How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[DreamingNaiad]

Why should you be surprised at that?

Here's another statistic... in 2010 in the United States, there were 745 murders that occurred without weapons (i.e. from getting punched, kicked, pushed down, etc.) That works out to roughly 6% of all homicides. Furthermore, that number appears to be quite stable from year to year.\
So, to anyone who claims the officer shouldn't feel threatened by an "unarmed naked man", there are 745 deaths that say otherwise.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl09.xls


Even if the student wasn't a wrestler, there are hundreds of deaths a year that occur during "fights", and I'm sure that not all of the people involved are professional wrestlers.

As was mentioned earlier, even if the officer was fit himself, continued pursuit might have required him to turn his back to flee.

Would you turn your back on a possible threat?

How many of those victims had the advanced self-defence training a cop would have? A statistic on how many cops were killed in the line of duty by unarmed assailants would actually be relevant.

There are plenty of people that could be killed by being knocked over, but if I launched myself at a police officer I would be taken down pretty quick.

And the cop didn't know he was a wrestler. He was 140 lbs and fit/muscled. He was just as likely to have been a swimmer or a cheerleader.

Also, why would an officer pursue someone only to flee when the person faces them? (can't ... get ... benny hill ... out of ...head...)

 

[Nessie]

Why should you be surprised at that?

Here's another statistic... in 2010 in the United States, there were 745 murders that occurred without weapons (i.e. from getting punched, kicked, pushed down, etc.) That works out to roughly 6% of all homicides. Furthermore, that number appears to be quite stable from year to year.\

So, to anyone who claims the officer shouldn't feel threatened by an "unarmed naked man", there are 745 deaths that say otherwise.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl09.xls


Even if the student wasn't a wrestler, there are hundreds of deaths a year that occur during "fights", and I'm sure that not all of the people involved are professional wrestlers.

As was mentioned earlier, even if the officer was fit himself, continued pursuit might have required him to turn his back to flee.

Would you turn your back on a possible threat?

That there were 745 deaths without weapons does not make Collar a potential murder. Non sequitur.

The pursuit, if that is even the right term was Austin walking backwards whilst Collar walked towards him. At other times Collar was stopped.

I may turn my back on a possible threat yes, with the intention of getting away. It is one of my options when threatened. I have used it as a kid, but not as an adult at work. My job means going towards what others are fleeing from. But all of that is different from trying to maintain a distance from a threat. You do that whilst trying to talk it down, or waiting for back up. If that is what Austin was doing he gave up way to quickly.

 

[Belz...]

You are the one who kept on going on about superhuman powers.

Yes, because you kept attributing them to your ideal police officers.

I expect more from police officers than shooting nude students high on drugs.

Full stop ? It doesn't include life-threatening situations ? What about situations that the officer interprets as life-threatening ?

I certainly expect way more than the lame excuses that have been given for such actions.

You seem to have idealistic expectations rather than realistic ones.

 

[Belz...]

That there were 745 deaths without weapons does not make Collar a potential murder. Non sequitur.

You see, this is why people have and will continue to call you dishonest. You say a naked man is not a threat, and when someone points out that they can be, you say it's a non sequitur. If that's the case, then your point that a naked man is not a threat is ALSO irrelevant, yes ?

No, it's very relevant: naked or not, armed or not, if someone seems intent on hurting you, you are justified to defend yourself. If the threat seems particularily high, and you have no other readily-available option, then you can be expected to use lethal force.

So far all you've been doing is applying hindsight to this whole affair.

 

[WildCat]

Absolutely, but Kevin makes it seem like just because they are paid they should be perfect.

Reminds me of an argument I had with a friend when I was about 9 years old, who claimed that a MLB batter should get a hit every time they were up to bat because that's what they're paid to do.

eta: he also argued that the pitcher should get the batter out every single time.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

You see, this is why people have and will continue to call you dishonest. You say a naked man is not a threat, and when someone points out that they can be, you say it's a non sequitur. If that's the case, then your point that a naked man is not a threat is ALSO irrelevant, yes ?

No, it's very relevant: naked or not, armed or not, if someone seems intent on hurting you, you are justified to defend yourself. If the threat seems particularily high, and you have no other readily-available option, then you can be expected to use lethal force.So far all you've been doing is applying hindsight to this whole affair.

Using a gun, or indeed any lethal force, against an unarmed man is too disproportionate though. A punch to the head and cuffing him while he's dazed might make more sense. It's like killing a burglar with a bazooka. Overkill.

As to hindsight, everytime someone mentions that he was a wrestler (and therefore deadly) they are using hindsight. The cop didn't know that. But he did know the kid was unarmed, which is why he shouldn't have jumped straight from talking to lethal force.

 

[Nessie]

Yes, because you kept attributing them to your ideal police officers.



Full stop ? It doesn't include life-threatening situations ? What about situations that the officer interprets as life-threatening ?



You seem to have idealistic expectations rather than realistic ones.

Look I get the point, do not attribute to people what they have not said. I am sorry, how much more can I say to stop you pursing the point ad nauseum.

 

[Nessie]

You see, this is why people have and will continue to call you dishonest. You say a naked man is not a threat, and when someone points out that they can be, you say it's a non sequitur. If that's the case, then your point that a naked man is not a threat is ALSO irrelevant, yes ?

No, it's very relevant: naked or not, armed or not, if someone seems intent on hurting you, you are justified to defend yourself. If the threat seems particularily high, and you have no other readily-available option, then you can be expected to use lethal force.

So far all you've been doing is applying hindsight to this whole affair.

To a police officer worth their salt, Collar was not a deadly threat. Other people in other situations may be, understand?

So in 745 cases out of how many assaults without a weapon did a death occur? It is a non sequitur to say 745 deaths by unarmed people means it was right to shoot Collar.

