How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Nessie]

So, the guy was chasing/rushing the officer, even as the officer was retreating and was facing a drawn gun...

Just out of curiosity, how exactly do you think the officer should have "reasoned" with an individual? Do you think a person who continues to chase someone after they've had a gun drawn on them will be thinking rationally/logically?


No, I don't think the student was "after a hug". And neither should the officer. That's the point.

Earlier I used the phrase "(more or less) attacking". If the officer was being chased by someone who was chasing them and willing to risk injury/death because of a drawn gun, wouldn't the officer be right to at least assume his well-being was in danger and the attack was at least forthcoming?

Why else would an individual rush an armed police officer?


Verbal skills only work when the person doing the attacking/chasing/threatening is able to use at least a little bit of reasoning skills.

How long would it take for someone to run (lets say) 20 meters to cover the distance to the officer? Would that have been enough time to have a "calming dialog" with anyone?

and who cannot subdue someone with a minimum of force, with the use of baton and or cuffs should be a police officer.[/quote]
As others pointed out, any sort of close-combat poses a certain risk to the officer. Is it fair to risk the lives of an officer on the off chance that some guy rushing towards him doesn't really mean him any harm?

Again, I want to stress that I'm assuming that the events (as outlined in the article) are accurate. (Its quite possible that the officer was lying and there should be a complete investigation.) But then that's not what people are complaining about.[/QUOTE]

If he is being rushed but not attacked, he should let that go on and on and be patient until assistance arrives, or he can get a verbal response or the guys drops from exhaustion or just gives up and runs off. Are American police allowed to decide, thats enough I am fed up with this, I will now shoot you?

Risk to the officer? I have heard that before in many an argument and it seems to be a case of the police and civilians can use deadly force to prevent any form of injury or attack down to a broken nail or slight push.

If the police are going into confrontational situations where they will kill to stop anything happening to them, as opposed to using other defensive means or ways of arresting that may cause them a minor injury, but the criminal does not die, then those people are should never be police officers.

 

[LTC8K6]

Nope but then in NYC it's the male cops that keep shooting folks, not the female officers.

To be fair, the NYPD officer you mentioned earlier does claim that the subject reached under the seat.

More and more officers are now wearing individual lapel cams that record everything in detail about their interaction with each subject.

 

[Nessie]

Something went wrong with the quotes in post #41, so the response is


If he is being rushed but not attacked, he should let that go on and on and be patient until assistance arrives, or he can get a verbal response or the guys drops from exhaustion or just gives up and runs off. Are American police allowed to decide, thats enough I am fed up with this, I will now shoot you?

Risk to the officer? I have heard that before in many an argument and it seems to be a case of the police and civilians can use deadly force to prevent any form of injury or attack down to a broken nail or slight push.

If the police are going into confrontational situations where they will kill to stop anything happening to them, as opposed to using other defensive means or ways of arresting that may cause them a minor injury, but the criminal does not die, then those people are should never be police officers.

 

[Alt+F4]

But again, police officers are ordinary human beings, not super heroes. They make mistakes, they can be beaten up, they can be outsmarted, and they can also save your life.

I am a big fan of the police, they have saved my life on one occasion. However, when an unarmed man is shot dead at a traffic stop just five weeks after another unarmed man was also killed by a cop while fleeing an abduction, there is something seriously wrong.

 

[Giz]

Yes and you do not have to be a Navy Seal to do that.

It seems that being armed is now a self fulfilling prophecy, whereby you shoot to stop people from getting your gun. The mere presence of a gun instantly escalates the situation to one where deadly force is used, without recourse to minimal use at first.

Oh, be serious.

Police have some grappling/subdual training. But they are not invincible martial arts experts (any more than they are all expert shots). (Apparently a lot of the job consists of non-grappally and non-shooty tasks).

Now, we could require that all police should be able to singlehandedly restrain a fit adult male, trained in wrestling, who is off their head on drugs/in a psychotic episode… but (as Wildcat said) we might be limiting our potential recruit pool.

 

[Nessie]

I recall vaguely reading something about ten years ago about a couple of businessmen over in the States. Drunk (unsurprisingly, for they were Scots) one of them blundered into someone's garden and got shot dead for his trouble.

(No, I'm not confusing it with a more recent case where 2 guys were killed in Florida.)

But maybe I imagined it, as I've been trying to find a source recently and come up blank.

Here

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scot-is-shot-dead-when-mistaken-for-prowler-1405505.html

Another example of someone who reaches for their gun first instantly escalates the situation and another ends up dead for being stupid.

