How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Belz...]

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

It's been pointed out only because some people here tried to argue that unarmed men aren't a problem.

 

[tyr_13]

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

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

No, it isn't. Remember what the claim was that I'm addressing. It would be relevant for the risk assessment the cop made at that point, but it isn't to how much a threat the person could actually be. Wrestling skill can actually be dangerous and deadly. That they are rarely used in such a way is why the 'global' risk might be very small, but when confronted with such things there is a risk. Very few people are harmed by ingesting plutonium, but that doesn't mean the risks from ingesting plutonium (in more than trace amounts) is low but that the occurrence of such a thing is rare.

I'm arguing against the invalid and fallacious conclusion being drawn from the data set. I'm not arguing that the cop knew anything or should have known anything. Hell, at this point I'm not even arguing that the cop was justified in shooting.

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.

Goalpost moved. I'm not talking about what the cop was able to do risk assessment for in that instance, but what actual threat there is from wrestling moves on people on hard ground or cement.

Using irrelevant statistics (attacks with wrestling moves are rare) to draw a fallacious conclusion (wrestling moves aren't dangerous or deadly on hard ground) is what I'm arguing against.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

It's been pointed out only because some people here tried to argue that unarmed men aren't a problem.

Where did anyone say that?

Or did they say that they weren't likely to be such a deadly threat that shooting them is a good idea?

He could have been a ballet dancer or a black belt. Or anything in between. Just because he could have been a deadly threat doesn't mean he was likely to be one.

Small chance he was deadly. Big chance he wasn't.

 

[Nessie]

It's been pointed out only because some people here tried to argue that unarmed men aren't a problem.

Have they?

Would you rate Collar as low, medium or high risk to arrest?

 

[DreamingNaiad]

No, it isn't. Remember what the claim was that I'm addressing. It would be relevant for the risk assessment the cop made at that point, but it isn't to how much a threat the person could actually be. Wrestling skill can actually be dangerous and deadly. That they are rarely used in such a way is why the 'global' risk might be very small, but when confronted with such things there is a risk. Very few people are harmed by ingesting plutonium, but that doesn't mean the risks from ingesting plutonium (in more than trace amounts) is low but that the occurrence of such a thing is rare.

I'm arguing against the invalid and fallacious conclusion being drawn from the data set. I'm not arguing that the cop knew anything or should have known anything. Hell, at this point I'm not even arguing that the cop was justified in shooting.

Ah, I see.

It just kind of seems like this situation is more like the cop sitting next to plutonium and worrying it was going to kill him. Without ingestion (i.e. the student attacking), there is little danger.

But I do agree a trained wrestler is more dangerous than and average person. Possibly even while on LSD.

 

[Nessie]

.....


Goalpost moved. I'm not talking about what the cop was able to do risk assessment for in that instance, but what actual threat there is from wrestling moves on people on hard ground or cement.

Using irrelevant statistics (attacks with wrestling moves are rare) to draw a fallacious conclusion (wrestling moves aren't dangerous or deadly on hard ground) is what I'm arguing against.

I agree with that. In the same way I agree having a tile land on your head is rare but dangerous.

But surly both severity and frequency of injury are a consideration when arresting? If the chance of injury is high in frequency but not severity, as grazes to hands, sprained wrists, banged knees are in a scuffle, then I would expect police to get on with it, make the arrest and put up with such. If the chance of injury is rare, but the severity is high, such as a wrestler body slamming onto concrete, I would still expect police to get on with it.

But if we found that the chances of injury and frequency are high then I would expect the police to see a situation as a heightened risk.

Would you rate Collar as a low, medium or high risk to arrest?

 

[tyr_13]

I agree with that. In the same way I agree having a tile land on your head is rare but dangerous.

But surly both severity and frequency of injury are a consideration when arresting? If the chance of injury is high in frequency but not severity, as grazes to hands, sprained wrists, banged knees are in a scuffle, then I would expect police to get on with it, make the arrest and put up with such. If the chance of injury is rare, but the severity is high, such as a wrestler body slamming onto concrete, I would still expect police to get on with it.

But if we found that the chances of injury and frequency are high then I would expect the police to see a situation as a heightened risk.

Would you rate Collar as a low, medium or high risk to arrest?

With the information we have available to us right now? Medium. I'll note that I'm not qualified to make such an assessment and have insufficient information so that assessment is highly volatile.

 

[Nessie]

I am medium as well, hence why I think he should not have been shot.

 

[Sledge]

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

Do you think he was a likely deadly threat?

