How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Nessie]

Yes, competent cops instantly adapt to any scenario ! It's hilarious that I'm told I misrepresent your posts when you say such ridiculous things.

Please clarify for me. Do you think that a competent cop can or cannot instantly adapt to a changing scenario?

 

[Nessie]

The life of the cop, yes. He's the one under threat. The problem here is that we are dealing with theory vs practics. Ideology vs reality. The latter is what matters. Again, this isn't a comic book where the heroes always manage to capture the bad guys alive.

I say you are the one who is based on theory and ideology. From the facts about the case and how the police should operate, DreamingNaiad and I have been dealing in practice and reality.

 

[Nessie]

Nessie - As much as I tend to disagree with you on this from my background, I do want to say you sound like a good police officer of the kind I would be proud to know/work with. Just different thought processes and backgrounds here.

Thankyou. It is not just me though. I often find that I have more years service than all the people I work with. I work in a very rough part of Scotland (with some nice parts thrown in) and when I watch teenagers and guys and girls in their early 20s go out on patrol and answering calls I think bloody hell, don't the police look young. I felt very old when someone came onto my shift who had been born after I joined the police !

I see these kids go out and make brilliant decisions all the time, use their powers responsibly, put up with all sorts of crap and abuse and take minor injuries with a shrug. They and those who they arrest hardly ever get injured enough even to warrant a trip to the hospital and even then it more as a just in case than serious injury.

They bring back people high on drugs, alcohol and anger all the time. And I mean very regularly, the last time I checked 98% of arrested people on a weekend shift were under the influence of something. They primarily use cuffs and fast straps, occasionally CS and very occasionally a baton strike. We do not have tazers or guns. They deal with people with knives, bits of wood, rocks, broken bottles, metal pipes indeed anything the criminals can lay their hands on.

I still go out and join them outwith the paper work! When I tell them about Officer Austin and how he arrested Collar they look dumbfounded. If they killed a nude student high on drugs they would be facing a manslaughter charge minimum. But what I would expect is that they would be laughing in the canteen about that nudie bloke who was acting strange who is now sobering up in the cells. One of them would have been sent to get some clothes for him for when he was released. If he had come quietly the charge would be a breach of the peace and if he had no previous he would get a £40 fine fixed penalty ticket. Or if he had resisted arrest (when hands were laid on him to cuff and restrain him) he would be the subject of a police report. I would expect him to get a warning and a small fine.

Yes we have very different backgrounds.

 

[Nessie]

The draw for the pistol should be well under two seconds - though I'll buy that for the handcuffs. 2 seconds can be the end of a lifetime.

Yes, I had a go and cuffs and baton are under a second, so long you do not fluff undoing the clip. Then it can be 2 seconds.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

What information did he gather before rushing out to meet the unknown with his gun? Of course, most posters here without advanced psychic abilities won't be able to answer that. But you should be able to answer what he should have done to be best prepared.

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.

Did I make that claim? I've been saying that Collar may not have even been aware of the significance of the gun.

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

We don't know what drugs the cop was on so we cannot say to what degree he was aware of his surroundings. But the news article said the second officer arrived as the shot was fired. Unless these campus cops drive around at night with their lights off, he would have been aware that a car was approaching. He would have also heard the engine and tire noise from a block or more away.

Then there is the other piece of standard police equipment that you rarely see an active officer without, the radio. If Austin had taken his radio and remembered to turn it on, he would have heard the dispatcher putting out the call for backup. He would also have heard the responding officers reply. I'm surprised that the radio transcripts have not been released yet.

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.

I get the impression that you are using a cheap imitation web browser, perhaps a blackberry. Even then, you should have been able to see the truth behind the words when you quoted the text in your reply.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

Does Alabama law say you are allowed to kill someone just because you are scared? I have not looked up the particular statutes but usually there is a qualifier there.

 

[Belz...]

Apparently to accurately determine threat levels and adjust your actions based on that makes you super-human. How ludicrous to expect a cop to be capable of this!

You know, actually reading posts would help you not look like a fool:

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.

Bolding mine. That's the part I was responding to. You, of course, didn't see it because it wasn't convenient.

It's not only in comic books that bad guys are captured alive. It happens remarkably often in real life.

Yes. You might want to note the circumstances in those cases, however, and how they differ from those of this one. Or is that too complicated ?

It could and should have happened in this instance.

No one here has made a solid case for that conclusion with the evidence we have so far. This is just your opinion.

 

[Belz...]

That is where you are so wrong. The thousands of arrests that are made every day without issue prove there is no need for supercop fantasy powers which you have made up from a point of ignorance about how the police actually function.

See my previous post, bolded.

If it does not work a competent police officer will try something else.

Instantly !

So if they cannot subdue with cuffs alone, a baton strike may now be reasonable. If the does not work then CS and so on.

After all he has all the time in the world.

 

[Belz...]

Please clarify for me. Do you think that a competent cop can or cannot instantly adapt to a changing scenario?

