How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

Can you elaborate on this? I don't understand how your position can be that the cop shouldn't have done it but that doing it was "within bounds". To me that sounds like a contradiction.

 

[Nessie]

...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.

Where did you live? There are some rough.areas where people don't speak to the police and as a result the local neds have the rule of the roost. But that is far from all places.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

No, it doesn't have to be the only option. It just needs to be the right one in the mind of the officer. And the vast majority of times, they get it right.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

EXPECT to be shot, and SHOULD be shot are two VERY different words, with two very different meanings in this context.

I've provided clarification more than a few times. Did you see them?

 

[WildCat]

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.)

Yeah, I was probably geting several old threads confused.

 

[triforcharity]

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?

Wow, way to twist my words around.

I've made two very distinct points. Maybe less words will help....

1- If you attack a police officer, you should EXPECT to be shot.

2-If an officer feels threatened, (as in this case) then I expect an officer to protect himself, up to and including deadly force, if necessary.

3-The officer SHOULD have had LTL tools available to him. If he didn't, there's an issue with either the officer, or the department.

4-An officer should use LTL tools if possible. If not, sorry for you. Don't mess with cops, and you (not you personally) won't have an issue.

 

[triforcharity]

I have also been saying from the start, why use a gun at all, since UK police don't have them, German police don't use theirs as well as other US cops and people in jobs where they deal with drugs and mental health.

We're not in the UK, or Germany. Kindly refer to a map and find the United States, then find Alabama. (South East US BTW) Now, trace your finger to the places you mentioned. Notice how they're NOT in the US?

The message from Sheriff Ayres, is got a gun, use it, no matter.

" A copy of the university's weapons policy, released to The Associated Press in response to an open records request, shows an officer's actions in cases where force is necessary should be based on how much a suspect resists. Deadly force is justified only when a suspect has the intent, ability and opportunity to kill or injure someone else, the policy states.

The policy says that an officer's attempt to control a situation "should match (the) level of resistance then move up or down as resistance changes." But Ayers declined comment on how the guidelines are interpreted when an officer is confronted by someone who doesn't have a weapon, yet could present a threat."

That is the UK policy and we can do it, the German police can do it, many US police can do it, why exempt Officer Austin?

Because at the time, he felt that was his best option. I don't usually second guess someone, when I didn't observe it occur. There are some cases where I do.

 

[triforcharity]

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?

I will. We'll say (for the sake of argument) that he did have other options available to him.

How long would it have taken to safely holster his weapon, and use a LTL tool? Too long, and the suspect very well could be pounding on him in no time. Now he's in a scrum on the ground, with nothing safely available to him to help subdue his suspect. Could the suspect get his weapon? Absolutely. Could he get his OC/OS and use it? Yes. Tazer? Yes.

Now he's in a fight for his life. (possibly)

Wanna risk your own life that the kid doesn't get any of those weapons?

I wouldn't.

I feel that his best option, at that specific time and place, was to fire his weapon.

 

[triforcharity]

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

Incorrect. IN YOUR OPINION, it's not a fact. Not a known surety. Opinion.

And your opinion, differes from mine, and the sheriff of the county, and also the opinion of the dozen or so cops I shot with today.

So, let's make sure you're not ascribing facts that are opinion.

 

[Nessie]

No, it doesn't have to be the only option. It just needs to be the right one in the mind of the officer. And the vast majority of times, they get it right.

I think that what the officer thinks is the right action should be based on training and policy. Here the University had a clear policy of scale of force, which the officer did not use. I would like to see better justification than that sk far provided by his the Sheriff.
I know the majority of times they get it right.

 

[Nessie]

EXPECT to be shot, and SHOULD be shot are two VERY different words, with two very different meanings in this context.

I've provided clarification more than a few times. Did you see them?

Yes I get that.

 

[Nessie]

Wow, way to twist my words around.

I've made two very distinct points. Maybe less words will help....

1- If you attack a police officer, you should EXPECT to be shot.

2-If an officer feels threatened, (as in this case) then I expect an officer to protect himself, up to and including deadly force, if necessary.

3-The officer SHOULD have had LTL tools available to him. If he didn't, there's an issue with either the officer, or the department.

4-An officer should use LTL tools if possible. If not, sorry for you. Don't mess with cops, and you (not you personally) won't have an issue.

Thanks. Now you put it that way, we are pretty much in agreement over the general use of force by the Police.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Here's an anecdotal story to go along with that.

