How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Belz...]

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.

Another "let's jump in the thread" moment. My point really flew over your head.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Jean Charles de Menezes

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.

Nessie,
I am an American and I neither support nor condemn the shooting at this point, although it is obvious that I have reservations about it. However, there are surely instances in European or Asian countries where excessive force may have been used. The only one that comes to mind is Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian electrician who was shot in London in 2005, but there must be others.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

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.

What do you mean by great bodily harm though? A couple of punches and kicks? This guy didn't have any weapon. The chance of him hurting the cop, never mind killing him, were tiny. Would you end someone's life to avoid a punch?

 

[The Dark Lord]

I might point a gun at somebody to avoid a punch, depending on the situation. How it goes from there is up to them.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

I might point a gun at somebody to avoid a punch, depending on the situation. How it goes from there is up to them.

What if they are out of it and you could just go inside to get away? And shouldn't the police be able to take a hit in order to save someone's life?

 

[fuelair]

I'm just going to add one little thing here: IF I was running at someone armed with the notion of attacking them any of the five things I would do would be intended to incapacitate or kill. If I was armed with a knife all five would be to kill (the one involving legs is the one that would move from incapacitate to kill). If I was armed with a pistol, none of the above would be necessary as the attacker. As the attackee, I will tend to assume that someone (the attacker) intends similar to what I would.

(Why five? a) I know five well , and b) low or high - how is the person moving to defend thus what is he forgetting to and what is he presenting best to me.)

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

What do you think the chances are of you actually getting killed if you briefly wrestle a small, naked, drugged-up athlete before backup arrives?

Note that I am not asking you if you personally think the risk justifies you shooting them. I am just asking you what you think the risk is.

 

[Amazer]

What do you think the chances are of you actually getting killed if you briefly wrestle a small, naked, drugged-up athlete before backup arrives?

Note that I am not asking you if you personally think the risk justifies you shooting them. I am just asking you what you think the risk is.

Depends i guess.... is he packing heat?

 

[Dan O.]

What do you think the chances are of you actually getting killed if you briefly wrestle a small, naked, drugged-up athlete before backup arrives?

If we are to stay with the actual event, backup had arrived before any contact was made. Backing out was also an option since there was the dispatcher that could open the door even if the officer had stepped out without his keys.


I don't understand where people are seeing Gil as being an aggressor. For the entire duration of the confrontation until he got shot he made no attack on Trevis. Are they saying that he wasn't attacking because Trevis had a gun? If that's so then Trevis wasn't being attacked. That Gil continued to approach Trevis, indicates that Gil did not perceive the gun as a threat. If Gil was not perceiving the gun as a threat and still had not attacked Trevis, that pretty much rules out any aggression except in Trevis's mind.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

People that choose to kill because they are afraid scare me. I fear that at any time they could get the notion in their head that I am a threat to them. What should I do about that?

 

[Dan O.]

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 ?

If you mean, have I been explicitly tracking every post you made, no. But I've been following this thread and no one on the side of shooting unarmed naked kids has presented any realistic scenario to handle this situation that doesn't end with someone dead.

But, let's review what you've said. Here is your first post:

Here's another idea: don't attack cops.

That post falls on it's face since Gil never attacked Trevis.

Maybe you are referring to this post:

"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 !"

But that doesn't work because...

Did you notice my scenario ended with the policeman dead ?

You imagine that the policeman that tries to think through a problem is going to die.

So, did I miss one of your posts where you offered a solution that doesn't end with someone dead?

 

[fuelair]

What do you think the chances are of you actually getting killed if you briefly wrestle a small, naked, drugged-up athlete before backup arrives?

Note that I am not asking you if you personally think the risk justifies you shooting them. I am just asking you what you think the risk is.

