How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Alt+F4]

Jeff Bridges ? Where ?

Don't mess with Starman Belz, that movie rocked! Though I must say I'm not fond of the bald Jeff Bridges in those Iron movies.

 

[triforcharity]

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

Absolutely, sometimes they do make the wrong decisions. Recently, we had an officer who was approached by a deaf man, who failed to respond to his commands, (even though the bystanders told the officer he was deaf) still drew his tazer and repeatedly tazed the elderly man.

He received a (IIRC) two week suspension without pay, and a few other punishments, along with some retraining.

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.

I wish I could say the same.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

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.



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.



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.

The problem is that you are saying that because an unarmed man *can* kill people we should assume that they are all deadly. And not even try to subdue them in a non lethal way, just in case.

A small proportion of fistfights end in death. A large proportion of shots to the chest end in death.

Sometimes the police just have to drag drugged up idiots to the cells kicking, punching, etc. It's their job.

He wasn't eating people or stabbing people. He was just being weird and unresponsive. Death seems excessive.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Also, no one has explained the risk an unarmed man poses to a trained police officer. Just that the risk of injury or death is greater than 0%.

You think I am underestimating it but you are talking as if the death of the officer is so likely it justifies killing the student. Who wasn't even attacking in the first place.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Yep, I would fire my weapon.



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



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.



BZZZTTTTTTT!!! Wrong!



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.



Incorrect. Your incorrect opinion is duly noted.



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.

In post #833 you say you would fire if someone came at you with a deadly weapon. Despite this guy not going after anyone with any weapon you would still shoot him. Huh?

 

[Alt+F4]

Absolutely, sometimes they do make the wrong decisions. Recently, we had an officer who was approached by a deaf man, who failed to respond to his commands, (even though the bystanders told the officer he was deaf) still drew his tazer and repeatedly tazed the elderly man.

He received a (IIRC) two week suspension without pay, and a few other punishments, along with some retraining.

That's the thing, we can't except the police to be more perfect at their jobs just because they carry a gun. Having a gun doesn't make them any less perfect than the rest of us. I could kill you by running you over with my bread truck while I was delivering bread for my bread job. I could kill you with a pencil while I was grading papers. Guns have nothing to do with it.

 

[Belz...]

Don't mess with Starman Belz, that movie rocked!

Of course it did, it was a Carpenter movie.

Though I must say I'm not fond of the bald Jeff Bridges in those Iron movies.

I thought he looked taller and more menacing that way.

 

[Belz...]

The problem is that you are saying that because an unarmed man *can* kill people we should assume that they are all deadly.

That is a lie. Quote me saying this, or retract this statement.

And not even try to subdue them in a non lethal way, just in case.

You're assuming that doing so is super-easy for a policeman.

A small proportion of fistfights end in death. A large proportion of shots to the chest end in death.

And the lesson is: don't attack armed people. If he didn't attack the officer, he'd probably still be alive. Somehow no one blames him for his own death, even a little.

He wasn't eating people or stabbing people. He was just being weird and unresponsive. Death seems excessive.

Maybe, we don't know that. It's odd how we can reach conclusions based on ignorance.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

That is a lie. Quote me saying this, or retract this statement.



You're assuming that doing so is super-easy for a policeman.



And the lesson is: don't attack armed people. If he didn't attack the officer, he'd probably still be alive. Somehow no one blames him for his own death, even a little.



Maybe, we don't know that. It's odd how we can reach conclusions based on ignorance.

I said killing was excessive, you said it wasn't and that I was ignorant of the dangers of an unarmed man. Even though I have repeatedly agreed they are not harmless. How else am I to take this? That killing an unarmed drugged man is ok because they might be dangerous? That trying non lethal force would be madness due to the danger the might pose? Enlighten me.

I have never said it would be super easy. Being a cop is never super easy nor should it be. But it is certainly easier to shoot someone than to subdue them another way.

The student never attacked. He slowly approached.

I have also said at least twice that the student is just as responsible if he willingly took the drugs. And that the cop should be reprimanded and retrained.

And isn't this entire thread just people reaching conclusions based on ignorance. None of us were there. None of us have seen the footage.

Have you entertained the idea that this particular drugged up unarmed man might have been harmless? Or that he might not have posed enough of a threat to justify being shot?

 

[triforcharity]

Jeff Bridges ? Where ?

