How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Nessie]

You're being intentionally obtuse, aren't you? You're seriously are not understanding this whole line of logical thinking, are you?

Wow, you do realize these two sentences are mutually exclusive, right?

You cannot have an opinion like "they're lame excuses" and also claim them to be facts.



Wow. Now you're just blatantly....wow.....the MA prevents me from expressing myself.

I've explained many times why I feel that he did the right thing. If you've ignored it, or forgot, then it's your own damn fault, and not mine.



I've hilited the part that you're lying about.

FFS, I have addressed this lame ******* point not once, but many different times. If you're not understanding my responses, ask me to elaborate, or clarify, but don't try this bull **** where you claim I HAVEN'T even addressed your idiotic ******* position.

Yes you have explained your position. I stand by mine that lame excuses we used to justify three shootings Collar, de Vries and Hattori.

I understand you reason why you say Austin was right to kill. I disgree with you.

 

[Nessie]

Nobody claimed that, did they?

Also, even so, it's a different kind of fear.



Thank you.



Why don't you actually just link it? It's YOUR claim, not anyone elses, can you please LINK it?



Link it.



No, different.



No, you haven't. Your claims are not backed up by those studies that you linked. While interesting studies, there's fatal flaws, as myself and others have pointed out.

You say there are fatal flaws and I have to accept that? Why? The way you are going on now it is as if you are so sure you are right that I have to accept that and back down from my position. That I will not upsets you. Tough.

I will mention DGU studies as an aside and if you do not want to look for yourself fine. They are a tpoic in themselves and would be a big distraction ffom the acfual topic.

 

[Nessie]

So, you're willing to bet your life that a suspect isn't a deadly threat?

I don't, and I don't expect any police officer to either.

The vast majority of suspects arrested pose me a low threat and I would win tons of money off you as I bet each is not a threat to my life, arrest them, live and you have to pay out.

It seems odd that you refute studies that say gun carriers can be paranoid and you your position on suspects and deadly threats is paranoid.

I am very glad you are not in the police if you think every suspect is a potential deadly threat.

 

[Nessie]

Proof? Back up your claim.

Get on it, or stop posting.

Which bit do you want me to prove.

Dont try and sensor me.

 

[Nessie]

Which means nothing, as you have no law enforcement experience in the US, we can discount your opinion too, correct?

I've addressed the topic plenty.



I have, as well as others that are similar.



And yet, the Sheriff of the county AGREED that shooting was the BEST option at the time. So, what do you have to say about that?

So, your OPINION of the officer's actions, is useless, as you're a Scotsman, and not an officer in the US.

You also realize that this type of situation is not unique, or even unheard of, right?

Yes my opinion is he was wrong to shoot and I have given reasons why.

My policing experience plus I worked as a security guard in Boston Where I was the only one unarmed. I saw three firearm incidents whilst there. I say that makes my opinion prety well informed.

 

[Nessie]

Prove it. Cite your source of this fact. I should expect to find this in some court record somewhere. Do you have that?

No, of ******* course you don't because it's your own damn opinion.

Stop making up your own facts.



No, you haven't. Texas sharpshooter logical fallacy noted, and dismissed.



Really? Prove it. I'd love to see your facts backing this up.



Less than 5' is not keeping a distance. Wrong.



Prove it. Show me the video. Oh, wait, you haven't seen it, and neither have I. You're using the OPINION of the BIASED lawyer as fact.




Irrelevant.



Really? People are trained to use both hands while holding a gun. Makes shooting more accurate.

Hindsight is great, isn't it?



In your opinion.



He handled it, yes, he most certainly did. Again, your opinion.



Irrelevant. Hundreds of thousands of other cases might be similar, but not exact. Every situation is different.

Remember when you said other cases are irrelevant? Same goes for youj.



I would personally classify a person who refuses to follow orders with a gun pointed at him, as a high risk. Add in the drugs, and it's even higher because of the fact that he not in his right mind, and there's no way to know what kind of stupid actions he might take.

That just comes over as a rant of how dare I have an opinion on this!

I am going by tht journalist you saw the video and then was filmed the police station acting through what she had seen. It is corroborated by a later press release by the Sheriff.

If you rate Collar as high, you would rate far more people as high risk than me. Please give an example of amedium risk.

 

[Nessie]

Wanna go toe to toe with a trained wrestler? I've got a good friend of mine who teaches wrestling at a state college. I'm sure he'd be willing to show you a few things about just how dangerous being slammed on your head onto concrete can be.




Well, other than an unbiased opinion....



In your opinion.

I have to go toe to toe with all sorts and arrest. The way you are talking wrestlers are uniquelt dangerous. But that is not backed up by any evidence.

Yes my opinion. It is allowed. I also site reasons why I have my opinion to show it is reasonable and sound one.

 

[Nessie]

I showed you a ****** VIDEO of a cop almost losing her life, FROM FISTS!!!

