How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Nessie]

You forgot

C)it was impossible to determine whether or not he could reliably disable the student.

Or is what he actually knew at the time irrelevant?

C is wrong, it is possible to determine threat levels with a high degree of accuracy and in any case they should be adjusted instantly as a situation develops. If a cop cannot determine appropriate levels of force they should not be in the job.

I would rate a medium sized, nude student on drugs acting erratically who is a wrestler as a medium threat. I would definitely be ready to use open handed fend offs and holds. I would certainly have my cuffs ready, I would certainly be looking for back up and would consider CS spray and baton. I would never consider deadly force.

I believe that the evidence to show my assessment is correct is that many more people high on drugs are arrested without resort to deadly force than are shot. Indeed I cannot think of or find any UK cases where someone high on drugs (even those who posed a greater threat than Collar did due to size etc) have ever been shot. That is no one at all ever.

 

[Nessie]

You seem to have dodged a question there. Two, in fact.

Please ask the questions I have supposedly dodged.

 

[000063]

Of course there are. The answer is yes.

And I agree with you in that. Where I differ, it seems, is that I think this particular usage was justified. I am glad to be proven wrong about your non-resp -

I have spoken at length about Collars actions. Reasonable is not a descriptive I would say applies to anyone high on drugs. Neither is kind or gentle. What is your point?

*sigh*
That's still not a firm answer specifically regarding Collar. That's about two qualifiers worth of wriggle room.

My point, as I said before, is that some of the actions you said he should take, notably "talking him down" require the subject to be reasonable. Evidence indicates that he wasn't, therefore those methods could be reasonably expected not to work.

 

[000063]

Here's an anecdotal story to go along with that.

While driving home from the range today (with a whole cache of different weapons) I was stopped by the local police. (I was speeding... and have a cracked windshield due to a rock this AM.....)

The officer approached my door, and asked me why I was speeding. I calmy kept my hands on the wheel, and explained to him that I was currently armed, and had a few different weapons in my car, most loaded.

He told me to stop, not to move, and to explain where my guns were. I then proceeded to explain I had 3 long guns in the back of my truck, and one .40 cal. in a holster on my hip.

He asked me to step out of the vehicle slowly, without reaching for my weapon. He then told me to stop, lift my shirt, and show him my weapon so he could secure it.

This was not a gunpoint though. But the thing is, I did exactly as the officer said, without question, when he told me to do something. If I had reached for my gun, I guarantee I wouldn't be typing this right now.

He asked, I complied. I received a fix-it ticket, and a thank you from the officer for being honest about my weapons, and also for the cooperation.
I never would imagine making any kind of threatening move at that point. None whatsoever.

And you weren't shot? Wow. I thought some people were saying American cops would shoot you if you could even possibly be a threat.

 

[000063]

Why do I need to acknowledge that when it isn't part of the argument that I am making. My argument isn't about the gun being drawn. It's about the officer stepping outside alone into what he perceived to be a dangerous situation. The fact that the officer drew his gun first goes to establishing the state of mind of the officer.

And as I literally just asserted in the post you quoted, he would've drawn his gun if he thought a threat was likely, not just confirmed.

It doesn't only matter if it's part of your argument. What matters is if it refutes your argument. Goes to refute the claim that merely having the gun out "escalated" the situation.

Will you acknowledge that was a liebeing uninformed on your part?

The police dispatcher can be seen opening the station's front door in response to the sound of gunfire. A second officer arrives just as Collar is being shot. Collar gets up twice and the officers pursue him.

Sheriff Sam Cochran said two officers handcuffed Collar to subdue him after he was shot, but that could not be clearly seen on the video. A second backup officer arrived just as the two-minute video ended.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-shows-ala-teen-fatal-shooting-article-1.1181371​

I hope I don't have to explain what a dispatcher does.

I think you're confusing "backup arrived" with "he knew backup was coming".

