How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Belz...]

I say a competent cop can react instantly to a change of circumstances.

Right, a super-cop. After I explained my problem with the term "instantly", you continue to use it, so don't act surprised when I continue to object to it.

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.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

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.

That doesn't answer my question. Were you a law-enforcement officer ?

 

[Belz...]

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

With all the things you guys say the cop should consider in a split moment, yes I think my version is "slow" by comparison.

Would the world 'quickly' be better?

Absolutely. Given the sometimes exaggerated standards some posters have demanded of cops, I think it reasonable that we avoid words that exacerbate the issue.

If someone walked up to you and punched you, would you be able to instantly recognise that they mean you harm?

It depends on the situation. Oh, gee, who'd have thought ?

 

[Belz...]

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.

Obvious ? My good man, you'd be an awful cop ! You should think about the life of the person in front of you, and make every effort; repeat : every effort, to subdue him. No matter what. After all, unarmed people are cuddly and nice (exaggerated, I know).

 

[Belz...]

sorry, 1st post messup

A cop would've got that post right on the first try !

 

[Belz...]

I already answered that. In that very post. I can't find any occasions where naked, unarmed students have killed cops.

No wonder. You're specifically looking for naked ones. I assure you, clothes do not make them more deadly. But you've been told this numerous times already.

Do you think he was a likely deadly threat?

Or just a possible one?

I don't think the cop could afford to find out.

 

[Belz...]

Bear in mind my opinion is based on a number of key facts, the main one for this thread being the lame excuses people use for shooting.

< snicker> Yeah, self-defense is soooooo lame !

Ten of thousands if not hundreds of arrests of people high on drugs without shooting them.

Which has no bearing on this specific case.

 

[Nessie]

Right, a super-cop. After I explained my problem with the term "instantly", you continue to use it, so don't act surprised when I continue to object to it.



I don't think that word means what you think it means.



That doesn't answer my question. Were you a law-enforcement officer ?

Semantic games. Fact is Austin's initial reaction was wrong as we have shown evidence that student wrestlers on drugs don't kill police officers and are a medium threat. Fact is Austin reacted slowly in that be had one reaction and despite keeping his distance and having opportunities when Collar dropped to his knees to approach with cuffs, he did not do so. Also despite back up arriving very quickly he did not alter his tactics.

If people want to say he did not know about back up or when it would get there, he should have known as he could use a radio whilst holding his gun. If he did not he and the dispatcher failed somehow.

Austin failed to handle the situation and slow reactions played a part.

As I keep pointing out hundreds of thousands of people are arrested whilst high on drugs in all sorts of risk situations from low to high without shooting them.

I also note dodges about whether Collar was a low medium or high risk and comparisons to see what others would consider as such a risk.

 

[Nessie]

Obvious ? My good man, you'd be an awful cop ! You should think about the life of the person in front of you, and make every effort; repeat : every effort, to subdue him. No matter what. After all, unarmed people are cuddly and nice (exaggerated, I know).

That is exactly what the police should try and do as far as possible in every arrest because the police are not the prosecutor to determin sentence. It is the police's duty to put people to court. Failure to do so without a very good reason is summary justice.

 

[Nessie]

No wonder. You're specifically looking for naked ones. I assure you, clothes do not make them more deadly. But you've been told this numerous times already.



I don't think the cop could afford to find out.

I am the only one here to do any research on how dangerous wrestlers are. You have done nothing to back up your hypothesis.

A cop not being sure about a threat level fom a nude student high and acting irrationally should not be a cop. The reason for that is if they cannot assess the threat level from seeing Collar then how will they do it in any other situation? I would worry Austin may be too inclined to shoot no matter what.

 

[Nessie]

< snicker> Yeah, self-defense is soooooo lame !



Which has no bearing on this specific case.

Self defence is a lame excuse where it is deadly force against a low or medium threat.

I can understand why you want to deal with this instance in isolation and ignore other arrests as you cannot offer any reason why others are arrested without being shot dead.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

This is an obviously fallacious misuse of 'statistics'. For one you're including absolute risk with risk at that instance, and for another you're including irrelevant facts into the equation.

For example, it's rare for any given death to be caused by falling patina-green copper roof tiles. It's fallacious to conclude that therefore those falling patina-green copper roof tiles aren't dangerous or unlikely to cause harm.

