How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Alt+F4]

I though I had heard all the crap excuses to shoot, that American's come out with to claim a justification for killing someone, but this is the worst.

I'm an American, what justification have I made in this case? Quite a big brush you have there.

 

[triforcharity]

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

That's a clown question bro.

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 ****?

Nope. Not in my opinion.

But I suppose you would rather someone died so the cop didn't feel embarassed about retreating.

You suppose wrong.

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.

And you'll be providing evidence for this claim, right?

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.

Which is not what I said. What is it with you people and your strawman arguments?

I said, very specifically, if you put me in reasonable fear of my life or of great bodily harm, I will not hesitate to use deadly force.

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?

I don't know, as I am not psychic, nor am I pricy to the thought of this police officer.

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.

Well, except for the whole liability thing...

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.

Yeah, because we all know that cops have superhuman running skills, and can tell exactly where someone went without even looking!

 

[DreamingNaiad]

That's a clown question bro.



Nope. Not in my opinion.



You suppose wrong.



And you'll be providing evidence for this claim, right?



Which is not what I said. What is it with you people and your strawman arguments?

I said, very specifically, if you put me in reasonable fear of my life or of great bodily harm, I will not hesitate to use deadly force.



I don't know, as I am not psychic, nor am I pricy to the thought of this police officer.



Well, except for the whole liability thing...



Yeah, because we all know that cops have superhuman running skills, and can tell exactly where someone went without even looking!

You said that we can't compare how cops in other countries would act. But a naked, unarmed man should pose the same threat whatever country he is in. So it is perfectly reasonable to point out that he wouldn't be dead in the UK or Germany.

And what liability issue? You claim I expect the cop to have superhuman speed when you are claiming the student has it. That he could suddenly vanish with the cop unable to find him. The cop would be right on the other side of the window, not in the basement.

I don't see it as a strawman because we clearly have a different idea of a 'reasonable threat to life'. You see a naked, drugged, unarmed student as being enough of a deadly threat to justify lethal force. I don't.

He was wandering around naked and acting weird. It would be a reasonable assumption that he wasn't fully in control of his faculties.

Are you honestly saying it would be chicken to retreat, assess and wait for back up? But killing an unarmed person to avoid the risk of some bruises isn't?

Also, I am female. Just FYI.

 

[Nessie]

I'm an American, what justification have I made in this case? Quite a big brush you have there.

Yes sorry, it is because these incidents originatd in the US and those who support the shhoter are American. I am not aware of any non Americans who support the US's gun laws and use.

 

[Belz...]

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 don't think we can expect a cop to think "hmm... maybe I shouldn't kill this guy, after all I have some cool health care benefits, a nice wage, training and equip--- ARRRGH !!"

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

Let me put it this way: if you attack me with your fists, and I can't expect to escape unscathed, and I have a gun, I will shoot you. In fact, I'll shoot you again, in the head, once you're down, just to make sure. I expect policemen to have better control, but protecting yourself against unknowns means you can't always know in advance how much force is enough force.

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.

No. The past is a good indicator of the future. The man was chasing a cop with a gun. I see no reason to believe he would've stopped at 5 feet out of the blue.

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

No. I see as dishonest anyone who, after been explained someone's stance in detail, after an initial possible misunderstanding, continues to misrepresent that stance. You have been doing that, therefore you are dishonest. You have lost any benefit of the doubt pages ago, and that you are trying to use that accusation of dishonesty as some sort of point in your favour, as if accusing you was an implicit admissal by me that you have a point, is either tremendously deluded, or even more dishonest.

 

[Belz...]

That is exactly what a police officer should do

Did you notice my scenario ended with the policeman dead ?

adjust their actions as the situation develops.

This isn't a single-player shoot-em-up game where you can pause. Sometimes you have to think very quickly.

You have created a fantasy involving a very slow thinking, confused police officer.

Yes, I was exaggerating. Did you even read my whole post ?

If that is what Austin was like he shojld never have been in the job.

We already know no real policeman qualifies in your mind.

 

[Belz...]

Lie. Misrepresentation.

So you in fact did not say these things ?

Isn't that a wonderful coincidence, since no one else did.

Do you see my point, now ?

 

[Belz...]

Yes sorry, it is because these incidents originatd in the US and those who support the shhoter are American. I am not aware of any non Americans who support the US's gun laws and use.

Why are all Scottmen so bigoted ?

 

[Nessie]

Triforcharity, when you say fear and psychic that is the issue in a nutshell. What level of fear cause you to shoot? How do you judge the threat?

The examples in this thread the death of Collar being the main one have the fear very low and the psychic very badly judged. I can understand that to an extent with civilians, but police officers should do much better.

I find it amazing that some consider Collar to be a deadly threat. That is because if he is then far to many people will also fall into that category and are risking being shot dead in summary unquestioned execusions because the police got scared and did not want to get hurt.