Also, I thought we couldn't call people liars? Didn't you make that point? Heck, I even reported my own posts, just to be sure.

 

[000063]

000063. Your posts often read as if you are miles behind with the discussion and you have not been reading the links and keeping up with information coming from the University.

And you, as I have asserted, continually apply stances to people in this argument that they have never expressed and have in fact explicitly denied.

 

[Nessie]

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.

Most firearm deaths in the US are from illegally owned weapons, Nessie.

I've been supporting it throughout this thread, and I'm not American, as it clearly says, nor do I own or plan to purchase a gun. You have, therefore, found an exception.

On what basis do you conclude people supporting the use of firearms in self-defense are gun owners? Did they say so?

You've been contradicted on this several times. It's still wrong.

What has illegally held guns got to do with the topic?

OK, you are the exception to the rule. Do you already have or do you want US gun laws and possession of guns to be the norm in your country?

It is based on research of DGUs and gun ownership by the likes of Kleck, Gertz, Hemenway etc. Handgun purchases are primarily for self defence and not sport or hunting.

I may have been contradicted, but I have not been shown to be wrong. Having a gun compared to not having a gun makes shooting more likely. Drawing your gun compared to keeping it holstered makes its use more likely. Going for a gun instead of baton, cuffs or CS makes the use of the gun more likely. There was an earlier post by a US cop about his training regards to guns and arrests which detailed that.

There have been studies which show carrying a gun makes you more scared and more likely to use it

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/study-carrying-a-gun-can-make-you-more-paranoid/10875

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ncreases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

 

[DreamingNaiad]

This post shows very well that you think the student wasn't a threat (notice I didn't say harmless, which is a misrepresentation by you, in a post where you accused me of misrepresenting you.) If A) you think it's worrying, presumably because the cop should've been able to go hand-to-hand with the perp and subdue him. No problem !

You said I claimed he was not a threat. Another word for that would beeee ... harmless.

And yes, I don't think it's too much to expect a cop to at least attempt to subdue an unarmed man in a non lethal fashion. I haven't said he wasn't a threat, just that the threat was so small the cop should have taken the risk of injury (even the miniscule death risk) rather than jump straight to lethal force.

 

[000063]

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.

Straw man. The officer believed he was at a significant risk of great bodily harm or death, and fired to protect himself. As a side effect of that belief, he was likely scared. It is possible to be in a serious situation and not even notice being scared until after its over, or to not be scared at all.

 

[Nessie]

The cop should know about assessing threat levels, that is what cops should do and they cannot or will not assess threat levels and adjust accordingly they should not be cops.

Your descriptives of thought processes are wholly inaccurate. Thinking about statistics

If it is a hard as you make out to assess threat levels, why don't all US cops draw their guns at everyone and every thing?

Why does the Alabama University have a policy on reasonable force and threat levels?

I believe my conclusion does follow from what you have said. Go on with your ad hominems all you want, it all you have left as you cannot and will not deal with the cases in question.

Did Collar pose a deadly threat? Did de Vreis or Hattori? If not why not? All we get from you is the police officer cannot know about threats, which is wrong.

The cop DID. It doesn't follow that they can always accurately divine the actual threat level.



Because, as people have been trying to make you understand for many, many DAYS now, each situation is different. You're being dishonest, again, by ignoring that.



I don't believe you.



Irrelevant.

So are you accepting Austin got the threat level wrong? Or are you still skirting around the actual topic making up fantasies?

For days now I have been saying and showing to others that each situation is different, though within the differences there are similarities. Those similarities are what makes it possible and for a good cop easy to identify threat levels very accurately. Some thing Austin failed at by shooting Collar. As did the shooters of de Vries and Hattori.

So you do not believe me? Show me why.

Why are the cases that started off this topic irrelevant to the topic?

