How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Segnosaur]

- Used pepper spray... again he didn't have it on him, but since others have mentioned that people can still partially function after being sprayed, it would have left the officer at significant risk
- Tazer... but then the department wasn't licensed for tazers.

According to today's AP story (linked above) he had pepper spray and a baton.

Yes indeed you are right. (I hadn't had the chance to read that particular article before hand.)

However, as I pointed out, there were serious issues with both those options... the baton is a close-range weapon that would leave the officer at risk, and pepper spray doesn't always disable.

Oh, and from the article you referenced, there's also this:
Mobile County Sheriff Sam Cochran has said it was unclear whether the officer could have done anything other than shoot Collar because he walked outside with his gun drawn. "Had the officer had a Taser or some other less lethal instrument, I do not know if that officer would have had an opportunity to ... holster his pistol and to use something else because the events were evolving so rapidly and he was so close that had he put the pistol in the holster I don't know that he could have drawn something else," Cochran told reporters earlier this week. Cochran said he believed it was proper for the officer to go outside with his gun drawn...
(http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019413364_apusnakedstudentshot.html)

So the sheriff says that:
- Going outside with the gun drawn was the correct action (hmmm... so much for the complaints that he should have gone out empty handed or with some other weapon)
- Once things stated to happen he couldn't change to another weapon even if he wanted to. Well, unless he wants the student to start beating on him.

 

[carlitos]

Again, no one said he should hide under a desk and leave the guy to his own devices. But from inside the station he could have kept an eye on him through the window until back up arrived.

And if an agitated naked man runs out of view, the officer should have done what?

Not sure what they would do then since apparently cops can't go within five feet of a suspect without being at risk of injury.

5 feet of a suspect that is attacking them, you mean.

And as we all know, if a cop thinks he is at risk of getting hit he should shoot to kill. Possible injury to cop = certain death to suspect. Even if suspect is too out of it to know what's happening around him.

What is the level of injury to cops from non-cops that you find acceptable? There has to be a threshold for your point above to make any sense. Love tap? Punch in the face? Grappling with a university wrestler that could be skilled enough to take your gun? Draw the line for me.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Where is the line?

5 feet of a suspect that is attacking them, you mean.


What is the level of injury to cops from non-cops that you find acceptable? There has to be a threshold for your point above to make any sense. Love tap? Punch in the face? Grappling with a university wrestler that could be skilled enough to take your gun? Draw the line for me.

Are you saying that Collar attacked the officer? If so, what do you mean? How about your drawing the line for when the use of deadly force would have become unacceptable?

 

[carlitos]

A naked, somewhat wild fit man is running towards you. He closes to 5 feet and doesn't seem to be slowing. What do you suppose he's doing?

ETA - after he chases you for 50 feet, acting erratically, and appears to be assuming a "fighting stance."

 

[carlitos]

How about your drawing the line for when the use of deadly force would have become unacceptable?

Any physical contact which, in the officer's judgement, could result in a struggle over his gun.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the video descriptions are not identical

A naked, somewhat wild fit man is running towards you. He closes to 5 feet and doesn't seem to be slowing. What do you suppose he's doing?

ETA - after he chases you for 50 feet, acting erratically, and appears to be assuming a "fighting stance."

Carlitos, No one said that he was running in the descriptions of the video I have read (walking, yes). Some have interpreted one of his movement as getting into a fighting stance; others have said that he was on his knees at one point and had his hands raised, palms forward. Links upthread.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Any physical contact which, in the officer's judgement, could result in a struggle over his gun.

There was no physical contact in this instance. You seem to be answering the question of when it would be acceptable. I am asking about when it would be unacceptable.

 

[triforcharity]

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?

Dodge? I've answered your question Nessie. Please return the courtesy.

Is it right to only use deadly force on a perceived threat the the safety and security of an officer? No. IF that is an officers ONLY protection available to him, yes.

The female cop should not have gotten so close, and most likely waited for assistance.

The POINT being, is that even a fist CAN be deadly. Why did you run all around avoiding that point? I and other have tried to explain that to you.

 

[Segnosaur]

Any physical contact which, in the officer's judgement, could result in a struggle over his gun.

There was no physical contact in this instance.

The student was approximately 5 feet from the officer and approaching him. I think anyone would reasonably assume that the student was actually intending to make contact.

Or do you think the student wanted to play that old school party game... see how close you can get to someone without touching them?

You seem to be answering the question of when it would be acceptable. I am asking about when it would be unacceptable.

How about when the person is actually co-operative (or at least not approaching).

