How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Nessie]

Are you serious? Why should that make a difference?


Not true, there were 6 police there. 4 in a line, and 2 others off to the side. He was going towards the 2. Did you not notice that?

And prosecutors cleared the officers of any wrongdoing.

OK so the police in the line shot because? They were not under threat at that time. One colleague may have been, but he is armed and out of the way. The other, I presume with the dog was doing what? Or are US police dogs not up to going after criminals either?

 

[WildCat]

OK so the police in the line shot because? They were not under threat at that time. One colleague may have been, but he is armed and out of the way. The other, I presume with the dog was doing what? Or are US police dogs not up to going after criminals either?

Why risk getting the dog injured or killed?

And I'm still not understanding why you think the other officers should just stand by and watch their colleague get attacked. Is that how you'd react to your partner getting attacked?

 

[LTC8K6]

That about sums this whole thread up.

Promise?

 

[Dan O.]

It's not hard to take another life. As Tom Lehrer wrote: "You just stand there looking cute and when something moves you shoot."

If a criminal was intent on killing you they would have no problem no mater what guns you are packing. You cannot carry a gun big enough to protect your back. So why haven't the criminals killed us already? It's not because killing is against the law. If they didn't do anything that was against the law, they wouldn't be criminals. More logically, it's because we have a social norm that we just don't kill each other.

Unfortunately, I see that social norm that values the life of others being eroded by short term thinkers. This has been codified into laws such as Stand Your Ground which puts the value of others below the bother of moving out of the way of potential harm and death penalties that treat life as something to be disposed of.

The result of loosing the social norm that preserves life is to put us all at greater risk of having our life taken by a criminal that just doesn't get it.

 

[triforcharity]

No my opinion backed up by facts. You don't back up your opinion with anything other than other shooters think it was justified actions by Austin.

Oh, you mean like this post where you claimed a few different facts, that in fact were NOT factual?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8700019&postcount=1090

My opinion is not only backed up by legitimate, real life facts, but also the local sheriff, and plenty of others in law enforcement.

You opinion is not backed up by facts of any kind, and in fact, is biased and based on ignorance.

That is a dodge to ignore my point about use of cuffs.

Actually, no I haven't, but I have been the guinea pig for training my LEO buddies, so I know about as much as I care to know.

You've never worked in LE in the US, so........

(remember, you said because I didn't have experience in LE, that my opinion was worthless....well, so is your by that same logic.)

I did work as a security guard in Boston. I was the one without a gun.

Security guard in the US is just above neighborhood watch....

 

[triforcharity]

Though they are not random unrelated facts.
If you apply that fallacy here you devalue it as it can be then used to dismiss all facts brought to a debate.

Huh? Are you confused by what a TSLF is? You seem to be.

I'll hilite it for you.

I demonstrated unarmed men are unlikely to be deadly by showing very few wrestlers kill with wrestler moves, the vast majority of arrests of people on drugs are arrested without killing them, that 25 UK police have died as a result of assaults or beatings since 1900 and I cannot find any instances 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.

BTW, I showed you a video of a man almost beating a cop to death. If his kid hadn't been there, she most likely would have died.

I am one up on you as you bring no facts to the debate other that the bleeding obvious that a wrestler or unarmed man can hurt you or in very rare extreme cases kill you.

Sir, you're nowhere near "up" on me. We're both working with the same set of facts. The rest is opinion, and yours is incredibly biased.

My opinion is not only reality based, but also supported by US law enforcement.

 

[triforcharity]

Did Officer Trevis see Gil Collar before stepping out, or did he just hear banging on the door/window?

I honestly don't know. I don't think that there is enough detail in the different articles.

May I ask why you'd ask? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[triforcharity]

Police firing squad in action

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/16/us/michigan-police-shooting/index.html

Five police in a line fire apparently 46 shots and kill a guy who is clearly hacked off, has a history of crime including assaults, apparently mental health issues and is armed with a knife.

I struck out the poisoning the well fallacy, and added a few for clarity.

1 - there was minimal effort to establish any kind of negotiation. A female officer is heard to shout put the knife down, but that is about it. The deceased is clearly open to talking as he does a lot of it. None of the cops make any real effort to talk him down.

You have no idea how long the police were speaking to him. What you have is an edited video.

2 - I would like to know what the police dog was for. If it was out then I assume it is not a search or explosives dog, it is one trained specifically for angry men with knives or guns. So why not use it?

I didn't see the dog out. I heard it, but I didn't see the dog out.