 

[Nessie]

I don't think we can expect a cop to think "hmm... maybe I shouldn't kill this guy, after all I have some cool health care benefits, a nice wage, training and equip--- ARRRGH !!"



Let me put it this way: if you attack me with your fists, and I can't expect to escape unscathed, and I have a gun, I will shoot you. In fact, I'll shoot you again, in the head, once you're down, just to make sure. I expect policemen to have better control, but protecting yourself against unknowns means you can't always know in advance how much force is enough force.



No. The past is a good indicator of the future. The man was chasing a cop with a gun. I see no reason to believe he would've stopped at 5 feet out of the blue.



No. I see as dishonest anyone who, after been explained someone's stance in detail, after an initial possible misunderstanding, continues to misrepresent that stance. You have been doing that, therefore you are dishonest. You have lost any benefit of the doubt pages ago, and that you are trying to use that accusation of dishonesty as some sort of point in your favour, as if accusing you was an implicit admissal by me that you have a point, is either tremendously deluded, or even more dishonest.

Cops should not think and react in that slow motion way. That is an invention nothing like realkty.

That yoy would go to kill in a fight helps to explain why Americans do kill each other unlike any other Western society. I am glad you are not in the police.

What incident are you referring to with a clp being chased by someone with a gun.

Yes I get your point, but I was really taken aback by some of the comments made. I asked if they meant deserved and now accept they did not. Others saying they did is not good enough.

 

[Nessie]

Did you notice my scenario ended with the policeman dead ?



This isn't a single-player shoot-em-up game where you can pause. Sometimes you have to think very quickly.



Yes, I was exaggerating. Did you even read my whole post ?



We already know no real policeman qualifies in your mind.

That is so mixed up I see no point in trying to respond other than to say why not concentrate on the Collar or other real case?

 

[Nessie]

So you in fact did not say these things ?

Isn't that a wonderful coincidence, since no one else did.

Do you see my point, now ?

Yes I get your point.

 

[Nessie]

Why are all Scottmen so bigoted ?

Yes I get your point. Sorry for tarring all Americans with the gun nut brush.

 

[Dan O.]

Did you notice my scenario ended with the policeman dead ?

That's the thing. You can't even imagine a scenario that doesn't end with someone dead.

 

[Amazer]

I disagree. We pay police to accept a certain degree of risk in exchange for their pay, and since that degree of risk is substantially less than the risk people who cut down trees or work on fishing boats accept in return for their pay there is absolutely nothing unreasonable about that.

If there's a tiny chance a police officer might get killed trying to wrestle briefly with a small, drugged-up, naked athlete before backup arrives then I'm sorry but they should take that risk. It's what they get paid for.

They chose to take a job where every now and then they have to accept a small risk to their own lives in order to protect others, including naked and drug-crazed others. That was their decision. Nobody made them take the job. Once they've taken it they don't get to decide "Actually, now I've decided that I want absolute safety for myself at the expense of public safety, I think I'll kill people if that in any way mitigates risk to myself".

This

 

[DreamingNaiad]

This

And that is why I respect the police here so much. Because they put themselves at risk to protect the public. Even when that means protecting drunk or drugged up idiots from themselves at the risk of a few bumps and bruises.

Is it possible to be killed in a fistfight? Yes. Is it likely? No. Is it enough of a chance to justify killing someone? No.

 

[triforcharity]

Is it possible to be killed in a fistfight? Yes. Is it likely? No. Is it enough of a chance to justify killing someone? No.

I disagree. In fact, in Florida, if I am in fear of great bodily harm, I have the right, and legal backing to use my weapon, including deadly force.

 

[GlennB]

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

Talk about a heel face turn.

Uh, the question to which Nessie was responding was "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".

You turn this into "Nessie now agrees that shooting is the only option..." ?

My bolding.

 

[Belz...]

Cops should not think and react in that slow motion way. That is an invention nothing like realkty.

You're in the camp that assumes the cop should have had superhuman knowledge, not me.

That [you] would go to kill in a fight

I'm defending my life.

helps to explain why Americans do kill each other unlike any other Western society.

Question: why do you assume I'm an American ?

I am glad you are not in the police.

Why not ? If I were in the police, I'd be far better trained to deal with these situations, better equipped when they arise, and I'd be able to tell you that you're wrong in this thread. Oh, wait. I already am.

What incident are you referring to with a clp being chased by someone with a gun.

What ?

Yes I get your point

Good, because people have been trying to make it for days, now, and you've ignored them. Only when your tactic was turned on you did you realise how silly it was.

 

[Belz...]

That's the thing. You can't even imagine a scenario that doesn't end with someone dead.

I can't ? How did you dream up such a ridiculous scenario ? Did you even follow this thread ?