How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[000063]

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.

So an officer should get into a cinch with a muscular naked guy who's unresponsive to commands to stop and is threatening and pursuing him?

 

[carlitos]

One wishes that the video had sound, but it neither supports nor contradicts Officer Trevis's version.

What do you mean about the video? Have you seen it?

I would say that 5'7" 135-140 lbs is not exactly Hulk Hogan. Citations upthread.

Which is a complete red herring. Anyone engaging in grappling with a university wrestler is going to lose.

 

[000063]

What do you mean about the video? Have you seen it?



Which is a complete red herring. Anyone engaging in grappling with a university wrestler is going to lose.

To be fair, he didn't know he was a wrestler. He just knew he was naked, non-responsive, belligerent, and strong-looking.

It's weird how most of the people using hindsight to decry the cop keep ignoring the fact that the student had already attacked others. The cop shot him because he was a threat, and as it happened, he was right.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

we are missing important information

So an officer should get into a cinch with a muscular naked guy who's unresponsive to commands to stop and is threatening and pursuing him?

I am not making a claim about what he should have done in this particular situation at this time. I am pointing out that some of what we thought we knew about this case turned out to be wrong (for example, the officer had pepper spray and a baton after all). I believe I have asked you before to explain what you mean by "threatening." We don't know (and have no objective means of finding out) what Gil Collar said to Officer Trevis. We have read differing opinions (from the media people who viewed the film) about the nature of the stance that Gil was in: one person said he was kneeling and another said he was in a fighting stance.

 

[000063]

Those aren't mutually exclusive. He could've gone through both.

 

[WildCat]

We have read differing opinions (from the media people who viewed the film) about the nature of the stance that Gil was in: one person said he was kneeling and another said he was in a fighting stance.

Kneeling and being in a fighting stance are not mutually exclusive, especially for a wrestler. At any rate, he obviously wasn't kneeling for very long as it's kind of hard to chase someone or move away from the view of the camera while kneeling.

The best you can say is at one point he knelt down briefly, it certainly is a stretch to say he was surrendering or complying at that moment.

 

[carlitos]

we are missing important information

...which reminds me why I don't participate in these endless "true crime" threads. There is so much more heat than light here.

And for Nessie, I was afraid for my safety every day I lived in Scotland, where the public was scared to death of the hooligans, and the impotent cops did nothing about it. Enjoy your smug.

 

[000063]

Actually, it's smug and bigotry, as anti-American sentiments have been repeatedly expressed by Nessie, including in the first post.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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 think your question is unfair.

If there is a situation where lethal force is justified against a drug addled hostile person, it's not simply because they're drug addled and hostile--as, for example, a drug addled person brandishing a lethal weapon. So a "yes" to that situation is not relevant to this situation.

Trying to limit your opponent to saying only "yes" or "no" is not an honest way to conduct a discussion.

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.

Whether the subject (you're misusing the term "suspect") is reasonable or not is not the question. I've seen plenty of completely unreasonable people managed successfully without lethal force (or even anything close to it).

Heck, plenty of people participating in the JREF forums espouse unreasonable positions, yet that is no justification to use lethal force against them!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the video is not public

What do you mean about the video? Have you seen it?



Which is a complete red herring. Anyone engaging in grappling with a university wrestler is going to lose.

The video has not been released, but I have read that it has no sound. One or two of us have provided links to articles in which the contents were described. I know that Gil Collar was a high school wrestler, but are you sure he was still wrestling in college? Officer Trevis had other options besides grappling, but I am not trying to rank them at this time. My point was that the term "muscular" is ambiguous. BTW, were you planning on answering my question from yesterday?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unproductive

...which reminds me why I don't participate in these endless "true crime" threads. There is so much more heat than light here.

And for Nessie, I was afraid for my safety every day I lived in Scotland, where the public was scared to death of the hooligans, and the impotent cops did nothing about it. Enjoy your smug.

For what it is worth, I am not fond of what I perceive as the anti-American tone of some of the comments here. Speaking as someone who contributed original reporting and summaries of the primary literature on one of the true crime threads, I wonder whether or not further engagement with you on this subject would be productive.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The best you can say is at one point he knelt down briefly, it certainly is a stretch to say he was surrendering or complying at that moment.

I was only making the claim that those who viewed the video had different interpretations.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

To be fair, he didn't know he was a wrestler. He just knew he was naked, non-responsive, belligerent, and strong-looking.

There's a lot he didn't know, apparently. So in that state of ignorance, if he had a choice, how could he be certain enough that lethal force was justified?

The real question should be whether or not the officer reasonably believed he was facing a lethal threat. And I find that a bit of a stretch in this situation.

You can't be more unarmed than naked and unarmed!

 

[carlitos]

Sorry, I meant to do that.

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.

I'll rephrase - any imminent physical contact which, in the officer's judgement, could result in a struggle over his gun. (obviously this is completely different and unrelated from "I thought he had a gun" and it turns out to be a popsicle or whatever, I'm speaking only in the context of physical proximity and contact)

When it would be unacceptable? The converse. Unless a trained officer is thinking "OMG, this dude is about to grab me despite my warnings and if he does, I'm in a brawl with a crazy guy while wearing a gun" then he shouldn't use deadly force.

 

[000063]

I think your question is unfair.

If there is a situation where lethal force is justified against a drug addled hostile person, it's not simply because they're drug addled and hostile--as, for example, a drug addled person brandishing a lethal weapon. So a "yes" to that situation is not relevant to this situation.

Trying to limit your opponent to saying only "yes" or "no" is not an honest way to conduct a discussion.