BTW, police dogs are considered in most states to be LEO's, and killing one can carry the same penalty as killing a human police officer.

3 - there were batons there to be used, I wonder what else could be used such as CS instead of guns.

Sure, they could have used them. They could have gotten a giant sheet and wrapped him up in that too. Batons are out, as that would require getting too close to the suspect. Remember, he's armed with a knife.

4 - which police officer was at danger as not all of them were. So pick one who was at danger and then explain why the others all had to shoot.

First, the officer seen just beyond the sign and concrete pillars is the one the suspect went towards. Officers are trained to fire, and not just one.

This eliminates the "I thought you would shoot" problem, and then nobody shoots.

5 - the deceased was walking across the police line not towards it when they shot. So why chose that moment to shoot?

He's walking towards the officer beyond the sign.

6 - is any effort made to check no one is out of view behind the deceased to make sure they are not hit by stray bullets or ricochets?

I'm sure there was. Police don't just shoot willy nilly, like it seems you think.

An excuse for the shooting "because apparently, at this point in time, he was threatening to assault police."

And I'd agree, as did apparently all 6 of those officers.

A former cop said ""One of the things the public has to understand, an individual wielding a knife at you at about 20 feet can be on top of you in a split second," he said. "The public doesn't know this because they don't do this for a living."

I'd agree also.

That assumes you stay put.

So they can play round and round and round with him? Bull ****.

It does not take much to be summarily executed by firing squad in the USA.

Walk towards an officer with a knife, after telling them "I ain't putting **** down" certainly isn't a summary execution. Sorry, but again, your blind hatred of US cops is showing again.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I am trying to understand why he pulled out his gun.

I honestly don't know. I don't think that there is enough detail in the different articles.

May I ask why you'd ask? I'm genuinely curious.

My entire answer is from the perspective of someone who is neither a police officer nor a present or former member of the military. There are two possibilities, either he saw Gil Collar or he did not. If he did not, I am a little puzzled why loud knocking/banging would motivate him to draw his gun (I don't see myself drawing a weapon in that situation). If I were in his shoes and I saw a naked man banging on the window and then walking off, I would first think that he had been assaulted (or at least that someone had pulled a prank on him). Next, I would consider that the man might be drunk or high. Although I don't necessarily see myself pulling a gun, I acknowledge that there is a somewhat greater chance that I would, relative to the first case.

I have a set of general observations. I expect a certain number of civilian casualties as collateral damage (for lack of a better term) during a war because a soldier's job is to help win the war. He or she cannot afford to take undue risks. I expect fewer civilian deaths at the hands of police, all else held equal, because the job of the police is to keep the peace. I agree with those who have implied that a small amount of risk comes with the job of being a police officer. I would say that campus police have at least as much obligation as ordinary police to think twice before resorting to deadly force. I don't have any statistics, but my experience with campuses is that one should expect to find lots of drunken or high students, relative to malicious and/or violent criminals (there will be some, of course). MOO.

 

[Nessie]

Why risk getting the dog injured or killed?

And I'm still not understanding why you think the other officers should just stand by and watch their colleague get attacked. Is that how you'd react to your partner getting attacked?

But that is the whole point of a police dog, to tackle people with weapons at less risk to others, both police and the weapon carrier. Dog bites are rarely fatal and in any case with the handler present the dog is controlled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d9wxY3uLTk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCZevHRLiEo&feature=related

See, no one died.

With a partner who is armed and a man approaching him but away from others it is up to the partner to decide to shoot or not, not the others.

It beggars belief no matter what other equipment the police are being given, US cops will shoot.

 

[Nessie]

Huh? Are you confused by what a TSLF is? You seem to be.

I'll hilite it for you.



BTW, I showed you a video of a man almost beating a cop to death. If his kid hadn't been there, she most likely would have died.



Sir, you're nowhere near "up" on me. We're both working with the same set of facts. The rest is opinion, and yours is incredibly biased.

My opinion is not only reality based, but also supported by US law enforcement.

So you found one instance of someone not being beaten to death and think that is good enough? How many police officers have been beaten to death?

Your opinion is biased towards shooting people. Supported by a law enforcement system that is also biased towards shooting people and gets away with lame excuses.

 

[Nessie]

Police firing squad in action

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/16/us/michigan-police-shooting/index.html

Five police in a line fire apparently 46 shots and kill a guy who is clearly hacked off, has a history of crime including assaults, apparently mental health issues and a knife.