It would be interesting to see what Americans would say to other Americans being killed whilst abroad and the death being excused as justifiable because someone got scared.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Here

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scot-is-shot-dead-when-mistaken-for-prowler-1405505.html

Another example of someone who reaches for their gun first instantly escalates the situation and another ends up dead for being stupid.

It would be interesting to see what Americans would say to other Americans being killed whilst abroad and the death being excused as justifiable because someone got scared.

Ta.

 

[Alt+F4]

To be fair, the NYPD officer you mentioned earlier does claim that the subject reached under the seat.

No weapon was found in that car, but at least in this case the Police Commissionaire is asking for an investigation. I take that highway everyday to work. I guess I should check what is under my driver's seat so the police don't kill me if I get pulled over.

Edit: Ok, I checked...it was a copy of "Eat, Pray, Love", damn I hope I don't have to die because of that horrible book.

 

[Giz]

I recall vaguely reading something about ten years ago about a couple of businessmen over in the States. Drunk (unsurprisingly, for they were Scots) one of them blundered into someone's garden and got shot dead for his trouble.

(No, I'm not confusing it with a more recent case where 2 guys were killed in Florida.)

But maybe I imagined it, as I've been trying to find a source recently and come up blank.

No, I remember the case.

It was a neighborhood where there had been home invasions and they started banging hard on someones backdoor in the early hours of the morning. Startled homeowner thought that they were trying to break in and fired through the door.

Sad, but if you try to break down someones backdoor at three in the morning then I suppose that these things can happen.

 

[Nessie]

Oh, be serious.

Police have some grappling/subdual training. But they are not invincible martial arts experts (any more than they are all expert shots). (Apparently a lot of the job consists of non-grappally and non-shooty tasks).

Now, we could require that all police should be able to singlehandedly restrain a fit adult male, trained in wrestling, who is off their head on drugs/in a psychotic episode… but (as Wildcat said) we might be limiting our potential recruit pool.

There are other ways of dealing with a situation such as that which do not involve reaching for your gun first. Other countries manage to do it, even ones where the police are armed

http://gawker.com/5909283/german-po...ting-at-people-used-only-85-bullets-last-year

"Police in Germany only fired 85 times at or in the vicinity of criminal suspects during the course of 2011, according to a government-commissioned report."

 

[Alt+F4]

It was a neighborhood where there had been home invasions and they started banging hard on someones backdoor in the early hours of the morning. Startled homeowner thought that they were trying to break in and fired through the door.

Crazy people with guns. Burglars don't bang hard on someone's door, they just break in. The whole point of burglary is to NOT be caught.

 

[Nessie]

No, I remember the case.

It was a neighborhood where there had been home invasions and they started banging hard on someones backdoor in the early hours of the morning. Startled homeowner thought that they were trying to break in and fired through the door.

Sad, but if you try to break down someones backdoor at three in the morning then I suppose that these things can happen.

It was glass door, he was knocking on it, he did not break it down or do anything to it at all. He was killed because the householder was startled. As I say, how far will the excuses to kill go?

How would you react if an American tourist was stabbed to death by a Scotsman because he got a fright?

 

[Segnosaur]

The guy was large, muscular and a member of the wrestling team.

The student was muscular and a member of the wrestling team but he was not particularly large. He was 5'7" and weighed 135lbs. That's below the American average of 5'9" and 175lbs.

He may have been below the average height/weight, but remember for the average American most of that 175 lbs is probably flab.

A trained wrestler probably looks (and is) more intimidating than your average American.

They are supposed to keep the peace and protect people and property, not be trigger-happy dolts who can't handle a situation common on practically every college campus every Saturday night without killing.

How common do you think such attacks (naked or not) are? Don't you think that most people, when challenged, would actually, you know, stop?

There is always a risk of a perp getting the sidearm and discretion is crucial in a confrontation but there is simply no excuse for shooting a drunk, naked and unarmed kid in the chest without trying anything else first.

Well, lets see...
- Could try reasoning with them, but when you're being chased its not exactly a good time for a dialog
- Could try pepperspray or tazer but we don't know if the officer was armed with them
- Could try hand-to-hand combat, but even you said that there was a risk of the perp "getting the gun"

The full description of what happened sounds far less threatening than the quoted blurb. The kid banged on the police station window and when the officer went outside, the student challenged the officer "in a fighting stance". The kid was a wrestler. This could easily have been a situation where the kid was drunk and decided it would be fun to mess with a cop by trying to wrestle him and when the cop wouldn't, he chased him around. Stupid? Sure.
A deadly threat that was worthy of death? Um...no.

So, at what point was the cop supposed to be able to talk to the kid to find out he's only there to "mess with them"? After the kid has already grabbed hit the officer?