I understand you are allowed to defend your self. Do you understand that you should not defend yourself using excessive force?

I see how your argument "If the threat seems particularily high, and you have no other readily-available option, then you can be expected to use lethal force." applies in the USA as there so many people carry and have guns readily available. They need to be able to justify using them to protect themselves. That starts to fall down as a reasonable argument when unarmed people not posing any lethal threat are killed.

I notice you do not want to refer to the Collar or indeed any other incidents to back up your arguments. Instead you make up scenarios. You keep on having a go at me, rather than the arguments. How about sticking to the cases in question?

 

[triforcharity]

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.

You're absolutely correct. I apologize if any of my posts caused any confusion.

However, I still stand by my personal assessment that the officer was justified in firing his weapon.

 

[triforcharity]

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

Way to follow along and read for comprehension.

A fistfight most certainly can become deadly.

 

[triforcharity]

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

I know them forwards and backwards. I've studied them, kept up with any changes that have been made, and even occasionally help teach CCW permit courses for a good friend of mine.

What have I said that you find to be inaccurate? I'd LOVE to see what you think I said that was wrong....

I'll wait...

 

[Alt+F4]

True, but surly not police forces in on of the worlds richest and best developed countries in the world?

Just because a police force is in a rich and well developed nation does not take away the fundamental human emotions of fear and uncertainty. I'm sure the police forces in less developed nations experience the same things, it's just not usually reported in the major media.

I'm a teacher, employed by The City of New York, the same as every police officer in NYC. My school is underfunded, our younger teachers are very under trained and this coming from one of the wealthiest cities on Earth. I have no reason to believe the NYPD isn't in the same position.

 

[Belz...]

Using a gun, or indeed any lethal force, against an unarmed man is too disproportionate though.

If I didn't know better I'd think you just jumped into the thread, but I know you didn't, so your apparent ignorance of the danger of even unarmed men is inexcusable.

A punch to the head and cuffing him while he's dazed might make more sense.

Do you think this is a Hollywood movie, where people go down from a single punch with a funny "thud" when they hit the ground ? You make it sound as if the officer had everything under control and could hand this guy his behind at any time.

As to hindsight, everytime someone mentions that he was a wrestler (and therefore deadly) they are using hindsight. The cop didn't know that.

You're absoutely right, he didn't, and arguments based on that are irrelevant. It does illustrate, however, that any one, armed or not, clothed or not, can be a threat, especially when under the influence.

 

[triforcharity]

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

What are all these starman strawmen doing in here? I thought we talked about this. Now you're attributing opinions to some of us, that you don't even know to be fact.

Stop that ****. It's incredibly ignorant of you, and makes you look like a fool.

I've hilited words that you're using incorrectly. Scared and in fear of your life and or safety, are two different things.

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.

No, you wouldn't, because your fear is irrational, and based on your own personal ignorance.

If you passed me in the supermarket, or the book store, or in a restaurant, you'd have no idea that I had a weapon. None whatsoever. I do my absolute best to keep it that way.

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.

I bet this opinion is based on 1-Your blind hatred of Americans, and out history and 2- You own ignorance.

 

[Belz...]

To a police officer worth their salt, Collar was not a deadly threat. Other people in other situations may be, understand?

Read my previous post.

I understand you are allowed to defend your self. Do you understand that you should not defend yourself using excessive force?

When you don't know in how much danger you truly are, you can't make that determination.

I see how your argument "If the threat seems particularily high, and you have no other readily-available option, then you can be expected to use lethal force." applies in the USA as there so many people carry and have guns readily available.

Again, see my post above, since "unarmed" doesn't mean "teddy bear."

 

[triforcharity]

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?

Wow, way to ask the loaded question.

The answer is simple. No. Not better. However, it doesn't make your ability to fight any less.

I would almost argue that it makes a person on PCP someone who is going to be a better fighter, due to his high tolerance for pain.

 

[Alt+F4]

I bet this opinion is based on 1-Your blind hatred of Americans, and out history and 2- You own ignorance.

Indeed, sometimes the police make the wrong decision, sometimes (mostly) they make the right decisions; it has nothing to do with being an American.

I'm an American, lived here almost everyday for 48 years and the only person who ever tried to kill me was not an American.

 

[triforcharity]

Now apply all of that to Gil Collar,

Yep, I would fire my weapon.

Andrew De Vries

Most likely not, unless he attempted to enter the door, then he's done.

and Yoshihiro Hattori

Again, no. He made no threatening gesture, and was outside of my home, and had made no attempt to gain entry into my home.

See what happens when you assume? It makes you look like an ass, now doesn't it.

and you would kill all three.

BZZZTTTTTTT!!! Wrong!

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.

Nope, not a crime fighter sir. I will defend my property, or the life and safety of others, if need be. I wouldn't hesitate. However, I don't go out looking for it, nor does it apply to just any crime.

You're continuing to make an ass of yourself.

To me that makes you a vigilante who dispenses summary executions.

Incorrect. Your incorrect opinion is duly noted.

You are a frightening person who I would have to kill even if you just came up behind me and said BOO!

And you'd never even know me from the man on the moon. You'd have no idea if I had any kind of weapon on me, as I don't broadcast it to the world.

 

[Belz...]

What are all these starman doing in here?

Jeff Bridges ? Where ?

 

[Alt+F4]

Reminds me of an argument I had with a friend when I was about 9 years old, who claimed that a MLB batter should get a hit every time they were up to bat because that's what they're paid to do.

eta: he also argued that the pitcher should get the batter out every single time.

Well I think the only ones who should not get paid for getting it wrong are weather forecasters. 70% chance of rain? Are you kidding me? Imagine going to work and telling your boss, "well there is a 70% chance I'll do my job correctly today".