How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[000063]

No, I don't. I consider it to be chasing them.


Yes, he should.

How about chasing them and threatening them, as the suspect was? Because I think the chances of a hug go down substantially in that istuation.

 

[Nessie]

I am torn on this one.

I wasn't there so I don't know how the situation played out and I surely don't know what the officer's state of mind was.
If he "perceived" that he - or someone else - were in immediate threat of grievous bodily harm from that student, then he had every right to shoot.
I guarantee that was what his training taught him and I would think that is the law where he resides.

The problem that I have is how things have changed over the years from back when I was a cop.
For the first 5 years or so I had a .38 special S&W Model 10 - 5" bbl revolver in a full flap cavalry style holster worn on a Sam Browne service belt - with shoulder strap. That shoulder strap was quite a liability in a grappling match with some yahoo - but I digress. No baton (until 1979). No OC spray (pepper spray) . No Taser.

Self Defence Training at Depot consisted of a lot of ground fighting - no holds barred - with usually one or two injuries per troop serious enough to cause a "backtroop" or even discharge due to injury. Tough luck. You had to learn to fight and endure pain or you didn't make it through training. Period.

We shot the old PPC for qualification. We were taught to NEVER draw our sidearm unless we were certain we were going to fire it. Period.
The concept of drawing your weapon "just in case" was considered ludicrous as it was only going to put you in a situation of fighting one handed in the vast majority of cases. That was absolutely true - in my experience spanning over 30 years.
I still remember Ron Woolgar yelling: "If you draw your gun to threaten someone - you're either going to have to shoot an unarmed person one day or you're going to get it shoved up your arse!

I - like a lot of my fellow officers - patrolled very large areas with very little manpower. At times - my back-up could be 45 miles away. Or, at home in bed.
If I had drawn my sidearm every time a large drunk or drugged up idiot decided that he was going to knock my head off - I would have been battered to a pulp very quickly. Or, I was going to have to explain why I shot and killed someone on an almost weekly basis.
One fought a lot. It came with the job. You learned to sew your torn shirts and buttons, compare your scars at the regimental balls, and as you got more experience - how to talk or cajole your way out of a lot of trouble.

When I became a firearms instructor - I taught it the same way I learned it. However, things had changed by the mid 1980's. Policing was now being taught with the concept of FEAR being a very real part of the job. Fear of being shot, fear of being stabbed, fear of getting in a fight for your life. Fear, fear, fear.

I heard the concept of "going home safe every night" from a course I took from Massad Ayoob (a part of training me to train our newly forming ERT or what the US called SWAT). I remember thinking that the job I had was much more safe than those of loggers or construction workers or fishermen whose dead or maimed bodies I was all too often tasked to help recover.

As the fear increased - the agitation for greater firepower and alternatives to using deadly force increased.
The use of these things spiraled out of control. By the time I left the Force - newer police officers were actually stating: "I don't get paid enough to fight" Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" and other such ludicrous things.

Vigilance has given way to fear. And, as a famous author famously wrote: "Fear is the mind killer".

If all confrontations involve fear for your life or physical well-being - then you should stop being a police officer. Life is too short to live in fear.

Besides - your fear can shorten the life of someone when a thoughtful assessment of the situation may have saved their life.

edited to add: I guess I should add that IF the information that we have been given so far is accurate - I doubt very much that I would have had my weapon drawn at any time during this scenario. The day that I feared a fight with an unarmed naked guy of that size - should have been the day after I quit the job. After all: Old age and treachery overcomes youth and skill.

Nominated, thank you for that brilliant summation of how things have changed. I also expect cops to be able to handle themselves and use the scale of defence. I dispare that things have changed and Collar is now seen as a deadly threat.

This explains way better than I have been able to why going out with your gun drawn was a very bad decision

"I still remember Ron Woolgar yelling: "If you draw your gun to threaten someone - you're either going to have to shoot an unarmed person one day or you're going to get it shoved up your arse!"

 

[000063]

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.

Cut that out. He perceived the situation might be dangerous, and went out with his gun drawn. If it had turned out to be safe, he could've just put the gun away. Also, he didn't know how far behind backup was.

 

[carlitos]

Trying again again

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?"

Anyone? If this was addressed earlier in the thread, I missed it and would appreciate a link. Someone suggested that the officer should "remove himself from the situation" which leaves a naked, drugged up wrestler running around to harm himself and other folks.

 

[Nessie]

Despite having it and the logical fallacy he's using explained to him a number of times. Just to be clear, it's a straw man. Saying shooting the kid was justified in this one scenario is not the same as saying it is right to always shoot all drug-addled suspects. I don't think Nessie has been able to provide any evidence of someone claiming such in this thread, yet he keeps ascribing or trying to ascribe it to the other side.

All I was trying to do was clarify and ask further question of some, not all as the the claims they were making.

So Lets say we all agree now, shooting people with drug and mental health issues is not the only option. Good.

It is a shame no one told Officer Travis that.

Anyone want to defend Officer Travis actions now?

 

[Nessie]

How about chasing them and threatening them, as the suspect was? Because I think the chances of a hug go down substantially in that istuation.