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

True. There is big difference between assault and death. I expect assaults as part of the job and killing so I am not assaulted is not a reasonable option. I say that is true for all police. If you say opposite you are asking for a lot of deaths as we know many on drugs alcohol or anger do not think rationally. Collar was one such person. But his contribution to society I bet was going to be far greater than his negative action that night he took drugs and acted oddly.

Good people do stupid things and need protecting from themselves. Not shooting as you would have.

 

[Belz...]

Do you mean your lie aside?

I don't lie, so no.

 

[Belz...]

I didn't say they couldn't be. I said they weren't *likely* to be.

And we already explained that, in context, the officer disagreed and found the man threatening.

 

[Belz...]

Agreed and we have demonstrated that unarmed men are very unlikely to be deadly and that cuffs, baton, CS and tazer are eminently suitable to arrest such.

Even ignoring the fact that the officer had none of those on him, where did you "demonstrate" this ? Bear in mind they don't have to kill the officer, just severely wound him and/or take his weapon.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

I don't lie, so no.

So claiming I said something I didn't was...?

Also the officer had a baton and spray.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

And we already explained that, in context, the officer disagreed and found the man threatening.

And the point I've been making is that if he found an unarmed man (who wasn't attacking, just not doing as he was told) so threatening that deadly force was his only option then he has serious problems calculating risk.

And it is possible for cops to get it wrong. No one has said otherwise. They just have to be held accountable when they do.

 

[Nessie]

It has been stated by the sheriff Austin did have other equipment on him in an earlier link.

I demonstrated unarmed me sre unlikely to be deadly by showing very few wrestlers kill with wrestler moves, the vast majority of arrests of people on drugs are arrested withou killing them, that 25 UK police have died as a result of assaults or beatings since 1900 and I cannot find any instsnces of US cops being killed by beatings. Indeed searches of police US assault beating find lots of instances of cops assaulting and beating suspects.

I know you think that evidence is irrelevant, but that does mean it is and you have yet to argue a convincing case or present sny evidence to show unarmed men are deadly to the police.

All you can do is say they can be deadly.

 

[LTC8K6]

I disagree. Alarm bells rang with the first press release by the Uni linked to in the opening post of a lame excuse. That has been confirmed by subsequent press reports after they viwed the cctv.

Your opinion is not necessarily a fact. Stop saying things are "confirmed" when they aren't. This isn't grade school.

 

[LTC8K6]

It has been stated by the sheriff Austin did have other equipment on him in an earlier link.

I demonstrated unarmed me sre unlikely to be deadly by showing very few wrestlers kill with wrestler moves, the vast majority of arrests of people on drugs are arrested withou killing them, that 25 UK police have died as a result of assaults or beatings since 1900 and I cannot find any instsnces of US cops being killed by beatings. Indeed searches of police US assault beating find lots of instances of cops assaulting and beating suspects.

I know you think that evidence is irrelevant, but that does mean it is and you have yet to argue a convincing case or present sny evidence to show unarmed men are deadly to the police.

All you can do is say they can be deadly.

You were already provided with the info about the large number of police officers in the US assaulted by unarmed people each year. You've even been shown videos of it happening.

If you aren't reading other people's posts, then you are just talking to yourself.

 

[Nessie]

Your opinion is not necessarily a fact. Stop saying things are "confirmed" when they aren't. This isn't grade school.

Stop playing semantics to avoid you have diddly squat to back up your opinions.

 

[Nessie]

You were already provided with the info about the large number of police officers in the US assaulted by unarmed people each year. You've even been shown videos of it happening.

If you aren't reading other people's posts, then you are just talking to yourself.

Please quantify large. Please show why assault justifies a deadly response.

To qualify what I mean by assault, here we have assault, serious assault which can be needing a stitch through to broken bones, assault to permanent impairment or disfurement and attempt murder for the gravest of injuries. On the scale of reasonable self defence deadly would only come at the gravest of injuries or the latter two.

That is why I have argued all along killing Collar was not judtified.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

You were already provided with the info about the large number of police officers in the US assaulted by unarmed people each year. You've even been shown videos of it happening.

If you aren't reading other people's posts, then you are just talking to yourself.

Police get assaulted all the time. Shooting people to avoid any assault would be extreme.

Unless it's to avoid serious injury or death.

Nessie's post seemed to be asking if any officers had been assaulted/beaten to death.

Being assaulted and being killed are different things.

 

[Belz...]

So claiming I said something I didn't was...?

Any number of things. Besides, you cearly consider that the nude guy wasn't a serious problem, so my post wasn't much of an exaggeration.

Also the officer had a baton and spray.

He didn't have them with him.

And the point I've been making is that if he found an unarmed man (who wasn't attacking, just not doing as he was told) so threatening that deadly force was his only option then he has serious problems calculating risk.

And so we're right back at saying that he should've tackled and grappled him. That's such a great plan !