While driving home from the range today (with a whole cache of different weapons) I was stopped by the local police. (I was speeding... and have a cracked windshield due to a rock this AM.....)

The officer approached my door, and asked me why I was speeding. I calmy kept my hands on the wheel, and explained to him that I was currently armed, and had a few different weapons in my car, most loaded.

He told me to stop, not to move, and to explain where my guns were. I then proceeded to explain I had 3 long guns in the back of my truck, and one .40 cal. in a holster on my hip.

He asked me to step out of the vehicle slowly, without reaching for my weapon. He then told me to stop, lift my shirt, and show him my weapon so he could secure it.

This was not a gunpoint though. But the thing is, I did exactly as the officer said, without question, when he told me to do something. If I had reached for my gun, I guarantee I wouldn't be typing this right now.

He asked, I complied. I received a fix-it ticket, and a thank you from the officer for being honest about my weapons, and also for the cooperation.
I never would imagine making any kind of threatening move at that point. None whatsoever.

 

[Nessie]

We're not in the UK, or Germany. Kindly refer to a map and find the United States, then find Alabama. (South East US BTW) Now, trace your finger to the places you mentioned. Notice how they're NOT in the US?




Because at the time, he felt that was his best option. I don't usually second guess someon
, when I didn't observe it occur. There are some cases where I do.

Like it or not, how others deal with issues can give relevant information on how well someone else deals with the same issue.

Maybe looking at how other US cops deal with drugged people would be more acceptable.

I am not as forgiving of a cops actions which result in someones death, just because he thought it was the right thing to do as you are.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

While I understand what you're saying Joe, the key word is "perceived". A man with a leathal weapon is not a perceived threat, it's pretty much out in the open.

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).

And that is the norm. However, there are unfortunate rare occasions when deadly force must be used, or is the best option at the time.

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

But it would make the threads in community SOOOO much more interesting!!

 

[triforcharity]

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

And theres the problem. The lawyer for the kid's family is claiming one thing, while the sheriff has a different opinion, which agrees with the officer.

Of course, we all know lawyers will NEVER twist things around.....

 

[Dan O.]

They shoot puppies don't they

I feel that his best option, at that specific time and place, was to fire his weapon.

This is the situation at that time and place: The suspect was unresponsive to verbal commands to stop. The suspect was advancing on the officer. The suspect may have put his paws up. The officer thought he had no other alternative but to shoot the suspect. [link]

This is what happens when you put guns in the hands of cops that let the gun do the thinking and don't stop to verify the situation first.

 

[Nessie]

I will. We'll say (for the sake of argument) that he did have other options available to him.

How long would it have taken to safely holster his weapon, and use a LTL tool? Too long, and the suspect very well could be pounding on him in no time. Now he's in a scrum on the ground, with nothing safely available to him to help subdue his suspect. Could the suspect get his weapon? Absolutely. Could he get his OC/OS and use it? Yes. Tazer? Yes.

Now he's in a fight for his life. (possibly)

Wanna risk your own life that the kid doesn't get any of those weapons?

I wouldn't.

I feel that his best option, at that specific time and place, was to fire his weapon.

I think because he went out gun drawn he stupidly limited his options. As was said earlier a police instructor said if you draw your gun expect to shoot an innocent or have it shoved up your ass.

Facts are with big windows and cctv those inside coule see outside. Fact is the cop could have gone out with his other equipment ready. Fact is he could have waited at the door to make a better assessment of who was there. Fact is there was another cop nearby who got to the locus in minutes. Fact is Collar showed no sign of running off so posing a danger to others.

I do not think your ideas of possibilities fit well with what we do know.

 

[triforcharity]

I agree not responding is wrong.

Closing the door, and observing things from inside, is IMO, not responding.

You have yet to show how the nude student at the police office with no one else around is a high risk to other students.

Really? He's already attacked OTHER students. What if he walked around the corner, out of the view of the officer, and attacked another student. He's now injured someone else.

When I was a student drugs and alcohol were being used by many for the first time and there was a number of times when people had to be calmed and cared for by mates. But maybe that is a Scottish thing

It's not, but I bet you and your friends didn't approach an officer in a threatening way, did you?

 

[Nessie]

Incorrect. IN YOUR OPINION, it's not a fact. Not a known surety. Opinion.

And your opinion, differes from mine, and the sheriff of the county, and also the opinion of the dozen or so cops I shot with today.

So, let's make sure you're not ascribing facts that are opinion.

I expressed it as my opinion. In my opinion based on what we know for sure and the Uni policy on use of force and how others deal with drugged people, he got it wrong.