Please describe the chasing and threatening that Collar did. We have descriptions of walking towards, walking away, open arms, crouching down, but nothing I say is describable by chasing (Pursue in order to catch or catch up with: "police chased the stolen car"; "the dog chased after the stick".) or threatening (Having a hostile or deliberately frightening quality or manner. (of behavior) Showing an intention to cause bodily harm.)

 

[Nessie]

Cut that out. He perceived the situation might be dangerous, and went out with his gun drawn. If it had turned out to be safe, he could've just put the gun away. Also, he didn't know how far behind backup was.

You don't know what he knew about back up. We do know there was a dispatcher inside the office and as it happens back up was close by. We also know no one else was in the vicinity of the police office. We know the police office has large windows and a CCTV system monitoring outside.

Based on what we do know for sure, Officer Austin was wrong to do straight to having his gun drawn.

 

[Nessie]

Anyone? If this was addressed earlier in the thread, I missed it and would appreciate a link. Someone suggested that the officer should "remove himself from the situation" which leaves a naked, drugged up wrestler running around to harm himself and other folks.

There was no one else in the vicinity of the police office.

Collars interest was in with the police office which he approached and hammered on the window.

There was a dispatcher inside who was in contact with the other officer who returned to the office to assist. Or was in a position if Collar ran off to join a pursuit with Officer Austin.

I say Austin should not have done nothing, be could have safely for him and Collar waited and observed until backup arrived if he so fearful of tackling Collar on his own.

 

[carlitos]

There was no one else in the vicinity of the police office.

Collars interest was in with the police office which he approached and hammered on the window.

There was a dispatcher inside who was in contact with the other officer who returned to the office to assist. Or was in a position if Collar ran off to join a pursuit with Officer Austin.

I say Austin should not have done nothing, be could have safely for him and Collar waited and observed until backup arrived if he so fearful of tackling Collar on his own.

That is not an answer to my question, either. Could you be more clear please?

Guy disappears from door of police station. Hurts himself or someone else. What is the officer's culpability?

 

[000063]

No I have repeated asked for answers about what others have said, I wanted more detail and clarification about their claims and comments. That is what you do if with a proper investigation.

Which is why the title of the thread all but states that the shooting can't be justified, only excused.

Again nice try, nice ad hominem.

Saying you keep being wrong about others positions - even your own - is not ad hominem. In fact, since you've demonstrated that you can't even accurately remember your own posts, why should anyone take you seriously.

I have asked you and others find several times to find anyone, anyone at all in this thread who thinks police should just shoot everyone on drugs, as you have repeatedly asserted. You still haven't managed to do so, and yet continue to make the claim, even after I pointed out that no one has claimed such.

 

[Dan O.]

Cut that out. He perceived the situation might be dangerous, and went out with his gun drawn. If it had turned out to be safe, he could've just put the gun away. Also, he didn't know how far behind backup was.

There's always a "might be dangerous" in any situation. But this officer has now escalated that possibility. He has shot and killed an unarmed naked student. Now, every time he steps outside, there "might" be someone out there waiting to settle the score. Is he going to be drawing his gun every time he steps outside or walks around a corner?

 

[000063]

Disagreeing with you is not lying.

No, but constantly misrepresenting the statements of others, despite correction, is.

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?

You said saying "stop" was not verbal skills, period. Then you backpedalled to "barely verbal skills". Liar.

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

So you want him to fight a guy while holding a gun. Which risks either him or the suspect getting shot in the scuffle anyway.

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.

You mentioned the situations you faced, and none of them were facing a possibly drugged or insane naked physically fit man who was threatening you and ignoring your commands to halt.

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.

Yes, because police can only yell "stop" when they have a gun. Officers without guns yell "hang on a minute!". And every cop who draws a gun will discharge it before they put it away, which is why most US cops never discharge their weapon on the job, as I've told you several times. You've tacked on more stuff to try and move those goalposts, but you are still completely wrong. It's not a "deadly option" until the officer fires with an aim to neutralize the target (that is, uses deadly force*), even if you hadn't made the term up.

You're conflating "stop or I'll shoot" with "stop". If a cop tells you to stop, you should stop, whether he has a gun drawn or not. If you don't stop, and instead actively threaten and approach the cop, whether he has a gun drawn or not, he is perfectly right to view you as hostile.

Also, you asserted towards the start of this thread and several times since that the cop tried nothing besides shooting, which is, again, objectively false even from the article you used in the first post. Then you backpedalled to saying he didn't try hard enough, ignoring any suggestion that there was nothing he tried that could be reasonably expected to work or not put him at an unreasonable level of risk.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

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.

Oh, wait.

I'm trying to imagine the scenario where the cop only drew and shot after the suspect advanced on him. I'm betting the cries would be almost identical. Heck, if a witness reported that the suspect said "I'm gonna kill you!" people would be saying that he didn't really know what he was doing and the officer shouldn't've believed him.

*Which, ironically, doesn't need to be deadly, only reasonably likely to kill.

