How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Nessie]

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



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.





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

I think an assessment to a potential threat is a necessary and important part of responding. We are tought to do so as far as possible from a safe place. Not responding to me means hearing banging at the window and ignoring it and doing nothing.

But at the time in question he was alone and there was no one else in the area. That is known from cctv and lack of other witnesses.

No none of use attacked the police. I also do not think Collars actions constitue an attack.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Answer the question. You cannot KNOW his intent, since he's out of his face. Police over here aren't psychic.

Please, just answer. If you can't, just admit it, or continue driving this bad boy around...

 

[Nessie]

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



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.





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

I think an assessment to a potential threat is a necessary and important part of responding. We are tought to do so as far as possible from a safe place. Not responding to me means hearing banging at the window and ignoring it and doing nothing.

But at the time in question he was alone and there was no one else in the area. That is known from cctv and lack of other witnesses.

No none of us threatened or indeed attacked the police. I also do not think Collars actions constitue an attack or a serious threat.

 

[Nessie]

To your stupid dodge allegation I have given an answer. If police do not react I would imagine they have a high chance of being found liable for what the person they ignored goes on to do.

How was that a dodge? Bear in mind we are not on the level of the US for suing others.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

with due respect you have not been paying attention

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.....

I am not sure how many times I will have to type this. The video was played for some reporters, and we have as many of their summaries as we have the willingness to use Google to find them. I have already provided citations to a couple of them myself. If you want to play blame the lawyer, you can count me out, thank you very much. I pledged to stop stereotyping lawyers after I read about the Frank Esposito arson case.

 

[triforcharity]

To your stupid dodge allegation I have given an answer. If police do not react I would imagine they have a high chance of being found liable for what the person they ignored goes on to do.

How was that a dodge? Bear in mind we are not on the level of the US for suing others.

The qualifier that you used for one. "Intent on doing harm." HOW DO YOU KNOW IF YOU'RE INSIDE!?!?


Bear in mind this happened in the USA.

 

[triforcharity]

I am not sure how many times I will have to type this. The video was played for some reporters, and we have as many of their summaries as we have the willingness to use Google to find them.

And i've read them too, as well as others that describe different. There are plenty of differing opinions.

I have already provided citations to a couple of them myself.

I read those, and thank you for linking to them.

If you want to play blame the lawyer, you can count me out, thank you very much. I pledged to stop stereotyping lawyers after I read about the Frank Esposito arson case.

No, I'm not playing "blame the lawyer" either, though I can understand how it may have come across that way.

What I'm saying is simple. The lawyer, hired by the suspect's family, of course is going to paint his client's kid in a good light, absolving him of any wrongdoing. That's his job, and I expect nothing less.

However, the opinion of the sheriff directly contradicts that opinion. I'm willing to take the opinion of a LEO who has no direct link to the case (as far as I am aware) than a lawyer hired by the deceased family. He's VERY biased, and understandably.

 

[dc1971]

Once again, I see the same people are apologizing for law enforcement yet have no idea what a cop's job is!

 

[Lowpro]

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.

He shouldn't have done it, but he was within police standards to do so. I say he shouldn't have shot the kid and instead performed a take down and I feel this would have been the choice with the benefit of hindsight now. However at that moment with the training the officer had and the situation as it were I don't think the officer was out of conduct either. I don't think it's contradictory. Both courses of action to me are reasonable, even if one ends up killing the perpetrator.

Also while the officer had a baton and pepper spray they aren't allowed tasers.

 

[Lowpro]

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

No it was a male cop. Shouldn't make a difference, but I was drunk and couldn't pull off the "he/she" typing. I think I did it once and then promptly messed it up every time after that (there's an on-going discussion about it on al.com that I am also participating in)

 

[Belz...]

OK I'll use the word expect. If you attack the police expect to be shot.

That contradicts the Alabama Uni policy on use of force.

I still have not got a very clear answer on whether those out their face should expect to be shot. Triforcharity says so, what about you?

Personally, I value my police force. They should be able to defend themselves.

I was doing so in response to your fantasy designed to shape reality to your ideal.

Which fantasy would that be ? I haven't even speculated. Are you lying again ?

If Collar had been rushing at Austin, had adopted clear fighting stances, had got within 4 feet during one of the rushes at Austin, I would be inclined to agree with your conclusion.

In other words, exactly what happened, only a bit faster, a bit more aggressive, a bit closer. Seems to me like those goalposts are exactly where you want them to be.

 

[Nessie]

The qualifier that you used for one. "Intent on doing harm." HOW DO YOU KNOW IF YOU'RE INSIDE!?!?


Bear in mind this happened in the USA.

Big windows, a door and CCTV. That is what Officer Austin and the dispatcher could have used to make an assessment of what was going on outside.