 

[Nessie]

And I agree with you in that. Where I differ, it seems, is that I think this particular usage was justified. I am glad to be proven wrong about your non-resp -



*sigh*
That's still not a firm answer specifically regarding Collar. That's about two qualifiers worth of wriggle room.

My point, as I said before, is that some of the actions you said he should take, notably "talking him down" require the subject to be reasonable. Evidence indicates that he wasn't, therefore those methods could be reasonably expected not to work.

Taking someone down must have a different meaning for us then. For me to take someone down means they are not cooperative and you have to use open handed fend offs or restraints, cuffs or in extreme baton. So that means they are not being reasonable. That is medium.

Reasonable or as we would say cooperative means they will either just go with you which you do with children, pregnant women, disabled or elderly, or you use a come along hold, which just means they walk with you as you hold onto them, or you use a cuffing technique for cooperative people. We do that as you should cuff someone who is transported in a vehicle. That is low.

The high levels of force are full baton strikes and CS spray and then absolute last resort are tazers and guns. That is high.

I see Collar as medium. What do you see him as?

 

[000063]

Yeah I have this mad idea that a dead student is worse than an injured, live cop.

It stems from the archaic notion of cops protecting members of the public, even from themselves.

Are people overestimating the injuring power of the student as well?

 

[Nessie]

And you weren't shot? Wow. I thought some people were saying American cops would shoot you if you could even possibly be a threat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...NYPD-accused-of-fatal-road-rage-shooting.html

http://investmentwatchblog.com/nypd...rmed-national-guardsman-for-cutting-them-off/

Witnesses ay he kept his hands on the steering wheel as well.

 

[000063]

Taking someone down must have a different meaning for us then. For me to take someone down means they are not cooperative and you have to use open handed fend offs or restraints, cuffs or in extreme baton. So that means they are not being reasonable. That is medium.

Talking. With an L.

Reasonable or as we would say cooperative means they will either just go with you which you do with children, pregnant women, disabled or elderly, or you use a come along hold, which just means they walk with you as you hold onto them, or you use a cuffing technique for cooperative people. We do that as you should cuff someone who is transported in a vehicle. That is low.

The high levels of force are full baton strikes and CS spray and then absolute last resort are tazers and guns. That is high.

I see Collar as medium. What do you see him as?

High, in that he is a well-muscled possibly drugged man who is ignoring both police orders and a drawn weapon.

He would likely be resistant to baton strikes and CS, meaning tasers, at least. Again, draw time. Also, tasers are not a last resort. There's a big gap between them and guns, at least. In some districts, cops are tased as part of training. In fact, this page places them at about the same level as CS and batons.

http://nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/continuum.htm

 

[Nessie]

And you, as I have asserted, continually apply stances to people in this argument that they have never expressed and have in fact explicitly denied.

When I have received confirmation form the people I was referring to I have stopped. I do not care if you say something about someone else, I want it from them.

I refuse to be dissuaded from asking follow up questions to get more detail about people's stances.

So if someone says, shoot 100% that needs clarification and will attract follow up questions to and from them. Not you.

 

[Nessie]

Are people overestimating the injuring power of the student as well?

I certainly think so. His injuring power was not enough to justify going straight to pointing a gun at him and then considering what he did shooting him.

 

[000063]

So are you accepting Austin got the threat level wrong? Or are you still skirting around the actual topic making up fantasies?

For days now I have been saying and showing to others that each situation is different, though within the differences there are similarities. Those similarities are what makes it possible and for a good cop easy to identify threat levels very accurately. Some thing Austin failed at by shooting Collar. As did the shooters of de Vries and Hattori.

So you do not believe me? Show me why.

Because it may easily be impossible for an officer to determine someone's actual threat level with total certainty. In this case, there is a very slim but non-zero chance the subject, in his altered state, just wanted a hug. Which is why the law doesn't rely on total certainty, just reasonable certainty.

Why are the cases that started off this topic irrelevant to the topic?