 

[000063]

You don't know what he knew about back up. We do know there was a dispatcher inside the office and as it happens back up was close by.

So you're assuming he knew backup was nearby or available? Are dispatchers usually armed? What if the naked guy outside had needed medical assistance?

We also know no one else was in the vicinity of the police office.

That he could see.

We know the police office has large windows and a CCTV system monitoring outside.

Based on what we do know for sure, Officer Austin was wrong to do straight to having his gun drawn.

No, he was following standard procedure in just about every police department in America when facing a potentially risky situation, and, guess what, most of the time nobody gets shot, despite your objectively false claims that it makes violence inevitable.

You still are completely unable to answer whether the suspect could be reasoned with.

 

[000063]

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.

So you want him to kite a possibly dangerous suspect. Say, what happens if that doesn't work, and the suspect wanders off anyway? What if the suspect tries to break down the police station windows?

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.

And if he had needed the gun and he didn't have it, he could've been harmed.

Problem solved, everyone lives.

Just about every suggestion you make is based on hindsight and things the cop couldn't know or count on.

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

And lots of backup. As for the States, officers are trained to avoid physical combat with suspects, because of the higher prevalence of knives and other weapons and the risk to the officer.

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.

Yes, because people approaching cops despite drawn weapons and repeated commands to stop tend to have only a slim chance of actually trying to assault the officer.

No, wait, that's completely wrong.

Even though he apparently wasn't trying to.

Because he never got close enough to. Do you have some kind of problem with cause and effect?

 

[000063]

All I was trying to do was clarify and ask further question of some, not all as the the claims they were making.

Then why do you keep asking questions unrelated to their claims? TragicMonkey quoted you making incorrect assertions about others claims, which you say you didn't. Of course, it was a reasonable mistake, especially if you are reading quickly, but you haven't really acknowledged it.

So Lets say we all agree now, shooting people with drug and mental health issues is not the only option. Good.

It is a shame no one told Officer Travis that.

Anyone want to defend Officer Travis actions now?

Sure. It doesn't have much of anything to do with your straw man.

Literally no one in this thread has asserted that it is always the only option. We've asserted that it was the best option available in this particular situation. Do you understand the difference? I might think it's a good idea to ride in a car while drunk, but not to get behind the steering wheel. You keep trying to conflate "ever, even once" and "always".

Please describe the chasing and threatening that Collar did. We have descriptions of walking towards, walking away, open arms, crouching down, but nothing I say is describable by chasing (Pursue in order to catch or catch up with: "police chased the stolen car"; "the dog chased after the stick".) or threatening (Having a hostile or deliberately frightening quality or manner. (of behavior) Showing an intention to cause bodily harm.)

First post in the thread.

...
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...of-naked-college-student-mother-asks-why?lite
....

According to the university statement, the officer “was confronted by a muscular, nude man who was acting erratically. The man repeatedly rushed and verbally challenged the officer in a fighting stance.”

The officer allegedly asked Collar to stop, but the young student chased him “in a threatening manner and ignored the officer’s repeated commands.”​

 

[000063]

There's always a "might be dangerous" in any situation. But this officer has now escalated that possibility.

Actually, officers having their guns drawn makes it less likely that suspects will assault them, which is why it's standard procedure. You can't say it escalated the situation, since there is no indication that the student even noticed or cared or would have been any more or less likely to try and attack.

He has shot and killed an unarmed naked student. Now, every time he steps outside, there "might" be someone out there waiting to settle the score. Is he going to be drawing his gun every time he steps outside or walks around a corner?

You said he went outside with his gun drawn because he thought it was dangerous. Drawing one's gun is standard procedure in risky situations where it might be dangerous. You are wrong.

I also find it strange how the actions of the drugged up kid apparently have no bearing on the situation, and from the second Austin walked outside with his gun out, he was going to shoot the suspect. You haven't even acknowledged that he could have just put the gun away if needed.

 

[WildCat]

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.

Was this a female cop? I hadn't heard that.

 

[WildCat]

How does he not know? There was a dispatcher in the office who may have known and surely he would have a reasonable idea where the other cop was?

But hey, we can speculate all we want.

I really don't think there was time for the dispatcher to obtain that information and relay it to the cop who ran outside.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the first reports are often not entirely accurate

First post in the thread.

According to the university statement, the officer “was confronted by a muscular, nude man who was acting erratically. The man repeatedly rushed and verbally challenged the officer in a fighting stance.”

The officer allegedly asked Collar to stop, but the young student chased him “in a threatening manner and ignored the officer’s repeated commands.”​

Yet, that version is not the same as what people who have viewed the video have described. Walking, yes; rushing, no. One wishes that the video had sound, but it neither supports nor contradicts Officer Trevis's version. I would say that 5'7" 135-140 lbs is not exactly Hulk Hogan. Citations upthread.

 

[000063]

So, Nessie, is there ever an occasion where police offers are justified in using deadly force upon an apparently drug-addled subject who they perceive to be hostile? This is a yes or no question. If even one instance exists, it's "yes".

I'm betting you won't actually answer the question, just like you dodged the simple question of whether the suspect was reasonable or not.