How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[triforcharity]

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.

But there's no way to know if there IS an immediate threat without going outside, is there?

If the situation was not perceived as dangerous, he should not have gone out with his gun drawn.

And he risks his own life by not being prepared. Good call Dan O.

 

[triforcharity]

The video is not available, and the accounts from the reporters who have seen it differ in certain respects.

Thank you Halides. No wonder I couldn't find it....

 

[triforcharity]

No, not always. Violent patients are a specific risk to health care workers. And EMS can easily be the first on the scene depending on who called for help and why.

And there are protocol in place that an EMS worker never enter a scene that is unsecure. Are there times when I have been in a situation where I though my life was in jeopardy? Sure. And my immediate reaction is to remove myself from that situation the best I can, and call for assistance. I've never had a time when I called for assistance, and help wasn't there within minutes.

Yet it would seem absurd for health care workers to arm themselves because patients are sometimes violent.

Correct, since we're not trained for such thing, and liability issues....

That seems to be going both ways in this thread.

So what are you saying if not, just shoot them?

I've already stated that LTL tools should be used, if available. However, if an officer's safety is in reasonable fear of his life, he should use whatever tool he needs to make it home to his family.

 

[triforcharity]

Like I said, if he perceived the situation was so dangerous that he needed to step out of the door with his weapon drawn, he should have stayed inside and waited the extra 30 seconds for backup to arrive. Pretending that there could be a time bomb that will go off if he doesn't rush out there instantly and water board the suspect doesn't excuse the action.

So, any situation where the officer is remotely in fear of his life, he should stand down? Yeah, that's not a liability issue......

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I've already stated that LTL tools should be used, if available. However, if an officer's safety is in reasonable fear of his life, he should use whatever tool he needs to make it home to his family.

I disagree. We pay police to accept a certain degree of risk in exchange for their pay, and since that degree of risk is substantially less than the risk people who cut down trees or work on fishing boats accept in return for their pay there is absolutely nothing unreasonable about that.

If there's a tiny chance a police officer might get killed trying to wrestle briefly with a small, drugged-up, naked athlete before backup arrives then I'm sorry but they should take that risk. It's what they get paid for.

They chose to take a job where every now and then they have to accept a small risk to their own lives in order to protect others, including naked and drug-crazed others. That was their decision. Nobody made them take the job. Once they've taken it they don't get to decide "Actually, now I've decided that I want absolute safety for myself at the expense of public safety, I think I'll kill people if that in any way mitigates risk to myself".

 

[Dan O.]

So, he should have turned his back to the suspect and ran? Yeah, that's a good idea....

Yea, you never know when someone might be armed...



\Capt. Jack Harkness

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And there are protocol in place that an EMS worker never enter a scene that is unsecure.

Where do you get this nonsense? I think you are confusing a call such as "shots fired" in which case, yes, PD goes in and EMS stays back. But there are a thousand scenarios where EMS arrives and police are not even called.

Correct, since we're not trained for such thing, and liability issues....

You left off the part medical and EMS view a patient acting erratically as someone in need, not someone we are pissed at that needs to be taught a lesson.

I've already stated that LTL tools should be used, if available. However, if an officer's safety is in reasonable fear of his life, he should use whatever tool he needs to make it home to his family.

So, in the OP case, were non-lethal methods even attempted? It doesn't seem like they were.

 

[Dan O.]

But there's no way to know if there IS an immediate threat without going outside, is there?



And he risks his own life by not being prepared. Good call Dan O.

Are you actually processing the information in this thread or are you an elisa^WP blindly responding to the words?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yea, you never know when someone might be armed...



\Capt. Jack Harkness

That was a nice break from thread bickering. Thanks.

 

[tyr_13]

Do you mean something like in this video? I would say it is impossible to know with certainty what was in Gil Collar's mind, one way or another, either at this juncture or why he chose to go to the police station in the first place. (In response to other comments) I think it is a reasonable inference that he was seeking assistance.

Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about, and when you add the grab in at the same time your palms might even be 'up'. As it is the family's lawyer making these claims, I wouldn't discount such misrepresentation of what the video shows. Then again, it wouldn't be surprising for the sheriff to do the same in the other direction to protect his officer.

It's also a reasonable inference that he was seeking a battle. He had already reportedly assaulted some people. It's also reasonable that he went seeking assistance, but changed to wanting to fight when the officer came out. Hell, it's reasonable that his apparently drug induced state switched motivations several times.

