How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[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.

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?

...
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.

Okay, sure. What you said was that he had his gun out because he thought the situation was dangerous.

Even if you meant that "if" hypothetically, then, at best, you were referring to an irrelevant hypothetical instead of the actual situation, since officers in the US commonly draw their weapon when they think there might be a threat, not only after they've positively identified one. Even in the hypothetical presented in the post you were responding to, the hypothetical officer had not positively identified a threat.

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

Where does it say that? I suppose 12 might count, but I can still say "you are lying". Given that the only rationales for repeatedly making incorrect assertions about other's positions even after being corrected several times are active malfeasance or extreme bias, neither looks good.

 

[000063]

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

It's also true. People, like you, keep blaming the cop for assuming the person outside was a threat. He was assuming there might be a threat present, and if he thought there was not, he could've just holstered his gun. Yet the fact that the individual was, in fact, a threat, is almost entirely ignored by the people who decry the cop's actions. Not even "he couldn't've known the kid was a threat", which would be reasonable.

Of course, you could just prove me wrong by providing the post numbers or quoting the posts.

And please, please don't cry "tu quoque". My point was that some are expecting the cop to somehow know what he would encounter outside, but not that the suspect had already harmed people. I and most of the people on my side have generally been asserting that the officer did not know what he would encounter when he went outside to deal with the naked guy, and thus drew his weapon, as there might be a threat.

And you still haven't acknowledged the officer could've just put his gun away if he thought the situation was safe.

 

[Dan O.]

Also, Dan O., you once said the kid should be held responsible for taking drugs.

If you are going to tell me what I said, you should be prepared to back it up. In this thread I have taken one basic position expressed in my first post: He should have stayed inside and waited for backup. I have also subdivided that position with a conditional: If he perceived that the situation presented a level of danger where deadly force would be warranted, he should have stayed inside and waited for backup. This position could be further subdivided with a qualification involving an imminent threat to life or property but since there is no indication that the officer had any such knowledge, I haven't gone there.

 

[Dan O.]

ETA: You may also want to reread and try to comprehend the membership agreement. Calling other posters "liar" is uncivil. .... Attention: underlined text above indicate links...

Where does it say that? I suppose 12 might count, but I can still say "you are lying". Given that the only rationales for repeatedly making incorrect assertions about other's positions even after being corrected several times are active malfeasance or extreme bias, neither looks good.

 

[000063]

If you are going to tell me what I said, you should be prepared to back it up.

Y'know what? I've checked every post of yours from Page 9 on, and none of them seem to say so. I attributed the claim to the wrong person. Whoever it was, replace Dan's name with yours. I apologize.

In this thread I have taken one basic position expressed in my first post: He should have stayed inside and waited for backup.

Others have argued that if the person had turned out to be an attack victim, then such a course of action would be negligent.

I have also subdivided that position with a conditional: If he perceived that the situation presented a level of danger where deadly force would be warranted, he should have stayed inside and waited for backup.

I asserted that he may have drawn his gun because he thought deadly force might be warranted, as per procedure, and he could've simply holstered it if there was no apparent threat. I've also asserted that he had no way of knowing when backup would arrive.

I don't think anyone on my "side" has argued that he knew with absolute certainty deadly force was warranted when he left the station and that's why he had his gun out, but I'd like to see the post numbers or links if I'm wrong.

And, again, if the subject had been an attack victim, which was also a possibility, staying in the station would be negligent, as it would've been if the naked student had ended up leaving the area and attacked more people.

This position could be further subdivided with a qualification involving an imminent threat to life or property but since there is no indication that the officer had any such knowledge, I haven't gone there.

It's also irrelevant, since the standard procedure is to draw one's weapon if there is a reasonable indication there might be a threat. Not after you have positively confirmed one, by which time it may be too late.

 

[000063]

I missed it. Now, if you'd like to discuss how you said you didn't say something you clearly said...

Truth is not necessarily a defence against a breach of Rule 0 or Rule 12, for example a Member may well be proven to have lied, but that does not mean it is civil and polite to call them a liar in every subsequent response to them, especially in responses not directly related to their original lie.

Except that every time I called Nessie a liar, it was in a post related to the things I accused him of lying about, and certainly not in every subsequent response.