That he was naked isn't really relevant besides to make it clear that he's not concealing a weapon. The other person being a cop isn't relevant for the danger either. A slam to the ground doesn't magically hurt a cop less. Unarmed doesn't not mean not a threat either. Would you risk being body slammed by a muscly 135 lbs man onto hard dirt or concrete? You shouldn't, because it's a deadly risk.

So what you're really looking for is beating or slamming deaths. You'll find them more common than 'to a cop, by a naked unarmed male students of 135 lbs on a Tuesday'.

Roof tiles falling on you are different from an unarmed man walking towards you. This is more like seeing a loose tile and shooting it instead of getting a ladder and dealing with it.

No one has said he absolutely could not have been a threat, only that the small chance that he was doesn't justify killing him.

I did keep 'naked' in there to show there were no concealed weapons. And because people running around naked aren't usually the best at doing as they're told. So moving from talking (which he was unlikely to respond to) to shooting him in the chest seems like overkill. Like there could have been a middle ground.

A risk of death and a likely risk of death are different things.

I dont think its wrong to want to know how many clearly unarmed (naked) people have severely injured or killed cops. Cops have self-defence training. To lump them in with people with no training watsoever seems insulting. Unless you are saying they have just as much training as average citizens. But I doubt that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Good job the highly trained UK Cops don't carry guns as standard.

Blind man Tazered by cop who mistakes his white stick fora Samurai Sword
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-19979184

 

[tyr_13]

I did just that earlier in the thread and found abour 7 instances of pro-wrestlers who had killed with moves and one with a kid. So it it is very very rare and so police should take that into account when arresting wrestlers. It is very very rare for ghem to kill and most involve the man mountain wrestler which Collar was not.

That's again, a misuse of statistics. Why would you limit it to wrestlers, let alone pro-wrestlers who are trying not to actually hurt the other guy?

Beating or slamming deaths is what you're looking for.

EDIT: And it's again fallacious. Those falling roof tiles are very, very rare to be the cause of death which doesn't make specific falling tiles not deadly.

 

[Nessie]

That's again, a misuse of statistics. Why would you limit it to wrestlers, let alone pro-wrestlers who are trying not to actually hurt the other guy?

Beating or slamming deaths is what you're looking for.

EDIT: And it's again fallacious. Those falling roof tiles are very, very rare to be the cause of death which doesn't make specific falling tiles not deadly.

So now, after so many saying one of the reasons Collar was a deadly threat was because he was a wrestler, him being a wrestler is no longer relevant.

Since roof tiles are so rarely deadly we are not worried about them and happily walk under them. Since cops being beaten to death by young men on drugs is so rare it is reasonable to say the risk of death is low and injury medium.

I cannot find anything for the US, as in no lists nor an example of a police officer being beaten to death (just lots of reports of police beating others to death). Twenty five UK police officers have been assaulted or beaten to death since 1900.

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

 

[Nessie]

Good job the highly trained UK Cops don't carry guns as standard.

Blind man Tazered by cop who mistakes his white stick fora Samurai Sword
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-19979184

Another reason why I do not want routine arming of the police in the UK with guns.

 

[tyr_13]

So now, after so many saying one of the reasons Collar was a deadly threat was because he was a wrestler, him being a wrestler is no longer relevant.

Being a wrestler gave him skills, training, and the physic to perform moves that are originally designed to be dangerous and used in combat when not on a mat (even on a mat they still hurt by the way). That these skills are in every day life rarely actually used to cause harm in no way, shape, or form causes them not to be dangerous or deadly. If we were talking about the need to say, restrict access to this training or prepare officers for attacks from martial artists the absolute risk and rarity of the use of these moves would be germane to the topic. The absolute risk is low not because the moves aren't dangerous or deadly, but because they are rarely employed. To talk about how dangerous the moves can actually be when used against someone in earnest that is not the correct criteria.

I don't think you're ignoring the confounding factors that make your use of the 'statistic' wrong, I do believe you're doing it by design.

Since roof tiles are so rarely deadly we are not worried about them and happily walk under them. Since cops being beaten to death by young men on drugs is so rare it is reasonable to say the risk of death is low and injury medium.

