How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Segnosaur]

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.

In this case I don't think it was an option.

It was the student who approached the officer, and was within a short distance. I doubt he would have had time to "call for backup". (Its not like the officer saw the guy from down the street and decided to pursue.)

 

[RemieV]

From the sheriff:

Cochran said he had "serious concerns" about the killing of an unarmed student when he first heard what had happened, but he better understood the officer's decision to open fire after watching the videotape of the shooting.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Police-Student-took-LSD-before-campus-shooting-3931690.php

 

[Alt+F4]

British cops handle things so much better. Two officers shot dead responding to a burglery call.

What could those two women have done differently? Please present any evidence that they were NOT following police procedures and that they were NOT murdered by a sick monster while caring out their duties as responsible professionals.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not that tall

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

IIRC he was 5'7". I recall a description (second hand) from a EMT who was often called to pick up students at a college campus as something like, "They are sometimes drunk, sometimes high, and always naked."

 

[RemieV]

Another bit, same article:

Video taken by a surveillance camera showed Collar nude and covered in sweat as he pursued the retreating officer more than 50 feet outside the building, Cochran said. Collar got within 5 feet of Austin and the officer fired once, striking the student in the chest, Cochran said.

He waited until he had less than five feet to work with. This isn't some guy whose automatic response was "Shoot to kill".

 

[Giz]

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?

This (and the OP) are examples of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". Neither person "deserved" to be killed… but their (intoxicated) actions made it depressingly likely.

For example, regarding the backdoor shooting:
--------
Andrew De Vries, 28, who was in Houston on a business trip, was shot twice after he pounded "in a furious manner" on the back door of a home in an exclusive neighborhood on the city's west side about 4 A.M., said Alvin Wright, a spokesman for the Houston Police Department.

Mr. De Vries and a colleague, Sydney Graves, 42, had been befriended by a Houston couple during a night on the town and had gone to the couple's home, the police said. When the couple were driving the men back to their hotel, Mr. De Vries "began to think they were taking him in the wrong direction," said a police spokesman, Joe Gamino.

Mr. De Vries jumped out of the car and Mr. Graves followed. Mr. De Vries began to ring doorbells, searching for a phone the men could use to call a cab. After ringing the front doorbell twice at a home on Warrenton Drive, Mr. De Vries went into the backyard, the police said.

"The homeowner saw two men at his back fence," Mr. Gamino said. "He then saw one of the men climb over his fence and hit the back door." The homeowner, believing that his home was being invaded, fired a pistol three times through the door. Mr. De Vries died at the scene, but Mr. Graves was not harmed.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/08/us/homeowner-shoots-tourist-by-mistake-in-texas-police-say.html
-----------


So:

1) After not getting a response from the doorbell, he jumps the fence into the backyard
2) pounds on the backdoor in a furious manner (at 4 am)
3) It's a neighbourhood that had suffered home invasions from people bettering their way in through doors

Now, he didn't morally "deserve" to be shot… but his actions sure made it a hell of a lot likelier that a homeowner might draw the wrong conclusion (or a pistol).

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

On the other hand, if he's in significant danger and he doesn't draw his weapon, he at further risk of harm if he can't draw the weapon in time.

LTC8K6 pointed to a distance of 15 feet where an individual can reach an officer before they have time to draw and aim their weapon. Assuming you trust his claim, that's not very far, and from the description in the opening post the incident started with the people in close proximity.



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...[/quote]
As others have pointed out, even a "well trained" individual can loose in a 1-on-1 fight. I suspect cops avoid those situations unless its (for example) a 2-on-1 situation, or the individual they'd be fighting is clearly at a disadvantage.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19654_6-painful-things-nobody-tells-you-about-fighting_p2.html

...equipment...

At this point we do not know what equipment the officer had at their disposal. A taser might have been an effective weapon to stop the individual, but if a taser was not standard issue then you can't necessarily blame the officer for not carrying one.

...and backup sufficient to subdue a single naked man without resorting to lethal force.

Again, we don't know if backup would have been able to respond within a reasonable amount of time. Given the fact that the guy was actively being chased, I'd say no.