Strawman.....lol! Thanks Belz...

 

[triforcharity]

In post #833 you say you would fire if someone came at you with a deadly weapon.

Yes, let me explain. My post was unclear, sorry. As a citizen, I would fire my weapon if someone approached me with a deadly weapon, and it wasn't a friendly encounter.

Despite this guy not going after anyone with any weapon you would still shoot him. Huh?

Yes, the officer did the right thing. I of course mean that if I were in his shoes. However, he possibly COULD have used a LTL tool, but at that moment in time, I feel he made the correct decision.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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

That's nice. Won't respond to my actual posts, but misrepresents them in unrelated ones. Classy.

Just because someone decides to risk their lives to assist others doesn't mean that they are not flawed, scared (who wouldn't be?) or possible (in this case) not well trained.

We expect reasonable standards of competence from people like police, doctors and dentists. If they kill someone because they're flawed, not well trained or not able to handle the stresses of the job we hold them responsible to a significant degree.

 

[Belz...]

I said killing was excessive, you said it wasn't and that I was ignorant of the dangers of an unarmed man. Even though I have repeatedly agreed they are not harmless. How else am I to take this? That killing an unarmed drugged man is ok because they might be dangerous?

No one can be this dense. You must be doing it on purpose. Or did you forget the whole context of this event ?

Have you entertained the idea that this particular drugged up unarmed man might have been harmless?

Of course I have. Geez, it's like you've forgotten the whole thread so far.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

No one can be this dense. You must be doing it on purpose. Or did you forget the whole context of this event ?



Of course I have. Geez, it's like you've forgotten the whole thread so far.

What context?

Naked, unarmed student walks slowly towards cop and gets shot. What part have I missed?

I'm asking how dangerous he was likely to be. Yes a fistfight can be dangerous. But is a risk of death higher than 0% really worth resorting to lethal force?

I ask you a question and you call me dense? Dodge.

 

[Nessie]

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.

Way to follow along and read for comprehension.

A fistfight most certainly can become deadly.

That attitude, which is shared by many Americans, especially those who are gun fans is what causes so many deaths by firearm in the USA. To the rest of the Western world such an attitude is excessive. I am confident in saying that as the only support I can find for the American gun attitude towards self defence is from American gun owners.

Collar got shot because he met a cop with your attitude. That is all it is, attitude, have gun, look deadly (vaguely deadly will do) and shoot.

 

[Nessie]

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.

But he will still have been trained and we know the Alabama Uni had policies about use of force, which Austin should have known.

 

[Nessie]

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.



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.



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.

It is about level of threat. Unarmed people pose a lower level of threat that armed people in the vast majority of cases. Being under the influence can lower a persons threat level. Have you see drunks trying to fight? Do you get many pot heads going rage?

You are another who sees deadly danger in everything and cannot get to grips with the scale of threat and reacting appropriately.

 

[Nessie]

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.



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

Those cases are part of the reason for this thread as a whole as they contain lame excuses to shoot. (Most of the discussion has ended up about the Collar case) They are examples of people who are scared will shoot and get away with it with lame excuses. The reason why I say scared is that in neither case of de Vries nor Hattori had the shooters reason to be fearful for their life. Neither had Austin. But they still shot and killed. Like you they do not get the level of force rises and falls with the level of threat.

But if I was to end up in any form of dispute with you, say we crash into each other and you are angry or see just how big I am, you may seem as a deadly threat and shoot me. Even though I would never pose a deadly threat to you. My fear of someone with guns who will use them at a low level of threat is a rational fear.

American is a lovely place, I have relatives, visited and worked there. I think attitudes to guns stink, but much of what is America is brilliant.

 

[Nessie]

Read my previous post.



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



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

A decent cop and indeed a sensible person can make distinctions over threat level far easier than you think. My evidence for that are the thousands of arrests and threat situations that go on every day with the police without issue. Collar gets into the news because sensible people saw the story and went, hold on that one is wrong.

Unarmed does not mean deadly threat either.

 

[Nessie]

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.

It is not a loaded question. Collar we think was on PCP, he is described by some including you as a deadly threat, so it is a very relevant question to ask about the influence of PCP on his threat level.

So without evidence, you think it makes you a not worse or better fighter with a high tolerance to pain. I looked for evidence to see if that was the case and have found nothing. So the real answer is we do not know yet.