I cannot find anything for the US, as in no lists nor an example of a police officer being beaten to death (just lots of reports of police beating others to death). Twenty five UK police officers have been assaulted or beaten to death since 1900.

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

See above. If roof tile were falling on someone, saying, 'well that rarely causes death you shouldn't be afraid' would be stupid right?

I'll put this another way. I was a wrestler in high school and I know exactly how dangerous the moves can be. I'm still a practice other martial arts, like swordsmanship. But, police are rarely killed by swords, so why should a cop be afraid for his life if I kept walking towards him with my sword drawn? You're going to say the difference is the weapon, and that does make things more dangerous and deadly than the wrestler. That's true. But that also shows why the 'it rarely actually happens' line is completely irrelevant.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Being a wrestler gave him skills, training, and the physic to perform moves that are originally designed to be dangerous and used in combat when not on a mat (even on a mat they still hurt by the way). That these skills are in every day life rarely actually used to cause harm in no way, shape, or form causes them not to be dangerous or deadly. If we were talking about the need to say, restrict access to this training or prepare officers for attacks from martial artists the absolute risk and rarity of the use of these moves would be germane to the topic. The absolute risk is low not because the moves aren't dangerous or deadly, but because they are rarely employed. To talk about how dangerous the moves can actually be when used against someone in earnest that is not the correct criteria.

I don't think you're ignoring the confounding factors that make your use of the 'statistic' wrong, I do believe you're doing it by design.



See above. If roof tile were falling on someone, saying, 'well that rarely causes death you shouldn't be afraid' would be stupid right?

I'll put this another way. I was a wrestler in high school and I know exactly how dangerous the moves can be. I'm still a practice other martial arts, like swordsmanship. But, police are rarely killed by swords, so why should a cop be afraid for his life if I kept walking towards him with my sword drawn? You're going to say the difference is the weapon, and that does make things more dangerous and deadly than the wrestler. That's true. But that also shows why the 'it rarely actually happens' line is completely irrelevant.

If the student was actually attacking you might have a point.

If the cop knew he was a wrestler it might actually be relevant.

 

[Belz...]

So now, after so many saying one of the reasons Collar was a deadly threat was because he was a wrestler, him being a wrestler is no longer relevant.

Strawman.

 

[Belz...]

Another reason why I do not want routine arming of the police in the UK with guns.

Careful, now. It sounds like you're saying they couldn't handle the weapons properly, and therefore shouldn't be cops in the first place.

 

[Nessie]

Being a wrestler gave him skills, training, and the physic to perform moves that are originally designed to be dangerous and used in combat when not on a mat (even on a mat they still hurt by the way). That these skills are in every day life rarely actually used to cause harm in no way, shape, or form causes them not to be dangerous or deadly. If we were talking about the need to say, restrict access to this training or prepare officers for attacks from martial artists the absolute risk and rarity of the use of these moves would be germane to the topic. The absolute risk is low not because the moves aren't dangerous or deadly, but because they are rarely employed. To talk about how dangerous the moves can actually be when used against someone in earnest that is not the correct criteria.

I don't think you're ignoring the confounding factors that make your use of the 'statistic' wrong, I do believe you're doing it by design.



See above. If roof tile were falling on someone, saying, 'well that rarely causes death you shouldn't be afraid' would be stupid right?

I'll put this another way. I was a wrestler in high school and I know exactly how dangerous the moves can be. I'm still a practice other martial arts, like swordsmanship. But, police are rarely killed by swords, so why should a cop be afraid for his life if I kept walking towards him with my sword drawn? You're going to say the difference is the weapon, and that does make things more dangerous and deadly than the wrestler. That's true. But that also shows why the 'it rarely actually happens' line is completely irrelevant.

The only bit I followed was that a swordsman is a higher risk to arrest than a wrestler.

The risk assessment a competent cop should make when going to arrest is based on various impact factors such as age, health, size, drug and alcohol consumption, cooperativeness, weapons or not, ability to fight, injuries all ready sustained, tiredness of which some apply both to police and suspect and some to suspect only.

So you could have a wrestler with a sword, but they are 92 years old, very drunk and are about to fall asleep anyway. So you just keep your distance till they doze off and then disarm and arrest. A daft example, but that is to make a point.