack.

Because people who ignore armed cops with guns drawn who walk toward and threaten them usually just tickle them and go "tee-hee!"

2 that people who attack ghe police should expect to be shot.

Criticize all you like. Anyone representing a plausible deadly force risk to a cop is subject to deadly force.

3 the cop failed in his duty by only considering the deadly option.

And that was shown to be objectively false, since he asked the suspect to stop and tried to evade him, to no avail. Unless you're considering merely having a gun drawn a "deadly option", which I don't think you'll find any court would agree on. If there was an attacker nearby, the weapon would be just as useful in order to protect the naked guy. If there was no threat, he could just holster the weapon and take the naked guy inside.

Stop lying.

And, of course, you still haven't answered whether the suspect was reasonable. I believe you know he wasn't.

 

[000063]

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

No one claimed that shooting people on drugs is the only option for dealing with them, as clearly indicated by the part of my post you removed.

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

Please provide links to where someone said that.

Actually, we don't know if the idiot with the gun is the one that called for backup. There was also a female in that police station that was aparently smart enough to stay inside. That makes it a higher probability that she did other smart things like calling for backup and monitoring the situation on the campus CCTV.

Yes, because the naked guy couldn't've been an attack victim, and the cop should've just stayed inside until backup arrived.

No, wait, unless he knew the guy was a threat, he wouldn't need backup. If there had been no need for the gun, he could've just put it away.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

I thought it was clear I was talking about a fistfight with an unarmed suspect. If not I apologise.

If someone comes at a cop with any type of weapon (pipe, knife, gun, etc) then they should keep their distance.

Saying 'stop' only works on reasonable people. One look at this guy would tell you he is out of it. So the only options from there seem to have been for him to suddenly achieve lucidity and an ability to understand what was happenin, or be shot.

In that case he was dead before he even reached the police station.

I have already said thq if he willingly took the LSD he caused this. That doesn't mean the officer shouldn't have tried harder to end this without death. So far I have seen that he could've done better.

 

[Nessie]

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.

​

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

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

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

Well, you're not now.

​

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.

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.

I have made it clear that I have always argued shooting is and should not be the only option and those who argued it was are wrong. What I actually said was if you think one person high on drugs should be shot, what about others high on drugs, should they be shot as well? You have mixed up what I really did say. Show me where I supposedly said "if one person on drugs shouldn't be shot, none should." Now you are being dishonest.

I disagree that a single command to stop with a gun pointing at someone is nothing like using verbal skills to try and talk someone down or resolve the situation. We have been over that. When I say verbal skills I mean much more than commands that automatically go with having a gun out. We shall have to agree to disagree on what counts as verbal skills.

The cop only tried to resolve the situation with a gun, he did not use any other means such as what I call verbal skills, fend off or holds, cuffs, baton, CS or tazer (or what he had to hand) or waiting for back up.

You said I should see a physics teacher to explain to me how a big guy can hit harder than a small guy. I pointed out the errors you made with that assumption.

I ask why the people who defend the cops actions think shooting was the only option.

It is not a strawman to ask those such as TragicMonkey who say shooting was the only option to explain why such is not used on other people high on drugs and/or suffering from a mental health breakdown.

You said "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." which is the whole point. it failed as he only went with a gun. When the student failed to coply the only option was to shoot. Attempting not to shoot is to have your gun holstered and to use other means such as baton, cuffs etc.

That loads of other cops manage to deal with people high on drugs without shooting them does show this cop it horribly wrong and the excuses for what he did are pathetic.

 

[Nessie]

Except that he tried it, and it didn't work. The suspect chased him when he tried, verbally threatened him, and ignored requests to stop.

I'm sorry, but I really can't balance a moral equation where shooting some guy who is attacking a cop is better than risking him harming and killing the cop and several other people.

Attacking where you never go within 4 feet and make no attempt to go for the officers gun. You are streaching the definition of attack.

