How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[The Norseman]

Nope.

Thanks for answering; my point in asking is that there is quite a difference between a police officer and non-police officer when it comes to the use of deadly force. That you as a non-officer may have greater latitude in using deadly force does not mean that an officer has that same latitude. In fact, an officer is quite constrained -- legally speaking -- in what options are available and when used.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

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.

Takedowns is what wrestlers DO.

And shouldn't the police be able to take a hit in order to save someone's life?

Most definitely not. Cops are more valuable than criminals, there are far fewer of them and they require training and equipping---criminals appear for free. I'm really not understanding this insistence on individual safety trumping everyone else's individual safety regardless of personal responsibility. Should the people the man attacked have just let him hit them without complaint because he was accepting the damage to himself from the impact?

I find it amazing that some consider Collar to be a deadly threat.

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?

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.

My sister's boyfriend wrestled in college. He's still a short, solid wall of muscle and claims he could kill even before Marine training. Punches and kicks? Wrestlers don't bother with punches and kicks, they *grapple*. Try to fight a wrestler, and you will end up being slammed onto the ground. That's why wrestlers practice and fight on mats, so they don't kill each other! Naked? Have you noticed how little wrestlers wear? Naked is nothing! Had the cop been so monumentally stupid as to try combat, the most likely outcome would have been the wrestler reacting to long-trained instincts to take him down, cop smashed into the pavement and wrestler on top.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

It does matter, because people's lives matter, and we pay police specifically to take some chances that are more than 0% and less than 100%

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?

They should know that, hence the qualifier.

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.

So you can't actually estimate the risk of death in any meaningful way, except to say that it's non-zero. I suspect that's because you know that the actual risk of getting killed in a brief scuffle with a small, naked, drugged-up student wrestler is very, very small.

Very, very small risks don't justify the use of lethal force. We pay police specifically to take small risks with their lives.

Some people are irrationally fearful and place little value on human life. However we can't have police using lethal force on the basis of that sort of irrational fearfulness.

 

[Nessie]

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.

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.

Disagree with what? DreamingNaiad was talking about being killed in a fistfight. Would you shoot someone in a situation where they may punch you?

 

[Dan O.]

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

Please do read the Florida state statutes if you are going to run around there with a CCW.

 

[Nessie]

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



I'm defending my life.



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



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 ?



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.

It does not need superhuman knowledge to see how a situation develops and then to react appropriately. The police are trained to react based on a scale of threat and to go up and down it as appropriate. They are expected to risk getting their hands dirty and minor injuries to affect arrests.

The same is true for the armed forces, doctors, politicians indeed a whole host of jobs which deal with the unpredictable.

A cop worth the job should and indeed must know how to react appropriately to a situation and have the speed of thought to change as it changes. To ascribe superhuman powers to that ability is rubbish.

You and others here see life threats where many others do not. It seems to me that answer the question of why do so many Americans shoot or get get shot? It is because so many Americans fear a life threat at a level far lower than elsewhere, plus the easy and widespread access to guns.

I assume because as I said I have only come across Americans defending the US way of easy access and use of guns. If you are not, you are the first.

Yes, if you were in the police. But you are not. How am I wrong to say Austin should not have shot Collar? Though I accept many Americans think he is not wrong for the reason I gave above, they see a deadly threat at a lower level than others do and have easy access to guns.

In post #805 you said "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." I was wondering what incident you were referring to. (Cop came out as Clp as I tried to type on my phone).

Others like you and 000068 may have been making it, but now the two who I was wanting clarification from have made it I have stopped.

 

[Nessie]

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.

Yes there are and cases such as de Menezes is why I would never want the UK police armed. It was exceptional in that the armed officers were incorrectly directed to a male who others had wrongly thought was a suicide bomber getting onto a tube train, after the country had been on alert from other suicide bombings. The fault was with the ones ordering the armed officers and not with the armed officers themselves.

But there are far fewer cases of such in Europe than the US, as you say only one comes to mind for the UK. Other incidents such as Hungerford, Dunblane, Cumbria and Raul Moat did not result in gun battles and bystanders being killed by police. They also all involved armed men not on drugs who were killing others.

The closest we have to the Alabama Uni shooting I can think of is Harry Stanley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Stanley

where police shot someone who was reported to have had a gun, but it was a table leg in a bag. But like de Menezes, they had been given information the male was armed.

 

[Nessie]

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

OK so they start to walk towards you, appear to be on drugs, ignore any directions you shout at them, knee down at one point, walk away, walk back, adopt a fighting stance, hold their arms out and show you their hands and never come within 5 feet of you. What then?

Now you have pointed your gun at them, does that make it more or less likely you will shoot than if you kept your gun holstered?

 

[Nessie]

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?

That is the part that disturbs me as well. Those who say it is OK to kill when you are scared, who support Travis shooting Collar or say the shooting of Andrew De Vreis

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scot-is-shot-dead-when-mistaken-for-prowler-1405505.html

or Yoshihiro Hattori

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

is justified, I find them very scary indeed. I find it frightening that they would kill so quickly and easily. Ironically, that means now I would, in their eyes have full justification to kill them as I fear them.

I would also say those people are in fact cowards who can only think tough with a gun against unarmed people. But as cowards if you evened up the fight, they would **** themselves.

 

[Nessie]

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.)

Whilst being on PCP does appear to reduce pain, does it make you a better fighter? In my experience drunks and druggies are easier to restrain than sober people as alcohol and drugs may give some protection against pain, but it makes you a crap fighter. It does not matter to me if pain is felt or not if I want to cuff someone, I just want the cuffs on and that person restrained. What matters to me is their ability to fight.

So does PCP make you a better wrestler or not?

 

[Nessie]

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.