The facts of this case will come out. Taking apart little details at this point is only an exercise and the tentative conclusions drawn subject to MASSIVE change by new information. I can see how it could be justified, and I can see how a few detail changes could make it not so. Anyone saying it is definitely one or the other had better be prepared to eat crow when more information, which is known to be in existence, becomes public. That is expect for people who don't believe the police should have guns in the first place because no matter what they would view the shooting as unjustified obviously.

 

[Nessie]

A trait you don't seem to share with said poster.



Assuming he had them. Do you have a memory problem ? Are you able to remember as far back as a few pages ? Because you don't seem to notice when people respond to your arguments.

Show me where I got it wrong.

Yes assuming he had them, but even if he did not, he should have gone and got them. I have been arguing for that, or did you not remember?

 

[Nessie]

Bolding mine.

How, exactly, are those two sentences connected ?



.......

They are connected since some here state the cop was right shooting the student, but to claim so they need to show it was the only option for him. So far no one has done that, no one can show shooting someone high on drugs is the only option available.

 

[Nessie]

I'm not backing down from anything. PEOPLE WHO VIOLENTLY ATTACK A COP SHOULD EXPECT TO GET KILLED. It's very sad when they commit their criminal assault as a result of mental illness, but it's not unexpected. The tragedy in those cases is the mental illness, not the reasonably expected outcome.

You stick your hand in fire, you get burned. You jump into the tiger enclosure at the zoo, you get your head bitten through. You attack a cop, you get shot. These are natural, expected, reasonable consequences of actions. If you aren't in control of your actions, that's very sad for you. But we aren't going to outlaw fire, defang the tigers, and disarm the cops because one of the million people who stick their hands in fire, jump in with the tigers, and rush screaming at the cop to assault him are sadly mentally crazy in the cabeza. The world doesn't get bubblewrapped because a tiny slice of the population is too sadly wacky to be able to refrain from committing crimes.

If you try to attack a police officer, expect to be shot, yes. Absolutely, 100% of the time.

Attack cop= forfeit your life. I'm down with that rule.

(I know, this is gonna make you SOOOO mad!!)

It sure doesn't !



Nobody said that. Seeing how many times people have tried to tell you this, I am now convinced that you are right: it is not a misunderstanding. You are lying.



You'll find that people are rarely in the mood to answer questions that deliberately misrepresent their statements.



You suspect wrong, because the two are not remotely comparable.

TragicMonkey quoted a different post from the one where I had said only. I pointed that out, he then pointed out the post he was referring to. Minor misunderstanding.

Check the quotes, see how I am not lying. Two people clearly state attack the police expect to be shot, no matter what.

People claim misunderstanding, but really it is me asking for further clarification. Instead of providing further clarification, they get upset as they do not like their argument being challenged.

Maybe now you see I am not lying you will understand better what I have said.

 

[Nessie]

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.

Lame excuses. The cop could have gone to a window or door and looked out to see what was there and then easily closed the window or door as the student walked towards him. He could then have got his kit and gone out with baton or CS out.

You may say such may not be affective, but people have also said shooting is not always effective. Indeed after being shot he got back up and walked a short distance.

This is a cop who cannot handle even a basic threat of someone high on drugs without going straight to the deadly option. His Sheriff has decided to defend him, but as has been pointed out before, many cops never use their guns and many people on drugs get arrested without being shot. So I would like to see how this warrants a shooting, but others do not.

 

[Nessie]

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.

If the female cop should have waited for assistance, why not the Alabama Uni cop? He could and indeed did keep his distance, the video apparently showing there was never less than about 5 feet between them. Back up arrived just after the student had been shot.

Is it practical for all cuffing to be only done when back up arrives? How long would that female cop have to have waited? What problems will delays cause? How often does handcuffing result in being punched and knocked out, compared to injuries saved? Is it policy to cuff when alone or is back up required? Your inexperience in such matters shows through as you have not thought about all the consequences of what you suggest.

Yes a fist can be deadly, but on the scale of threats it is lower than a whole host of others. It is way less deadly that a gun, baton, knife, rocks, poles, knuckledusters, all the things that student did not have. How many times do I have to explain to you that there is a scale of threat and a nude student high on drugs is not a threat that says go for your gun and shoot?

Another matter not yet dealt with. If you are high on drugs, are you going to be any good at wrestling?