What I find odd is that you don't actually say anything about whether Nessie was right or not. At best, he's made repeated incorrect statements despite direct and repeated correction, even regarding the content of his own posts.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

I wasn't responding to anything he said. I was responding to your post--or at least the parts of it I quoted, and I stand by my criticism of it. Demanding a yes/no answer to a question is not an honest way of having a discussion. At best, you're making a tu quoque argument (or a subset of that, the "he started it" defense) in saying you're only doing the same thing he did.

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

Irrelevant. The fact that I didn't read or respond to that guy's quotes doesn't change my criticisms of your post.

Unarmed does not mean "not a threat".

And "a threat" does not mean "a threat justifying lethal force". Unarmed does argue in support of not justifying lethal force (though I acknowledge it's not dispositive of the question). One of the biggest threats police officers face is dealing with armed people. And one troublesome aspect is that often they don't know whether or not a person is armed (because most people wear clothes that might conceal a weapon).

I'm not claiming it's cut and dried. I think an investigation is the correct thing to do to answer these questions.

My main point is that I see people asking the wrong questions. Whether or not the guy was "reasonable" for example. Whether or not it's sometimes justified to use lethal force against someone who is drug-addled and hostile, for another example. Both of these questions are irrelevant, since being unreasonable and being drug addled and hostile are not of themselves automatically justification for using lethal force.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My point was that some are expecting the cop to somehow know what he would encounter outside, but not that the suspect had already harmed people.

I think just the other way around. I think some degree of certainty about likely outcomes is necessary to justify the use of lethal force.

So ignorance actually argues against the use of lethal force rather than for it.

In other words, we need to be fairly certain that the threat level justifies lethal force.

I think in this case it's appropriate to second guess the officer's judgement and investigate the case. Since there is a video, the evidence can and should be given some scrutiny.

 

[Nessie]

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?

I do not think there is a standard answer to the question. If a police officer just watches as they walk away clearly intent on causing harm I would imagine it is high.

 

[WildCat]

I think just the other way around. I think some degree of certainty about likely outcomes is necessary to justify the use of lethal force.

So ignorance actually argues against the use of lethal force rather than for it.

In other words, we need to be fairly certain that the threat level justifies lethal force.

I think in this case it's appropriate to second guess the officer's judgement and investigate the case. Since there is a video, the evidence can and should be given some scrutiny.

Weren't you arguing in another thread that a resident of a home has the right to shoot police who are serving a warrant, if that resident thinks the warrant is invalid?

How do you reconcile that with this opinion?

 

[Nessie]

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

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.

That is high on drugs and attacking or posing a possible threat to the police. Not just high on drugs, that is all.

I have also repeatedly been asking those you say the shooting of Collar is justified how far that extends to all people on drugs or with mental health issues. Sorry you have not followed further questions raised by others replies.

 

[WildCat]

That is high on drugs and attacking or posing a possible threat to the police. Not just high on drugs, that is all.

And Collar was attacking the cop.

 

[WildCat]

Why US Police Carry Guns

2 incidents last night here in Chicago:

Two took off running and police chased the third south on Campbell Avenue into an east-west alley that connects Campbell with Artesian Avenue, police said.

While running, the man swung his arm back, police said, while holding a 9-millimeter pistol in his hand, and police opened fire.

...Police, patrolling an area near a shooting last week, tried to stop a man they recognized who was walking with two others. Police gave chase as the wanted man and the two others split up.

One of the men stopped, stepped into a combat shooting stance, and shot at the police car that was chasing him. He emptied his revolver, according to police, and continued running.

When police did catch him, he quickly dropped the gun and gave up, police said.

Stories like this are so common here they get buried deep inside the newspaper, not even worthy of a front page headline or even their own separate articles.

This isn't the UK.

 

[Nessie]

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.

Of course there are. The answer is yes.



I have spoken at length about Collars actions. Reasonable is not a descriptive I would say applies to anyone high on drugs. Neither is kind or gentle. What is your point?

 

[Dan O.]

And you still haven't acknowledged the officer could've just put his gun away if he thought the situation was safe.

Why do I need to acknowledge that when it isn't part of the argument that I am making. My argument isn't about the gun being drawn. It's about the officer stepping outside alone into what he perceived to be a dangerous situation. The fact that the officer drew his gun first goes to establishing the state of mind of the officer.