I think humans can rarely instantly do anything, especially react to complex scenarios. They can react quickly, but I wouldn't assume that by "adapt" it means they will do the exact, proper (in hindsight) thing.

I say you are the one who is based on theory and ideology. From the facts about the case and how the police should operate, DreamingNaiad and I have been dealing in practice and reality.

Remind me how your personal experience relates to the event in question ?

 

[Dan O.]

He would likely be resistant to baton strikes and CS, meaning tasers, at least.

What drug was this student on that his vision would not be severely limited by an application of CS to the eyes. Of course, it would have been better in that case to be in a location where obstacles would prevent the student from blindly lunging at the officer. Too bad there weren't any heavy obstacles in the area such as concrete picnic tables.

 

[Nessie]

I think humans can rarely instantly do anything, especially react to complex scenarios. They can react quickly, but I wouldn't assume that by "adapt" it means they will do the exact, proper (in hindsight) thing.



Remind me how your personal experience relates to the event in question ?

I say a competent cop can react instantly to a change of circumstances. A weapon drawn by a criminal will result in a baton, C/S or gun drawn instantly. A guy who kneels down and throws there weapon away will result in a cop instantly deciding not to shoot or baton them anymore.

My personal experience and the experience of thousands of cops making arrests every day of people at all sorts of threat levels without killing or being killed shows that I am right when I say police officers can and should react not just instantly but also appropriately.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...saulted-type-weapon-percent-injured-01-10.xls

Lots of officer assaults by unarmed perps, apparently. "personal weapons" meaning hands/feet/pushed

It looks like only one officer was killed that way in the last decade, which we would expect given that officers are armed.

Apparently, 7 officers were killed in 2010 with their own weapon.

 

[triforcharity]

That attitude, which is shared by many Americans,

Based on your own preconceived bias....

especially those who are gun fans is what causes so many deaths by firearm in the USA.

Bull ****. Again, your bias and ignorance is showing again.

Most deaths by firearms are not from lawful gun owners. The vast majority are done by idiots, who disobey the law, and don't follow the rules.

BTW, this may come as a surprise to you, but of the 20 or so weapons I have, not one has ever killed a person. Ever. Imagine that.

To the rest of the Western world such an attitude is excessive.

Again, your ignorant, biased, opinion is duly noted.

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.

Well, who else to judge our self defense laws, than US? I think that (IIRC, Australia) has very limited guns. I wouldn't live there. I think not being allowed to have guns is excessive government intrusion.

But, it's the way it is in Australia. And many other places. I'm fine with that. I don't ridicule them because they do things differently.

Collar got shot because he met a cop with your attitude.

What attitude is that? The one that I legitimately have, or the one your ignorance and hatred of Americans is making up?

That is all it is, attitude, have gun, look deadly (vaguely deadly will do) and shoot.

Wow. Again, you'd never even know that I had a gun, so how does that even fit? I'd go to great lengths not to shoot someone. However, if I needed to use it, I wouldn't hesitate.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

You know, actually reading posts would help you not look like a fool:



Bolding mine. That's the part I was responding to. You, of course, didn't see it because it wasn't convenient.



Yes. You might want to note the circumstances in those cases, however, and how they differ from those of this one. Or is that too complicated ?



No one here has made a solid case for that conclusion with the evidence we have so far. This is just your opinion.

I didn't realise you were still holding on to the 'really slow thinking cop thing'.

Cops do need to be able to make assessments like this (attempts to click fingers. Fails.)

Would the world 'quickly' be better?

If someone walked up to you and punched you, would you be able to instantly recognise that they mean you harm? Or would you need to call a time out to think it through?

 

[triforcharity]

Those cases are part of the reason for this thread as a whole as they contain lame excuses to shoot.

I'd agree, some of those are not legitimate self defense claims, IMO. I'd agree with you.

(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.

Get away with it? Perhaps you need to research the cases you cited a little more.

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.

Agree, to a degree. The older man who shot the kid in his driveway may have feared for his safety, however it wasn't justified. In fact, he ended up losing in a civil court, and said he'd never own a gun again.

Neither had Austin. But they still shot and killed.

No correct. Your OPINION (which again, we know what that is based on) is that the officer didn't have a right to shoot. I, as well as many in the law enforcement community, agree that he did.

The fact that you disagree with that is what forms your entire argument. We do things differently here, and your opinion is based on Scottish laws, and not American laws.

Like you they do not get the level of force rises and falls with the level of threat.

BBBBZZZZTTTTTTTT!!! If you charge me with a bunny rabbit, you're no threat to me. Charge me with a knife, and I will draw and fire.

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 see me FTFY, typo. as a deadly threat and shoot me.

Wrong again. You, just being in my presence, even yelling a screaming, are not a threat to me. Now, while we're yelling (You bloody wank!! ) you retrieve a tire iron from your car and run towards me, you're now a threat.