There were other ways to subdue him. Even if he was on something, he could and should've been pepper sprayed or tased. If the officer didn't have those options at his disposal, he could/should've shot the kid in a leg, he didn't have to go straight to the chest on the first shot.

I think the idea of the marksman able to hit a leg or shoot the gun out of someone's hand is a myth. From what I understand, pistols are just not that accurate at the best of times, and trying to hit a smaller target (like a leg), especially when that target is moving, would be foolish.

Thus, you'd have to aim for the largest target (the torso).

They don't need to be ninjas or ex-SEALS, that's ridiculous.

I don't think they were using 'ex-SEAL' in a serious way, but only that they would have to be reasonably assured of their own safety/victory. i.e. you'd have to know you clearly outmatched the person if you were to get involved in any sort of close combat.

Fighting someone who is near your own size and age would mean a potentially close-fight and addititional risk to the officer.

Anyone who freaks out so badly in a situation with a drunk college kid that a kill shot is their first instinct has no business being a cop or security officer.

Except of course that wasn't their "first instinct".
- They ordered the person to stop (which they didn't)
- They tried to run away (during which they were chased)

 

[Delscottio]

Oh, be serious.

Police have some grappling/subdual training. But they are not invincible martial arts experts (any more than they are all expert shots). (Apparently a lot of the job consists of non-grappally and non-shooty tasks).

Now, we could require that all police should be able to singlehandedly restrain a fit adult male, trained in wrestling, who is off their head on drugs/in a psychotic episode… but (as Wildcat said) we might be limiting our potential recruit pool.

Why not train people who can make dynamic risk assessments as to whether they can deal with the sitauation? If they can't and there's no immediate risk to the general public - view from a far and call back up. All the while making a observing if you have to intervene.

On the face of it the officer went for deadly force immediately, but we'll all need further information before making a judgement call.

As my ex police mate often says, you can lose a battle as long as you win the war.

 

[commandlinegamer]

According to this report, the student had taken LSD and had attacked others, including biting a woman:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Na...armed+took+before+shooting/7364144/story.html

 

[Alt+F4]

How would you react if an American tourist was stabbed to death by a Scotsman because he got a fright?

I, as an American, would be really pissed off as being convicted of 270 murders doesn't get you a life sentence in Scotland.

<SNIP>

Edited by Locknar: 

SNIPed, breach of rule 12.

 

[Babbylonian]

The problem is unholstering the sidearm. As soon as that's done, an officer's options for subduing an uncooperative suspect go down to exactly one: Shoot. The officer can't at that point engage hand to hand without risking the loss of the weapon, and s/he can't use any nonlethal alternative like a baton, stun gun, taser, or pepper spray.

Since I didn't witness it, I couldn't say for sure that pulling the gun was excessive...but in the absence of a weapon in the hand of the suspect, and assuming that there was no immediate threat to others, the officer should have had training, equipment, and backup sufficient to subdue a single naked man without resorting to lethal force.

 

[Segnosaur]

If he is being rushed but not attacked, he should let that go on and on and be patient until assistance arrives...

Ummm... what?

You mean just let the guy keep chasing him and chasing him?

Yeah, I can't see anything wrong with that ever happening ever.

... or he can get a verbal response

He supposedly ordered the guy to stop and he didn't. So, just how long is he supposed to wait for that response, until the guy's on top of him?

And just how exactly is he going to get a verbal response when he's being chased?

Risk to the officer? I have heard that before in many an argument and it seems to be a case of the police and civilians can use deadly force to prevent any form of injury or attack down to a broken nail or slight push.

The fact that some cases of self defense aren't justified does not mean that all cases of self defense are likewise not justified.

Someone rushing towards you, who does not care about his safety (i.e. is ignoring a drawn gun) is not likely interest in just "breaking your fingernail".

 

[Beerina]

The student was muscular and a member of the wrestling team but he was not particularly large. He was 5'7" and weighed 135lbs. That's below the American average of 5'9" and 175lbs. A cop who can't subdue without killing an unarmed person who is below average in both height and weight has no business being one.

Never done wrestling, eh? A college-level wrestler, even a small one, will destroy a cop once the fight reaches grappling range. That's 99% of wrestling -- using tricky moves that subdue opponents, not raw overpowering.

 

[Andy_Ross]

British cops handle things so much better. Two officers shot dead responding to a burglery call. Cops shoot dead a man in a car starting riots across London, Cops shoot an unarmed man on a train because they thought he was someone else and might have had a bomb.

Police shoot dead a man carrying a table leg in a carrier bag.

Police shot dead an unarmed man while he is laid naked in bed.

Yup... Our cops never use deadly force.