1 - there was minimal effort to establish any kind of negotiation. A female officer is heard to shout put the knife down, but that is about it. The deceased is clearly open to talking as he does a lot of it. None of the cops make any real effort to talk him down.

2 - I would like to know what the police dog was for. If it was out then I assume it is not a search or explosives dog, it is one trained specifically for angry men with knives or guns. So why not use it?

3 - there were batons there to be used, I wonder what else could be used such as CS instead of guns.

4 - which police officer was at danger as not all of them were. So pick one who was at danger and then explain why the others all had to shoot.

5 - the deceased was walking across the police line not towards it when they shot. So why chose that moment to shoot?

6 - is any effort made to check no one is out of view behind the deceased to make sure they are not hit by stray bullets or ricochets?

An excuse for the shooting "because apparently, at this point in time, he was threatening to assault police."

A former cop said ""One of the things the public has to understand, an individual wielding a knife at you at about 20 feet can be on top of you in a split second," he said. "The public doesn't know this because they don't do this for a living."

That assumes you stay put. It does not take much to be summarily executed by firing squad in the USA.

I struck out the poisoning the well fallacy, and added a few for clarity.



You have no idea how long the police were speaking to him. What you have is an edited video.



I didn't see the dog out. I heard it, but I didn't see the dog out.

BTW, police dogs are considered in most states to be LEO's, and killing one can carry the same penalty as killing a human police officer.



Sure, they could have used them. They could have gotten a giant sheet and wrapped him up in that too. Batons are out, as that would require getting too close to the suspect. Remember, he's armed with a knife.




First, the officer seen just beyond the sign and concrete pillars is the one the suspect went towards. Officers are trained to fire, and not just one.

This eliminates the "I thought you would shoot" problem, and then nobody shoots.




He's walking towards the officer beyond the sign.



I'm sure there was. Police don't just shoot willy nilly, like it seems you think.



And I'd agree, as did apparently all 6 of those officers.



I'd agree also.

That assumes you stay put.

So they can play round and round and round with him? Bull ****.



Walk towards an officer with a knife, after telling them "I ain't putting **** down" certainly isn't a summary execution. Sorry, but again, your blind hatred of US cops is showing again.

They lined up like a firing squad would do, so it is a reasonable descriptive of how the police positioned themselves to deal with the male. If you say all cops have to shoot, then that backs up my descriptive further.

True I have no idea, but if a rapport was being established then we would have heard more than what we did during the length of the video. You keep them talking.

Unless the police took a tracker or explosives dog out to a knife man, I see no reason not to use the dog. So what if killing a dog is seen as killing a human? It is a better tool to take down a criminal without killing than a gun. Dog takes the guy down and then batons and or cuffs are used.

Being critical of times when they go to shooting dead when other methods are available and appropriate to arrest someone does not mean I have a blind hatred of US cops.

 

[WildCat]

But that is the whole point of a police dog, to tackle people with weapons at less risk to others, both police and the weapon carrier. Dog bites are rarely fatal and in any case with the handler present the dog is controlled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d9wxY3uLTk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCZevHRLiEo&feature=related

See, no one died.

None of them were armed. Police dogs are great at chasing down a fleeing suspect, you don't sic them on an armed suspect in a standoff. That's not what they're for.

With a partner who is armed and a man approaching him but away from others it is up to the partner to decide to shoot or not, not the others.

Absolute nonsense. The person who's being attacked may not have a clear shot, or may not shoot becaue a bystander is in the line of fire. You don't ever stand by while a fellow officer is attacked.

It beggars belief no matter what other equipment the police are being given, US cops will shoot.

Non-lethal means are for non-lethal threats. You don't bring a taser or pepper spray to a knife or gun fight. That's not what they're for.

 

[Nessie]

None of them were armed. Police dogs are great at chasing down a fleeing suspect, you don't sic them on an armed suspect in a standoff. That's not what they're for.


Absolute nonsense. The person who's being attacked may not have a clear shot, or may not shoot becaue a bystander is in the line of fire. You don't ever stand by while a fellow officer is attacked.


Non-lethal means are for non-lethal threats. You don't bring a taser or pepper spray to a knife or gun fight. That's not what they're for.

No one in any of the cases under discussion here were armed, assuming you mean armed with a gun. Police dogs are purpose trained for people with knives. I have seen a demo with a police dog and a guy with a knife and a gun. Check out this video towards the end and see how the dog is trained to go for the forearm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVcqMlYNtww

If the person being attacked does have a clear line of fire they shoot. If not another can shoot. In the Michigan shooting the officer had a clear line of fire to Milton Hall who had started to walk towards him, having been walking about in front of the police anyway.