He's been repeatedly asking folks if they think the police should shoot all drug-addled subjects, despite people repeatedly saying no and trying to explain the distinction. He acted like not shooting all drug-addled suspects is the same as not shooting any in post 709. He even said that someone had made that claim.

I don't seem to recall you protesting about that.

See, here's the thing; if he says that yes, it is sometimes justified, I can ask him on what criteria he makes that decision (armed or unarmed, actively assaulting someone or not, etc.), and we can move on. He's not going to answer honestly, given his track record in the thread, because the only reasonable answer is "yes", and he has difficulty distinguishing between generalist straw men and addressing this specific situation. I've already asked him on what criteria he's making his decisions, and he never answered.

Whether the subject (you're misusing the term "suspect") is reasonable or not is not the question. I've seen plenty of completely unreasonable people managed successfully without lethal force (or even anything close to it).

Nessie has repeatedly proposed measures the cop could've taken which depend on the subject being reasonable. I asked him if the suspect was reasonable, and he dodged with "acting unreasonably", which is not the same as saying whether he was unreasonable or not, or even an "I don't know". It's a dodge that allows him to backpedal later.

I asked him several times since, even including "I don't know" as an option, and he just keeps ignoring it. Literally never even acknowledges the question. He has also said that the cop didn't try anything but shooting, but when it was pointed out he tried to evade and commanded the subject to stop several times, Nessie said that those didn't count, and literally that going out with a gun made the shooting inevitable. Repeatedly. A textbook No True Scotsman.

Heck, plenty of people participating in the JREF forums espouse unreasonable positions, yet that is no justification to use lethal force against them!

Ha ha. Very funny.

There's a lot he didn't know, apparently. So in that state of ignorance, if he had a choice, how could he be certain enough that lethal force was justified?

The real question should be whether or not the officer reasonably believed he was facing a lethal threat. And I find that a bit of a stretch in this situation.

You can't be more unarmed than naked and unarmed!

Unarmed does not mean "not a threat". People have been shot and still had time to overcome their assailant, even without drugs, on nothing more than adrenaline. One guy was shot at point-blank by a cop at a traffic stop, and proceeded to murder the cop after he got the rifle he had been reaching for. I can't remember the name, so I can't find the video.

 

[000063]

Also, Dan O., you once said the kid should be held responsible for taking drugs. You did not say that he should be held responsible for what he did on those drugs, which would include not responding to the cop and attacking other people. In fact, I don't recall anyone castigating the cop actually acknowledging that the kid had attacked folks. Maybe I missed those posts. Someone point me to 'em.

 

[TragicMonkey]

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.

No, it is not. "Expect" does not mean "deserve". One could expect to pick up malaria while in a swamp in Honduras. That does not mean one deserves malaria. "Deserve" necessitates judgment of the actor.

From what you have said, how is it a misrepresentation to say shooting was the only option.

And now I must repeat myself. I never said it was the only option. I never said it was the only option, I never said it was the only option, I never said it was the only option. Do you get that? It was one option, one that could be reasonably expected to occur, but I never said it was the only option.

I feel I have sufficiently made myself very clear on this point. Do you understand this?

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.

I'm not the sheriff so I feel zero responsibility for whatever he might have said.

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.

LIE:

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 even admit it later with:

Got the post now.

Once more: I never said it was the only option.

You are lying about what I have said, and now you are lying about what you have said.

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.

The thesaurus is perhaps not the best source for the complete understanding of the meanings of words. Again: "expect" <> "deserve". An expected outcome is one that can be anticipated from reasonable knowledge of the likelihood of results from a given action. A deserved outcome, which you note "includes get your comeuppance", requires a value judgment of the actor. I have never said this guy deserved to get shot. You repeatedly mischaracterized (ie, LIED) about my position saying I did. I did not say he deserved to get shot. I did not say he deserved to get shot. I did not say he deserved to get shot.

You may not decide, on your own, in ignorance, that "expect is the same as deserve, so I can say that TragicMonkey said he deserved it". I feel I have again made this sufficiently clear for even the people of Scotland to understand that it is a blatant lie to state that about my position.

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.

You lie about what I have said, then claim insight into my mind and say that I am "uncomfortable" when I object to your lies. I am not the least bit "uncomfortable" with my position. I am angry with people who persistently, repeatedly, and deliberately lie about my statements.

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.

At this point I feel I have more than adequately, and repeatedly, stated my argument. I have nothing further to add, having expressed myself to my satisfaction.

I will, however, insist that you post no more lies, mischaracterizations, and misrepresentations of what I have said.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

You need to practice your reading compression skills. You can start with reading and trying to comprehend what I actually said.


ETA: You may also want to reread and try to comprehend the membership agreement. Calling other posters "liar" is uncivil.

 

[000063]

For what it is worth, I am not fond of what I perceive as the anti-American tone of some of the comments here. Speaking as someone who contributed original reporting and summaries of the primary literature on one of the true crime threads, I wonder whether or not further engagement with you on this subject would be productive.

I, for one, am willing to change my opinion as the situation warrants. Others have said the same. Some have said that merely exiting the station with gun drawn inherently "escalated" the situation, and a few have even opined that doing so made a shooting inevitable. They have asserted that there is no distinction between the officer drawing a gun and him actively shooting someone, regardless of all contrary evidence. Note how such an opinion does not actually depend on what the subject actually did. From the second the officer left the building with his weapon out of the holster, Collar was a dead man, apparently.

 

[Dan O.]

It's weird how most of the people using hindsight to decry the cop keep ignoring the fact that the student had already attacked others. The cop shot him because he was a threat, and as it happened, he was right.

This is so funny I would nominate it if there were a way to present the necessary context without ruining the humor.