Now apply all of that to Gil Collar, Andrew De Vries and Yoshihiro Hattori and you would kill all three. That is very scary for me as it means you have announced you are a crime fighter who will use your power and right to shoot and kill without recourse to arrest or a trial. To me that makes you a a vigilante who dispenses summary executions. You are a frightening person who I would have to kill even if you just came up behind me and said BOO!

 

[Belz...]

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:

​

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

Maybe you are referring to this post:

​

But that doesn't work because...

​

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?

You just moved the goalposts. You didn't say I hadn't offered a solution in which the policeman wasn't dead. You said I couldn't.

 

[Belz...]

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?

You are using every possible word to minimise the situation. It sure seems like you have a strong bias, here.

 

[Nessie]

Takedowns is what wrestlers DO.


Most definitely not. Cops are more valuable than criminals, there are far fewer of them and they require training and equipping---criminals appear for free. I'm really not understanding this insistence on individual safety trumping everyone else's individual safety regardless of personal responsibility. Should the people the man attacked have just let him hit them without complaint because he was accepting the damage to himself from the impact?







My sister's boyfriend wrestled in college. He's still a short, solid wall of muscle and claims he could kill even before Marine training. Punches and kicks? Wrestlers don't bother with punches and kicks, they *grapple*. Try to fight a wrestler, and you will end up being slammed onto the ground. That's why wrestlers practice and fight on mats, so they don't kill each other! Naked? Have you noticed how little wrestlers wear? Naked is nothing! Had the cop been so monumentally stupid as to try combat, the most likely outcome would have been the wrestler reacting to long-trained instincts to take him down, cop smashed into the pavement and wrestler on top.

From your description of wrestlers it does should like they should be shot, but how many wrestlers kill? What about wrestlers on drugs? How good are they at fighting?

If the police are not expected to deal with wrestlers without resorting to deadly force, where would you draw the line?

Your attitude backs up my growing belief that Americans kill other Americans at a higher rate than elsewhere because they will go deadly at a lower risk than elsewhere.

 

[Belz...]

A cop worth the job should and indeed must know how to react appropriately to a situation and have the speed of thought to change as it changes.

The problem is that you are giving the cop information he couldn't possibly have. That's the superhuman part.

You and others here see life threats where many others do not.

Indeed. We're not 100% sure the cop was in real danger. But given what we DO know, it would have been reasonable for him to THINK he was, and act appropriately, which I think he did. Further information could change that conclusion.

I assume because as I said I have only come across Americans defending the US way of easy access and use of guns. If you are not, you are the first.

That you know of. Again, you are making a whole lot of assumptions, along with your hindsight thinking.

In post #805 you said "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." I was wondering what incident you were referring to. (Cop came out as Clp as I tried to type on my phone).

Er... the only one we're discussing.

Others like you and 000068 may have been making it, but now the two who I was wanting clarification from have made it I have stopped.

It's not easy to read your posts when you're not cutting the quote box to answer each point, by the way.

 

[Nessie]

You are using every possible word to minimise the situation. It sure seems like you have a strong bias, here.

Kevin's descriptive is what Austin was faced with when he shot Collar.

All I am seeing now is those who want to shoot making up fantasy situations or ignoring the real situations posted in this thread.

 

[Nessie]

The problem is that you are giving the cop information he couldn't possibly have. That's the superhuman part.



Indeed. We're not 100% sure the cop was in real danger. But given what we DO know, it would have been reasonable for him to THINK he was, and act appropriately, which I think he did. Further information could change that conclusion.



That you know of. Again, you are making a whole lot of assumptions, along with your hindsight thinking.



Er... the only one we're discussing.



It's not easy to read your posts when you're not cutting the quote box to answer each point, by the way.

In relation to the killing of Collar, what information have I given to the cop that he could not have figured out for himself?

In danger of what? Death? Minor injury? A fight to the end of life or a short scuffle?

My assumptions are based on the facts of the situation, you are the one who makes stuff up, like cops needing superhuman powers.

The case we are discussing is the Alabama Uni shooting. Collar was not chasing Austin and he did not have a gun.

I have yet to figure out how to cut and paste the posts like you do and on my phone I am very limited as to what I can do. If you are unsure, please ask.

 

[Dan O.]

You just moved the goalposts. You didn't say I hadn't offered a solution in which the policeman wasn't dead. You said I couldn't.

Now look at who is trying to move the goal posts.

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

That was an open invitation for you to unequivocally prove me wrong and you couldn't do it.
Of course you know this must be a trap. You are being forced to think from the other side of the table. You must resist these thoughts lest they change you.

 

[Nessie]

To see how risky wrestlers are I had a look to see how many instances there are of wrestlers killing using wrestling moves. There have been more than I was expecting. Here a 14 year old killed someone much bigger than him

http://deadspin.com/5898498/14+year+old-accidentally-kills-man-twice-his-size-with-wrestling-move

and I must admit, if challenged by one of the guys in the photo next to the article, I would be more inclined to shoot than try fend offs, baton or cuffs. But in reality I would keep my distance and try and talk them down as that is the only realistic option I have against a man mountain. There have been deaths recorded by pro-wrestlers

http://voices.yahoo.com/7-famous-pro-wrestlers-killed-people-11475062.html?cat=49

where of the seven listed four appear to have been with wrestling moves.

I would still like to know how drugs affect ability to wrestle and I still think just because very occasionally some wrestlers have sometimes killed using wrestling moves that kill becomes the justified option for Austin against Collar.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

LSD affects perception, so the muscle memory and reflexes would be untouched. The student got thirty seconds of talking down before closing enough to be shot. Not saying the cop couldn't shoot until he was close enough, just that the cop shot because he kept closing and retreating to maintain the distance hadn't helped.