The question is not whether he actually was a deadly threat. The question is whether he could reasonably be judged as enough of a serious/deadly threat to justify deadly force. Whether he was a deadly threat alone is not relevant.

 

[000063]

What has illegally held guns got to do with the topic?

Well, you mentioned American "gun fans" causing "so many" deaths by firearm in the US. Most gun fans own their guns legally, and never kill anyone.

OK, you are the exception to the rule. Do you already have or do you want US gun laws and possession of guns to be the norm in your country?

I'm not living in my country. I am not from, nor have I spent any significant amount of time in the US, nor have I ever handled a loaded weapon. Neither my country of origin or residence have gun laws or possession comparable to the US, but I'm not telling you whether it's up or down. But please, keep trying to win points on something irrelevant to the actual discussion.

It is based on research of DGUs and gun ownership by the likes of Kleck, Gertz, Hemenway etc. Handgun purchases are primarily for self defence and not sport or hunting.

Which leaves shotguns, rifles...

I may have been contradicted, but I have not been shown to be wrong. Having a gun compared to not having a gun makes shooting more likely. Drawing your gun compared to keeping it holstered makes its use more likely.

In that you are less likely to be interrupted if a situation arises where it needs to be used, yes. However, suspects are less likely to attack an officer with their weapon drawn.

Going for a gun instead of baton, cuffs or CS makes the use of the gun more likely.

Which is why it's standard police procedure in risky situations, including those with "vaguely deadly" subjects, yet most are dealt with peacefully, and most cops never shoot at anyone. In raw statistics, yes, it's easier to shoot someone if you already have a gun out. But that does not mean, as you asserted way back, that merely going outside with the gun made the shooting inevitable, or that the shooting itself wasn't justified.

Also, baton use requires grappling, and CS is ineffective on many people on drugs. Cuffs are useful when the suspect has submitted or been subdued. And all of those require time to draw.

Also, he still could've just put the gun away and used any of those if he thought it appropriate, regardless of whether he drew it inside or outside.

There was an earlier post by a US cop about his training regards to guns and arrests which detailed that.

There have been studies which show carrying a gun makes you more scared and more likely to use it

Were those for random civilians or trained cops?

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/study-carrying-a-gun-can-make-you-more-paranoid/10875

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ncreases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

A comment on the first article points out they didn't say they sampled anyone who actually owned or uses guns regularly. There's a number of interesting criticisms in both articles, in fact. Actual gun enthusiasts often stress the responsibility in using a firearm. Even pointing the gun at someone you aren't willing to shoot is taken very seriously.

 

[000063]

I certainly think so. His injuring power was not enough to justify going straight to pointing a gun at him and then considering what he did shooting him.

I posted an account of a guy who was shot at close range by a cop and went on to kill him in cold blood with a rifle. As someone pointed out, many US homicides are unarmed. About 15% in 2008, according to this, and 6%, says this. And given the subject's likely resistance to pain and apparent physical fitness, there was a significant risk of him being able to seriously harm the officer in a fight.

And, once again, drawing a gun does not mean it was his first resort, and the officer tried evading and commanding the suspect. You have been informed of this several times, no matter how many times you try to conflate drawing a weapon with using it, especially since the option always exists to put the weapon away.

 

[000063]

When I have received confirmation form the people I was referring to I have stopped. I do not care if you say something about someone else, I want it from them.

That is an arbitrary standard of proof.

I refuse to be dissuaded from asking follow up questions to get more detail about people's stances.

Except you've asked questions about stances and then acted like such questions were directly relevant to their stances. Notably, the "should we shoot all people on drugs? Is that the only option" which you said weakened the case of the people who said this particular shooting was justified.

So if someone says, shoot 100% that needs clarification and will attract follow up questions to and from them. Not you.

Nope. You've made generalist claims about stances which were false. In fact, you said, at some point, someone had said that it was okay to shoot all people on drugs. In fact, I just contradicted you on something that you've been proven wrong on several times.