I've also asserted that he had no way of knowing when backup would arrive.

Will you acknowledge that was a liebeing uninformed on your part?

The police dispatcher can be seen opening the station's front door in response to the sound of gunfire. A second officer arrives just as Collar is being shot. Collar gets up twice and the officers pursue him.

Sheriff Sam Cochran said two officers handcuffed Collar to subdue him after he was shot, but that could not be clearly seen on the video. A second backup officer arrived just as the two-minute video ended.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-shows-ala-teen-fatal-shooting-article-1.1181371​

I hope I don't have to explain what a dispatcher does.

 

[Nessie]

And Collar was attacking the cop.

I disagree. He was behaving oddly, aggresively, but at no time did he attack the cop, lay hands on him take a swing at him any thing you could reasonably describe as an attack.

 

[Nessie]

TragicMonkey. I cannot get my phone to work with yourlarge post and response to me. I take on board what you have said and accept when you say expsct to get shot you do not mean deserve to be shot.

I was wanting to know if you had a more lenient attitude to those who attack the police knowing full well what they were doing and intending harm, from those who do not know what they are doing. I see Collar as a decent person who was daft. Indeed since they are after the supplier we may find out he was not even responsible for getting so high. It seems to me that you do not differentiate like I do. I may be wrong there. But I see Collars live as worth trying to preserve, irrespective of what he did. I do not lump him in with other attackers of the police.

Can I also point out that the post you quoted did not contain the word only. I then looked for clarification as to which post you meant. That does not make me a liar.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Weren't you arguing in another thread that a resident of a home has the right to shoot police who are serving a warrant, if that resident thinks the warrant is invalid?

Not that I remember. That doesn't sound like something I'd support at all. I'm not even keen on the Castle Doctrine.


ETA: The closest I can remember is one of the 4th Amendment threads. For the most part, I argued in favor of the more expansive interpretations, and the question was about what evidence was admissible, not about when lethal force was justified. In the case in question, police were doing an undercover drug buy, and the bad guy took off running. Police chased him (or them, I don't recall) into an apartment complex, and thought they knew which apartment he entered. They busted into the wrong apartment, but while there, saw evidence of a felony. I supported that evidence being admissible. Their entering the correct apartment would have easily been OK without a warrant, but going into the wrong one was a reasonable mistake in this case. They weren't obliged at that point to ignore what they saw. Anyway, it had nothing to do, IIRC, with justifying a shooting. If you remember otherwise, please point me to the topic or thread. I own up to a very poor memory at times, but that doesn't sound like a position I would take. If the question was whether the home owner reasonably thought his life was in danger, then I would probably support his use of deadly force (but I don't remember a thread on a situation like that). That's really what the issue hangs on as to when deadly force is justified. There are somewhat different issues with a resident at home compared to a law enforcement professional (related to training, what methods are available, etc.)

 

[Nessie]

Why do I need to acknowledge that when it isn't part of the argument that I am making. My argument isn't about the gun being drawn. It's about the officer stepping outside alone into what he perceived to be a dangerous situation. The fact that the officer drew his gun first goes to establishing the state of mind of the officer.




Will you acknowledge that was a liebeing uninformed on your part?

The police dispatcher can be seen opening the station's front door in response to the sound of gunfire. A second officer arrives just as Collar is being shot. Collar gets up twice and the officers pursue him.

Sheriff Sam Cochran said two officers handcuffed Collar to subdue him after he was shot, but that could not be clearly seen on the video. A second backup officer arrived just as the two-minute video ended.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-shows-ala-teen-fatal-shooting-article-1.1181371​

I hope I don't have to explain what a dispatcher does.

000063. Your posts often read as if you are miles behind with the discussion and you have not been reading the links and keeping up with information coming from the University.

 

[Nessie]

Ignoring yet another heavyhanded use of loaded language, I would say I am not opposed to fatal consequences as a result of violent confrontations, regardless of the cause. Unfortunate things occur, such is life.

In this particularly case, the blame is solely on the idiot who decided to get effed up on drugs then run amok, with entirely predictable results.

This is exactly the kind of post TragicMonkey has made that means I am not lying or mirepresenting his position when I have asked him if shooting is the only option.

I will however accept that despite having no opposition to fatal consequences to violent confrontations despite the cause, you do not think shooting is the only option.