 

[Nessie]

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.

See, I was not lying. There he goes again.

 

[Lowpro]

If the female cop should have waited for assistance, why not the Alabama Uni cop? He could and indeed did keep his distance, the video apparently showing there was never less than about 5 feet between them. Back up arrived just after the student had been shot.

Is it practical for all cuffing to be only done when back up arrives? How long would that female cop have to have waited? What problems will delays cause? How often does handcuffing result in being punched and knocked out, compared to injuries saved? Is it policy to cuff when alone or is back up required? Your inexperience in such matters shows through as you have not thought about all the consequences of what you suggest.

Yes a fist can be deadly, but on the scale of threats it is lower than a whole host of others. It is way less deadly that a gun, baton, knife, rocks, poles, knuckledusters, all the things that student did not have. How many times do I have to explain to you that there is a scale of threat and a nude student high on drugs is not a threat that says go for your gun and shoot?

Another matter not yet dealt with. If you are high on drugs, are you going to be any good at wrestling?

Hindsight's awesome.

Anyways I agree the cop shouldn't have shot the student. I also agree the that the course of action was within bounds, though those bounds are extreme. Suck for the cop, sucks for the student but it happened and I don't think the police officer should suffer anymore than that. If the officer didn't shoot him we'd only be complaining that the officer kicked him really hard because he wasn't in his right mind to begin with. Is that fair? No, but no action would be fair in any intervention of this guy. Even if she decided the guy was near-harmless and she risked just taking him on with cuffing the danger she'd submit herself too would likewise be unfair with the absence of hindsight.

With drugs everyone loses.

 

[Nessie]

On reflection I've concluded that yes, I like living in a country where people expect attacking a cop will be likely to get themselves killed. I think its better for public order that way, as opposed to people thinking it'll be safe and fun to attack a cop because the cop won't hit back hard, and will rush to nuture any scraped knees with bandaids and Bactine. The point of police is to preserve order, not to grant happy endings to the criminally idiotic and idiotically criminal antics of people who are deliberately disrupting that order.

As promised. Misrepresentations in bold:


Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
...It is not a strawman to ask those such as TragicMonkey who say shooting was the only option...
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The word only does not appear in my post.
Originally Posted by Nessie View 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.
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
For those like TragicMonkey who say anyone who attacks the police deserve to be shot
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
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.

I have quoted what you originally said. "On reflection I've concluded that yes, I like living in a country where people expect attacking a cop will be likely to get themselves killed." I see you are now qualifying that, which is fine. In post 399 you said "I'm not backing down from anything. PEOPLE WHO VIOLENTLY ATTACK A COP SHOULD EXPECT TO GET KILLED. It's very sad when they commit their criminal assault as a result of mental illness, but it's not unexpected. The tragedy in those cases is the mental illness, not the reasonably expected outcome."

So it is perfectly reasonable to conclude you think whether mentally ill or not, if someone attacks the police they deserve to be shot.

From what you have said, how is it a misrepresentation to say shooting was the only option. In any case with the student it was, the cop went straight for his gun and we now have his Sheriff saying he could not then change to another option.

The word only did not appear in the post you quoted. I asked for a clarification, you gave it, back on track. No misrepresentation there.

You are upset about the deserves word, but look at its meaning and synonyms http://thesaurus.com/browse/deserve and what you have said. You prefer expect, yet deserves includes get your comeuppance, get what is coming to you. I see no misrepresentation, only you getting uncomfortable when it is pointed out to you that what you have said and how it can be interpreted.

But since you are stuck on expect, I'll go with that. The student being nude and high and going to a police office, we don't know why, should expect to be shot.

 

[Nessie]

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

You don't know that. There may have never been any physical contact at all, the student may never have gone closer than 5 feet to the cop.

 

[Nessie]

Usually when "others" deal with them, (paramedics, doctors, etc) they've already been subdued by the police, who are there to make sure the other responders are safe.



And there's the straw man. Nobody is claiming that. Nobody. In fact, quite the opposite. You're intentionally wording your responses to be loaded and poisoned.

I have seen paramedics and nurses, also friends and family having to deal with people out their faces before the police arrive. They all managed without any deaths.

You need to clarify your position as you have said shoot people who attack the police, 100%.

So if the student was attacking the cop, you say shoot him. If the student was not attacking the cop, he was wrong to shoot him. Do you see that?