How about when the officer actually has backup there. (Not just on the way, but right there with the officer where they could interceed before the student could get off a blow).

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Yep, and I will, every single time. By the time I get to deal with them, they're 4-pointed on my gurney with leather straps, and will be using haldol shortly if they continue.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

No, if you attempt to harm an officer, expect to be shot. Don't expect anything else, no matter who you are, or what you've done. Period. Nobody should have to worry if they're going home to their wife, husband, girlfriend, or kids because some fool wants to try to attack someone else. PERIOD.

I value my life over damn near everyone. (My wife and kids are among the exceptions) An officer should feel the same.

Don't like it? Don't attack someone, especially a cop in the US.

I value life, just mine comes first.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

cooperativity

How about when the person is actually co-operative (or at least not approaching).

How about when the officer actually has backup there. (Not just on the way, but right there with the officer where they could interceed before the student could get off a blow).

So if the student had been cooperative, then the use of deadly force would not have been justified? I think that the lack of sound on the video makes it more difficult to gauge his level of cooperativity than if sound were available.

 

[Dan O.]

I'm assuming the blacked section is some sort of response indicating you disagree. The problem is, you'd be wrong.

Lets take a look at some of the typical suggestions:
...

If the situation was perceived as dangerous and there was no immediate threat, that soon to be former police officer should have stayed inside and waited for backup. If the situation was not perceived as dangerous, he should not have gone out with his gun drawn.

 

[TragicMonkey]

As promised. Misrepresentations in bold:

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

The word only does not appear in my post.

This is not misunderstanding. There are some here such as TragicMonkey and Triforcharity who say anyone who attacks the police deserve to be shot.

For those like TragicMonkey who say anyone who attacks the police deserve to be shot

So when you said anyone who attacks the police deserves to be shot

I have never one said those who attack the police deserve to get shot. Not in general, not in this particular case. I don't use the word "deserve" because it implies judgment. I have, consistently and repeatedly, stated that someone who attacks a cop should expect to be shot. And that such a state of expectation is good for order in society. That is very different from talking about what individuals might or might not "deserve". Can all the people of Scotland not grasp the difference there? Perhaps all the people of Scotland are so busy constructing strawmen and misrepresentations of others' posts that they do not bother to read them.

 

[carlitos]

If the situation was perceived as dangerous and there was no immediate threat, that soon to be former police officer should have stayed inside and waited for backup. If the situation was not perceived as dangerous, he should not have gone out with his gun drawn.

I'll try again.

If the officer stays inside, and the guy leaves the front door and harms someone else, what blame would the officer have for inaction? "Injured student sues campus police for ignoring disturbed wrestler?"

halides1, with apologies, I have to run. I'll think about it and read more of the thread.

 

[triforcharity]

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

Yes, the safety of the other people around him (the student)

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

IF. That is the big problem. IF. Sometimes mace and tazers are not effective. Could this officer have tried that? Sure. But, in this particular case, he was already in fear for his safety, and was apparently chased by the suspect, so....

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.

Hard? For a trained marksman, not incredibly difficult, but certainly NOT guaranteed, and now the risk of injuring a bystander is incredibly high. Police in the US are trained to aim for the center mass, always. Never shoot to wound, they shoot to neutralize a threat.

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.

While admirable, not advisable, as it could result in personal injury, and possibly make the situation worse.

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.

And sometimes this does occur, but you won't hear about it on the news. It's not a "good story" so to speak. Also, see above as to why it's not recommended.

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.

Not always. See, that's the biggest difference between US citizens and say, like yourself, a Scottsman. Many US citizens are known to be armed, often times illegally. (I'm armed 99% of the time, but legally of course.) The risk to an officer is high, and sometimes will result in more than just a scuffle.

Cheers!!

 

[Belz...]

There was no physical contact in this instance.

Yes, because it was prevented. This was the point of the post you were responding to.

 

[Dan O.]

I'll try again.

If the officer stays inside, and the guy leaves the front door and harms someone else, what blame would the officer have for inaction? "Injured student sues campus police for ignoring disturbed wrestler?"

Let me change that to "thinks he's psychic soon to be former cop" for your scenario. Did he perceive that the situation was dangerous or not?

 

[carlitos]

Let me change that to "thinks he's psychic soon to be former cop" for your scenario. Did he perceive that the situation was dangerous or not?

I don't understand your question.

 

[triforcharity]

It's not looking good for the cop. miamiherald, CBS42

His attorney claims that he was calm, but there's no way to know because he does go outside of the camera's view at some point, and I haven't seen the video. Do you have a link by chance? My google-Fu is giving me issues tonight....