Or just a possible one?

So you think it is unlikely an unarmed man can kill someone or wrestle a gun away from them?

 

[LTC8K6]

How far will the excuses to torture innocent people with tasers go?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...police-mistook-white-stick-SAMURAI-sword.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-police-bring-having-SCREWDRIVER-pocket.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-farm-worker-58-shot-times-living-room.html

 

[Nessie]

So you think it is unlikely an unarmed man can kill someone or wrestle a gun away from them?

I think that a competent cop should be able to stop that from happening without shooting the unarmed person. The main ways of doing that are to keep a distance or use other means of arrest such as baton or cuffs. That would then make such a situation unlikely.

I am sure police are trained what to do if someone goes for their gun and how to protect it. Or is that not the case?

 

[RandFan]

So you think it is unlikely an unarmed man can kill someone or wrestle a gun away from them?

I'm having a hard time parsing that sentence even though I think I know what you mean. The vagaries of language. I think there are two questions. Is it possible (can it happen)? Is it probable (how likely it is to happen)? Then again, perhaps your question pertains to the likelihood that some individual amongst a group of individuals has said ability (is it likely that there exists one or more unarmed men with the ability to overpower an armed individual)? I'm not trying to be pedantic. I honestly don't know.

In any event, of course it's possible. Setting aside the fact that the man was naked, unarmed people have wrestled guns away from others who are armed including the police. How likely is that to happen? I've no clue whatsoever.

At that point we need to rely on police training and statistics. If the police training takes into account probabilities and determines that shooting unarmed naked people is an appropriate use of force then I'm okay with that. But something tells me it's not quite so simple as all of that.

 

[Nessie]

How far will the excuses to torture innocent people with tasers go?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...police-mistook-white-stick-SAMURAI-sword.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-police-bring-having-SCREWDRIVER-pocket.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-farm-worker-58-shot-times-living-room.html

All incidents of which are to be condemned and the police in each case acted inappropriately. There is no acceptance of their lame excuses, though I see in the first case the police have apologised and have launched and enquiry.

Nice attempt to distract from the topic in hand

 

[Belz...]

Where did anyone say that?

You're about to.

Or did they say that they weren't likely to be such a deadly threat that shooting them is a good idea?

He could have been a ballet dancer or a black belt. Or anything in between. Just because he could have been a deadly threat doesn't mean he was likely to be one.

Small chance he was deadly. Big chance he wasn't.

Anyone can be a threat in an unarmed combat. That's just the point: and once you're in grappling mode, it's not quite easy to get your distance again to shoot.

 

[Belz...]

Have they?

Would you rate Collar as low, medium or high risk to arrest?

I don't know yet. Also irrelevant.

I am medium as well, hence why I think he should not have been shot.

Isn't hindsight a beautiful thing ?

 

[RandFan]

FWIW: I find the shooting very troubling but I'm simply not in a position to cast judgement. I just hope that we don't move to far to the end of the scale where it's easy to shoot people and claim that it was due to a reasonable threat when that is not the case.

 

[LTC8K6]

All incidents of which are to be condemned and the police in each case acted inappropriately. There is no acceptance of their lame excuses, though I see in the first case the police have apologised and have launched and enquiry.

Nice attempt to distract from the topic in hand

There weren't any "lame excuses" given in the Gil Collar case by the police, and an inquiry into the incident is ongoing.

Yet, you are already making harsh judgements.

Why would that be?

The full inquiry may reveal things we don't even know yet. The media often gets things spectacularly wrong.

Heck, the investigation may reveal that the officer is indeed guilty of murder or manslaughter for shooting Collar.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

You're about to.



Anyone can be a threat in an unarmed combat. That's just the point: and once you're in grappling mode, it's not quite easy to get your distance again to shoot.

I said he wasn't likely to be a deadly threat, not that unarmed men aren't a problem.

What were you reading?

 

[Belz...]

I said he wasn't likely to be a deadly threat, not that unarmed men aren't a problem.

My hyperbole aside, we've demonstrated that unarmed men can be deadly already, so your claim is false.

 

[Belz...]

FWIW: I find the shooting very troubling but I'm simply not in a position to cast judgement. I just hope that we don't move to far to the end of the scale where it's easy to shoot people and claim that it was due to a reasonable threat when that is not the case.

Personally I'm simply arguing that the officer _thought_ he was in danger, and that he was perhaps justified. Further developments could help us get a better idea of what happened, but in the end it's about reasonable perception of threat.