Even though I would never pose a deadly threat to you.

And I to you.

My fear of someone with guns who will use them at a low level of threat is a rational an irrational fear.

I've been a CWP holder for well over 10 years. In that time, I have drawn my weapon once, and never fired it. Most CWP holders that I know, (I know dozens personally) have never fired their weapon in self defense.

In fact, unless you do something legitimately threatening to someone, you don't have to worry. There are, (IIRC) about 800,000 CWP holders in Florida. Of those, I know of only 2 in recent months that have fired their weapon. Once was an old man in a gaming type casino when it was robbed at gunpoint. He drew his weapon, and fired till it was empty, causing the robbery to scatter. Nobody but the robbers hurt, and the store owner didn't lose a dime of their hard earned money.

Here is the video.



I can post these for days.

The second, which I'm sure you've heard of, is George Zimmerman.

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.

So, good, your opinion is again, based on your own preconceived bias against guns. That's fine. I'm biased against New York Yankee fans. Doesn't mean I have a right to try to chance the way the Yankees do things, does it?

 

[triforcharity]

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.

So, someone is MORE tolerant to pain, and this wouldn't have any effect on him in a fight? You're losing it. Seriously.

 

[triforcharity]

You are talking tough and then when challenged with real life cases back down and say that was not what you meant. You and Belz are very good at dealing with fiction but not with fact. I wish you would stick to the actual cases under discussion rather than trying to right them off as strawmen.

So do you agree the shootings of de Vries and Hattori are lame excuses to kill?

Read my post. I explain it very simply. You even quoted it.

 

[triforcharity]

No one has ever tried to kill me, or at least what I would say was a real attempt to kill. I have had a good few threats to kill as people go to attack me but I didn't see any as actually life threatening.

Awesome. I'm stoked that you've never had to experience that fear.

The pro gun lobby often sites a telephone survey from the 1990s (Kleck and Gertz) which claimed 2.5 million DGUs a year in the US. All they did was ask people, have you used your gun defensively? Other surveys such as by Denton and Fabricius and David Hemenway have then gone on a step further to see if the DGU was really a DGU or not. They have found that many DGUs were unjustifiable and not DGUs at all.

Huh? What's a DGU? Can you cite your source please? A link will do fine.

I would be interested in what you believed was an attempt to kill and if, since your perceived threat level of deadly force is low, were they really attempts to kill or not.

Well, the first was when someone tried to yank me out of my car while threatening to hit me with a baseball bat, so yes, I would consider that about as close to an attempt to kill me as I would ever want to feel.

I'll ignore the hilited ignorance. Again.

 

[Sledge]

I'm really not seeing what the issue is here. If someone with a gun tells you to stay back and you keep advancing, you get shot. That seems fairly obvious. The cop had a right to defend himself, even if we ignore his responsibility to keep someone from taking his gun.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

I'd agree, some of those are not legitimate self defense claims, IMO. I'd agree with you.



Get away with it? Perhaps you need to research the cases you cited a little more.



Agree, to a degree. The older man who shot the kid in his driveway may have feared for his safety, however it wasn't justified. In fact, he ended up losing in a civil court, and said he'd never own a gun again.



No correct. Your OPINION (which again, we know what that is based on) is that the officer didn't have a right to shoot. I, as well as many in the law enforcement community, agree that he did.

The fact that you disagree with that is what forms your entire argument. We do things differently here, and your opinion is based on Scottish laws, and not American laws.



BBBBZZZZTTTTTTTT!!! If you charge me with a bunny rabbit, you're no threat to me. Charge me with a knife, and I will draw and fire.




Wrong again. You, just being in my presence, even yelling a screaming, are not a threat to me. Now, while we're yelling (You bloody wank!! ) you retrieve a tire iron from your car and run towards me, you're now a threat.



And I to you.



I've been a CWP holder for well over 10 years. In that time, I have drawn my weapon once, and never fired it. Most CWP holders that I know, (I know dozens personally) have never fired their weapon in self defense.

In fact, unless you do something legitimately threatening to someone, you don't have to worry. There are, (IIRC) about 800,000 CWP holders in Florida. Of those, I know of only 2 in recent months that have fired their weapon. Once was an old man in a gaming type casino when it was robbed at gunpoint. He drew his weapon, and fired till it was empty, causing the robbery to scatter. Nobody but the robbers hurt, and the store owner didn't lose a dime of their hard earned money.

Here is the video.



I can post these for days.

The second, which I'm sure you've heard of, is George Zimmerman.



So, good, your opinion is again, based on your own preconceived bias against guns. That's fine. I'm biased against New York Yankee fans. Doesn't mean I have a right to try to chance the way the Yankees do things, does it?

I just disagree that he was a legitimate threat. A possible threat maybe but not legitimate.

Doesn't it concern you that he would likely be alive in the UK? Surely if our cops can do it, yours can.

Do you think the UK police take too many risks by not having more force?