The naked student on his own, outside a police station with no one else about and with other police on their way hardly poses a risk to others.

 

[000063]

How do you infer a threat from a guy kneeling down? From a guy with his hands up? With respect to some other comments on the thread, I have not yet seen a corroborated news report detailing what he did previously.

How about a guy who threatened the cop and approached him despite requests to stop, as the link in the original post asserted?

 

[Segnosaur]

I thought it was clear I was talking about a fistfight with an unarmed suspect. If not I apologise.

If someone comes at a cop with any type of weapon (pipe, knife, gun, etc) then they should keep their distance.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that even an unarmed assailant can cause serious harm (or even death) to an individual, even a 'trained' individual. Someone earlier posted a youtube video from a patrol car camera showing a cop getting beaten during a routine traffic stop. No weapons were used by the assailant, but the officer was hospitalized and (I think) off work for the better part of a year.

I have already said thq if he willingly took the LSD he caused this. That doesn't mean the officer shouldn't have tried harder to end this without death. So far I have seen that he could've done better.

The only problem is, nobody has ever given any reasonable actions for things that could have been 'done better'.

Your own suggestions involve magical teleportation abilities, or the (rather foolish) option of turning your back on the assailant so you can run away.

 

[Nessie]

And I showed that they had been used, even when you said they hadn't. In fact, you had to backpedal on claiming that saying stop wasn't "verbal skills". At the very least, it objectively proves that shooting the suspect was not the first resort.

Guy rushing toward you, probably high on drugs, almost certainly resistant to pain, you have a gun in your hand. All you have to do is drop your weapon and attempt to grapple with him. No big.

No, wait, any police department in America would have you riding pine if you tried that. Because it's completely stupid. Even the gun cops in the UK would ask you what you thought you were doing. You said earlier that you haven't faced any situations even close to this; all the ones you've been in have involved other officers, not a lone cop.


You don't try to subdue someone crazed like that with a single cop, and he couldn't run without risking an attack. The suspect was clearly aggressive.

Because people who ignore armed cops with guns drawn who walk toward and threaten them usually just tickle them and go "tee-hee!"

Criticize all you like. Anyone representing a plausible deadly force risk to a cop is subject to deadly force.

And that was shown to be objectively false, since he asked the suspect to stop and tried to evade him, to no avail. Unless you're considering merely having a gun drawn a "deadly option", which I don't think you'll find any court would agree on. If there was an attacker nearby, the weapon would be just as useful in order to protect the naked guy. If there was no threat, he could just holster the weapon and take the naked guy inside.

Stop lying.

And, of course, you still haven't answered whether the suspect was reasonable. I believe you know he wasn't.

Disagreeing with you is not lying.

I have not backpeddled about verbal skills. I saw you did not understand what i meant and I clarified and explained why. Do you see the difference between a command to stop and trying to talk someone down?

What is the rubbish about dropping your gun, where did that come from? Of course you do not drop your gun.

Where did I say I have not faced a situation close to this? I have only talked of a few of the instances I have encountered. Stop making things up and quote me please when you make claims about you think I said.

How is drawing a gun not the deadly option? As soon as you draw and point the gun, keep your distance and are shouting commands relating to having drawn the gun, you have gone to the deadly option.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It is not a strawman to ask those such as TragicMonkey who say shooting was the only option

Please do not lie about what I have said.

 

[Nessie]

Please do not lie about what I have said.

Post 399 you and in post 400 and Triforcharity backed you up, saying people who attack the police should expect to be shot. You have been arguing the cop was attacked by the student. What am I supposed to think?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Post 399 you and in post 400 and Triforcharity backed you up, saying people who attack the police should expect to be shot. You have been arguing the cop was attacked by the student. What am I supposed to think?

That the word "only" means something, and misapplying it when describing my statements is to present an utterly false representation of my views. Which means either all the people of Scotland are bad at trading comprehension or else they are liars.