Then as Austin opened the door we know Collar walked towards him giving him more to time to assess and either close the door, draw or holster his gun, draw baton or cuffs or depending on what the inside of the office was like, get Collar inside and trap him somewhere.

 

[Dan O.]

Big windows, a door and CCTV. That is what Officer Austin and the dispatcher could have used to make an assessment of what was going on outside.

Don't forget the radios.

 

[Nessie]

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.

YOU don't know that either, and neither did the cop, who was the person in the situation at the time. You are creating a fantasy where the naked guy would have simply stopped at 5 feet for no reason, while previously not showing any indication of having the intention to stop. In other words, you are making every effort to shape reality to your preconceived conclusion.

Personally, I value my police force. They should be able to defend themselves.



Which fantasy would that be ? I haven't even speculated. Are you lying again ?



In other words, exactly what happened, only a bit faster, a bit more aggressive, a bit closer. Seems to me like those goalposts are exactly where you want them to be.

I agree about valuing my police force. I also expect them to use reasonable, justifiable force to affect arrests. I also expect them to value others lives, especially people who need help such as students on a bad trip and the mentally ill. I also expect the police to accept a certain risk when arresting people and to take injuries as a part of their job. The upside being (Scotland, I assume Alabama as well) they get free health care, a good wage, training and equipment to minimise injuries, criminal injury compensation and the knowledge the attacker will go to court and be punished under Sec41 Police Scotland Act 1967.

I would be interested in detail about your way of valuing your police.

So the above exchange about how close Collar got to Austin and we agree we do not know if he would, if not shot gone within 4 or 5 feet. If I say he may not have and you think that is a fantasy, then surely going within the 4 or 5 feet is also a fantasy.

The digs about lying is just you scrabbling about to attack me and avoid my arguments.


The goal posts are where they are set by the reports. I have gone with the goal posts as they have been moved by others. The first one was rushing in the first University press release. That became for many posters here, chasing. We now know from the reporter who saw the video and then describes what happened outside the police office that it was walking.

 

[Dan O.]

There are still plenty of questions that haven't been answered. For instance, had Austin or the dispatcher called for medical assistance before the shooting?

 

[Belz...]

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?

I'm not sure we can expect him to calculate the odds as he's dealing with the suspect.

"Hmm... should I shoot him ? Is he really a threat or is that my perception ? Will I lose my badge ? Oh, speaking of stuff I can lose, can he grab my weapon ? Wow he's pretty buff. Maybe he's a wrestler. Can't tackle those toe to toe. But will shooting him hurt his loved ones ? I should take that into consideration, too. What are the full ramifications of -- ARRRRGHH !"

 

[Belz...]

Of course there are. The answer is yes.

So Nessie now agrees that shooting is the only option when faced with someone high on drugs.

Talk about a heel face turn.

 

[Nessie]

I'm not sure we can expect him to calculate the odds as he's dealing with the suspect.

"Hmm... should I shoot him ? Is he really a threat or is that my perception ? Will I lose my badge ? Oh, speaking of stuff I can lose, can he grab my weapon ? Wow he's pretty buff. Maybe he's a wrestler. Can't tackle those toe to toe. But will shooting him hurt his loved ones ? I should take that into consideration, too. What are the full ramifications of -- ARRRRGHH !"

That is exactly what a police officer should do, adjust their actions as the situation develops. You have created a fantasy involving a very slow thinking, confused police officer. If that is what Austin was like he shojld never have been in the job.

 

[Nessie]

So Nessie now agrees that shooting is the only option when faced with someone high on drugs.

Talk about a heel face turn.

Lie. Misrepresentation.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

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 someone, when I didn't observe it occur. There are some cases where I do.

Are naked, unarmed students more dangerous in the US than elsewhere?

Also, you said earlier that going back iside to assess the situation and wait for back up would be chicken ****. Isn't killing someone to avoid the possibility of a physical fight more chicken ****? But I suppose you would rather someone died so the cop didn't feel embarassed about retreating.

The guy was naked and acting strange. It was pretty obvious he wouldn't understand the officers instructions. So saying it's his fault he got shot because he didn't do something he was physically incapable of doing is nonsense.

As to 'if I cause you fear you have every right to shoot me'. What if I am not trying to scare you but you still feel scared? Would I have to die because you got a little twitchy? That is ridiculous.

I'm also unsure why he would have his gun out right away as this was a campus. When he heard banging on the window why wouldn't his first thought be that it was drunk students acting like idiots?

To others, I have discovered that I can open a door without turning my back on the person in front of me. So there should have been no problem with going back inside.

For the people who keep insisting that he could have wandered off, the cop could have followed. For the third time, no one said hide and ignore the guy. Let him bang on windows and doors until back up arrived. From the looks of it there were a lot of huge windows to see through. If he lost sight of him then he could go back outside. Not difficult.