The UK police manage with tazers and CS to arrest men with knives, as do the US police. Just not the case of Milton Hall.

I show real events and alternative means to arrest other than shooting. You just make up fantasies.

 

[quadraginta]

... and in other news ...

SPRING HILL — A naked woman was shot to death Saturday in Spring Hill after she walked up to an off-duty Hernando sheriff's deputy and an off-duty Tampa police officer and showed a weapon, sheriff's officials said.

Needless to say, the circumstances are not as simple as it appears at first blush (No pun intended. ), and many details remain to be released.

Here is a little bit more about the incident, or at least some of the events that led up to it.

Robert Collins saw the naked woman first.

On Saturday afternoon, he and his friend Al Eylward drove to a property near Spring Hill that Eylward was considering buying. As they rode along Suncoast Boulevard in Eylward's truck about 12:30 p.m., Collins saw a woman walking on the dirt road.

"There's a naked woman coming," said Collins, 50, of Hudson.

"No, she's got a bathing suit on," replied Eylward, 61, of Hudson.

He was wrong.

"She was just strolling down the road, like she didn't have a care in the world," Eylward said.

Collins rolled his window down as the truck pulled alongside her.

"Are you okay?" he asked.

"I'm okay," she said. "I'm just a little lost."

She kept walking.

<snip>

It gets a lot weirder, and that's before the shooting. Check out the rest of the second article. I'd have to post too much of it before it would make much sense. (I use that term advisedly.)

 

[Nessie]

It is not clear what the weapon she was reported to be carrying was. It is also reported she "showed" the officers the weapon.

I had a guy show me a handgun. A guy I had never seen before came up to me whilst I was on duty. He pulled it out of his pocket, hand around the stock in they way you would hold a gun to shoot it and asked is this legal? I said I was not sure, could he hand to me so I could have a closer look. Thankfully he did. I put it down, called for assistance and put him into a restraint. It turned to be a fully functioning loaded handgun which he had found in his parents house loft. God knows how many years it had been there, but it was well preserved and did work in a test fire.

 

[quadraginta]

It is not clear what the weapon she was reported to be carrying was. It is also reported she "showed" the officers the weapon.

<snip>

No, it isn't very clear.

The two articles I cited are the ones I could find with the most detail so far.

I'm kinda hoping it doesn't turn out to be the "large, silver cross" the two guys saw her with before the shooting.

About 10 minutes after they first saw Swanson, Eylward and Collins were walking the land at 8464 Orchard Way, a few acres and a mobile home Eylward might buy.

Still naked, Swanson walked through the woods across the street, the men said. She appeared to be headed toward a house.

About 20 minutes later, the men were inside the mobile home. The door opened. It was Swanson.

She was still naked, but now she was holding something, the men said — a large, silver cross.

Swanson waved the cross in a circle over her head several times, they said. There is some disagreement as to what she said.

According to Eylward, she said, "Antichrist, Antichrist, Antichrist. This meeting is over."

Collins heard, "This is the Antichrist. Let's wrap it up."

Then she turned and walked out the door, the men said.

Collins told Eylward to get a picture of her with his cellphone. "Otherwise, no one will believe us," Collins said. Eylward obliged, snapping a shot as she disappeared into the woods across the street.

Apparently, one of those two guys, Collins, is an ex-LEO who had his .380 on him at the time. He doesn't seem to have felt any need to gun her down then.

 

[Nessie]

One report said the police are not saying what the weapon was. That and the descriptive of her showing the weapon mean for me alarm bells are starting to ring.

 

[quadraginta]

One report said the police are not saying what the weapon was. That and the descriptive of her showing the weapon mean for me alarm bells are starting to ring.

Yeah. Not promising.

 

[Nessie]

Presently trending on BBC news, the tragic shooting of Yoshihiro Hattori

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50063364

"In October 1992, Yoshihiro Hattori knocked on the wrong door.
Yoshi, as he was known, was a 16-year-old Japanese exchange student on his way to a Halloween party in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He was with his friend Webb, and they were lost.

"I didn't know that part of town too well, and I guess I took a couple wrong turns," Webb recalled in a recent interview.
The two boys, decked out in fancy dress, thought they had found the right place. But they'd made an innocent mistake that cost Yoshi his life. A media frenzy followed, and later a massive campaign to change America's gun laws."

Of course, nothing has changed in US gun laws that make such shootings less likely.