Can't say. Is he wearing a sign stating PCP or Meth or related? If he is or is exhibiting the attribute of someone on either, the chance is high that I will be harmed - because he cannot functionally feel pain and he is aggressive. In that case, from the first example I heard of (college student also in Nashville running downstairs at police. They shot him and he continued on a bit (lack of shock or pain) before falling just in front of them[lack of blood and messaging internally]). That was around 1965 or so. (and within a year of when I found out that 5 shots of .357 in the torso was not necessarily deadly.)

 

[triforcharity]

People that choose to kill because they are afraid scare me. I fear that at any time they could get the notion in their head that I am a threat to them. What should I do about that?

First, people are not running around killing people just because you spooked them.

If you come at me with a knife, dagger, club, tire iron, or some other deadly weapon, I will draw my weapon and shoot, every time.

If you're walking behind me, and run up and go "BOO!!!" and scare me, I may punch you for being a jerk, but I am not in fear of GBH or death.

The other times I may draw and fire, is if you're committing a forcible felony in my presence. Don't commit a forcible felony in my presence.

So this premise that you seem to think that just being scared is justification for deadly force, is silly, and stupid.

Anecdotal, but I have been a CWP holder for many years now (about 10 or so) and have only drew my weapon once, and didn't fire it.

 

[Dan O.]

First, people are not running around killing people just because you spooked them.

If you come at me with a knife, dagger, club, tire iron, or some other deadly weapon, I will draw my weapon and shoot, every time.

If you're walking behind me, and run up and go "BOO!!!" and scare me, I may punch you for being a jerk, but I am not in fear of GBH or death.

The other times I may draw and fire, is if you're committing a forcible felony in my presence. Don't commit a forcible felony in my presence.

So this premise that you seem to think that just being scared is justification for deadly force, is silly, and stupid.

Anecdotal, but I have been a CWP holder for many years now (about 10 or so) and have only drew my weapon once, and didn't fire it.

And then there is this case of Gilbert Collar who was visibly unarmed and had committed no forcible felony yet is now dead and the only excuse given so far is because the cop was scared.

 

[The Norseman]

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.

Are you a police officer?

 

[Dan O.]

Are you a police officer?

If he were a police officer, presumably he would not have left off a critical qualifier in that statement.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

First, people are not running around killing people just because you spooked them.

If you come at me with a knife, dagger, club, tire iron, or some other deadly weapon, I will draw my weapon and shoot, every time.

If you're walking behind me, and run up and go "BOO!!!" and scare me, I may punch you for being a jerk, but I am not in fear of GBH or death.

The other times I may draw and fire, is if you're committing a forcible felony in my presence. Don't commit a forcible felony in my presence.

So this premise that you seem to think that just being scared is justification for deadly force, is silly, and stupid.

Anecdotal, but I have been a CWP holder for many years now (about 10 or so) and have only drew my weapon once, and didn't fire it.

What do you think the chances are of you actually getting killed if you briefly wrestle a small, naked, drugged-up athlete before backup arrives?

Note that I am not asking you if you personally think the risk justifies you shooting them. I am just asking you what you think the risk is.

 

[triforcharity]

Are you a police officer?

Nope.

 

[triforcharity]

What do you think the chances are of you actually getting killed if you briefly wrestle a small, naked, drugged-up athlete before backup arrives?

More than 0%, less than 100%. IMO, it doesn't really matter. I'd personally rather not take a chance at losing my life, because some doped up tard wants to try to be a badass.

BTW, why the qualifier? Just curious why it needs to be a brief scuffle. I understand in this case backup was close, but did the officer know that?

Note that I am not asking you if you personally think the risk justifies you shooting them. I am just asking you what you think the risk is.

More than any officer should have to worry about. Again, my personal opinion.

If a person is willing to fight an officer with his weapon drawn, he's obviously not in a stable frame of mind, so there's no telling what he is capable of.

 

[triforcharity]

If he were a police officer, presumably he would not have left off a critical qualifier in that statement.

Please, do tell what that qualifier is....