 

[RemieV]

On the other hand, if he's in significant danger and he doesn't draw his weapon, he at further risk of harm if he can't draw the weapon in time.

LTC8K6 pointed to a distance of 15 feet where an individual can reach an officer before they have time to draw and aim their weapon. Assuming you trust his claim, that's not very far, and from the description in the opening post the incident started with the people in close proximity.



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...
As others have pointed out, even a "well trained" individual can loose in a 1-on-1 fight. I suspect cops avoid those situations unless its (for example) a 2-on-1 situation, or the individual they'd be fighting is clearly at a disadvantage.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19654_6-painful-things-nobody-tells-you-about-fighting_p2.html


At this point we do not know what equipment the officer had at their disposal. A taser might have been an effective weapon to stop the individual, but if a taser was not standard issue then you can't necessarily blame the officer for not carrying one.

Again, we don't know if backup would have been able to respond within a reasonable amount of time. Given the fact that the guy was actively being chased, I'd say no.

We do know what weapons he had on him. It says in the article I linked. He only had a gun, though they normally carry pepper spray and a baton.

And no - the officer was fleeing someone who was chasing him. There was no time for backup, and, again, the officer waited until he had less than five feet to work with before firing.

 

[Babbylonian]

On the other hand, if he's in significant danger and he doesn't draw his weapon, he at further risk of harm if he can't draw the weapon in time.<snipped other valid points>

I understand your points and, again, I wouldn't call out the officer as being entirely wrong. I would ask this, however: If a police officer is punched in the face, does s/he have justification to kill? If a police officer witnesses someone else being punched in the face, or bitten as has been reported in this case, is lethal force justified? I certainly don't think so.

Again, in this case the gun was already out - seemingly because he grabbed it on the way out of the office to respond - so he really didn't have other options available. Still, we rely on police officers to be able to judge a situation and deal with it using the minimum necessary force. If the gun comes out early, the resolution of the situation is that much more likely to be tragic for everyone involved.

 

[Arcade22]

I'm reminded by the story where someone was attacked and got his face eaten up by some crazy dude. But sure, try fisticuffs with someone who is fit, psychotic, hyper-aggressive and watch him tackle your slow fat ass onto the pavement and then be powerless as he smashes your face into the asphalt.

 

[Alt+F4]

That face-eater totally needed to be taken down with big-time force, I agree. What about the unarmed people who are shot by the cops for no other reason than the cops "suspect" that he or she has a weapon, but they don't.

 

[Alt+F4]

Hopefully we can all agree that if the police, anywhere in the world, come across one person eating another person's face that the aforementioned person should be shot repeatedly.

 

[RemieV]

Hopefully we can all agree that if the police, anywhere in the world, come across one person eating another person's face that the aforementioned person should be shot repeatedly.

The point was that the cop could've wasted time talking rationally and gotten his face eaten off for his trouble.

 

[fuelair]

The proper weapon for an incident like this is pepper spray.

You have, I will guess, never pepper-sprayed a person in this state. Depending what he was on*, that could have meant the death of the officer whether he had fired or not.

I was not there, I do not know the freedom of movement available to the officer without turning his back (never a good idea) so I am not sure if he had other options ( and shooting to wound is not IIRC correct police procedure anywhere).


*and unless I misread, the officer did not know.

 

[Segnosaur]

I understand your points and, again, I wouldn't call out the officer as being entirely wrong. I would ask this, however: If a police officer is punched in the face, does s/he have justification to kill?

What's the context?

Has the officer just been punched once and the perp is running away? Probably not.

Does the officer actually have backup at the time, or is it a situation where it is obvious he could overpower the perp? (e.g. they're a senior citizen, etc.)
Again, probably not.

Is the perp still within arms length of the officer? Is the officer alone (i.e. no backup)? Does the officer have reason to believe he will continue to get punched, leading to possible injury and possibly even death?
Then yes, they have justification.

If a police officer witnesses someone else being punched in the face, or bitten as has been reported in this case, is lethal force justified?

Again, depends on the surrounding circumstances.... presence of backup, chance that the assault would continue, etc.

Again, in this case the gun was already out - seemingly because he grabbed it on the way out of the office to respond - so he really didn't have other options available. Still, we rely on police officers to be able to judge a situation and deal with it using the minimum necessary force.

But the problem is, you're second guessing what the "minimum necessary force" is. Without tazers, and without backup, unfortunately using a firearm might have been the minimum in that situation.

We expect our police officers to risk their lives in the line of duty. But they shouldn't be put under excessive risk. Under the circumstances of this case, I'm pretty sure the officer was going to get injured if he did not use is gun.

 

[Bikewer]

I'm always hesitant to chip in on these things without knowing all the facts. However.... A few things to consider.
The officer is described as a "campus cop". That can be a lot of different things. Our department is somewhat unusual in that we are commissioned, POST-certified police officers. We have the same authority as any county officer, and can enforce state law anywhere in the state.
No other campus police organization in the area is the same. Both the University Of Missouri St. Louis and the St. Louis University have what amount to licenced watchmen with limited arrest authority on thier respective properties.
Other universities may have officers that are little more than "security guards", a lower level of certification yet.
We are fully equipped. We have firearms, Taser, baton, pepper-spray, etc. The full "continuum of force".
Not necessarily the case with other levels of certification. Sometimes "Watchmen" and "security guards" are limited by statute as to what weapons they can carry.
It may well be that the officer had only the choice between gun and hand-to-hand combat. We are not told the officer's age or state of physical condition or level of training. Could be he didn't fancy his chances...

I attended a risk-management seminar years ago on the question of force usage. At the time, it was fairly common for even commissioned police officers to only have a firearm. In case things started to go South, the only choice was the gun.
This led to a lot of lawsuits, complaining of wrongful death.
The point of the seminar is that officers should have the tools to use de-escalated means of control when appropriate.
We had an incident very similar to the one described just a couple of years ago. The Taser proved quite effective....

 

[RemieV]

I'm always hesitant to chip in on these things without knowing all the facts. However.... A few things to consider.
The officer is described as a "campus cop". That can be a lot of different things. Our department is somewhat unusual in that we are commissioned, POST-certified police officers. We have the same authority as any county officer, and can enforce state law anywhere in the state.
No other campus police organization in the area is the same. Both the University Of Missouri St. Louis and the St. Louis University have what amount to licenced watchmen with limited arrest authority on thier respective properties.
Other universities may have officers that are little more than "security guards", a lower level of certification yet.
We are fully equipped. We have firearms, Taser, baton, pepper-spray, etc. The full "continuum of force".
Not necessarily the case with other levels of certification. Sometimes "Watchmen" and "security guards" are limited by statute as to what weapons they can carry.
It may well be that the officer had only the choice between gun and hand-to-hand combat. We are not told the officer's age or state of physical condition or level of training. Could be he didn't fancy his chances...

I attended a risk-management seminar years ago on the question of force usage. At the time, it was fairly common for even commissioned police officers to only have a firearm. In case things started to go South, the only choice was the gun.
This led to a lot of lawsuits, complaining of wrongful death.
The point of the seminar is that officers should have the tools to use de-escalated means of control when appropriate.
We had an incident very similar to the one described just a couple of years ago. The Taser proved quite effective....

Again, according to the linked article, he was able to carry a baton and pepper spray and just wasn't at the time.

As for their level of certification, that's easy to find out. They are peace officers.

http://www.southalabama.edu/police/generalinfo.html

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So the only complaint is: When facing someone who was (from the description) more or less attacking him, he used "deadly force" in response.

Only?!

Yes, killing a guy who is not threatening your life is a pretty major complaint.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You have, I will guess, never pepper-sprayed a person in this state. Depending what he was on*, that could have meant the death of the officer whether he had fired or not.

<snip>

*and unless I misread, the officer did not know.

By that reasoning deadly force is always justified in any situation where the officer doesn't know for certain someone might not try to attack him with deadly force.

And that's nearly always a possibility.

But the burden is the other way around.

 

[joesixpack]

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.

See, that's my thought. I know a good High school wrestler could probably take down cop. And the cop has absolutely no idea how skilled a person is until it's far too late. This is my primary objection to cops patrolling alone. Also, keep in mind, a take down on a wrestling mat can knock the wind out of you, a take down on pavement presents the very real possibility of a concussion or death.