How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Sledge]

I think

So what?

 

[DreamingNaiad]

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

Do you mean your lie aside?

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

 

[triforcharity]

I was asking about threat level and PCP and evidence. You gave no evidence. Re pain and fighting, getting cuffs on is not an issue with pain. Baton and CS are.

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

 

[triforcharity]

Bear in mind my opinion is based on a number of key facts, the main one for this thread being the lame excuses people use for shooting.

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.

You agree on two out of three and have little to offer as to why Austin was right to go straight to being armed and shooting.

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.

You say irrelevant, but I say dodge when you avoid the issue that if UK cops would arrest Collar without a gun, why can't Austin and his colleagues do it?

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.

 

[triforcharity]

Just because no one has tried to kill me or I perceive to be a real attempt does not mean I have not experienced fear.

Nobody claimed that, did they?

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

A DGU is a defensive gun use.

Thank you.

Search any of the names listed or Lamont and Florida for a study of DGUs in Dade County.

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

You will see further evidence that claims of guns being
used to defend are not being found to be reasonable.

Link it.

If you would have shot Collar and I would not, it is reasonable to say your perception of deadly threat is lower.

No, different.

I have also sited studies which show gun carriers are more paranoid and have a greater fear of threat.

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.

 

[triforcharity]

I think that is not a good enough reason to shoot when the person is not in their right mind and is not a deadly threat.

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.

 

[triforcharity]

Though from what you describe there were a number instant actions to trace and pin down the suspects and wait for the new guns.

Back on tpoic what about Austin and his inability to adapt to the situation?

Proof? Back up your claim.

Get on it, or stop posting.

 

[triforcharity]

Yet you keep on going on about cases other than the ones on topic and have no policing exerience.

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.

You should relate your opinions and theories to what happened with Austin and Collar.

I have, as well as others that are similar.

That the UK police as well as most US police officers can arrest people under the influence in all sorts of situations casts grave doubt on Austin's inability to do so.

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?

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Is the sherriff Sam Cochran? Because according to a washington post article from 5(?) days ago, he hasn't said whether the shooting was justified or not.

 

[triforcharity]

Semantic games. Fact is Austin's initial reaction was wrong

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.

as we have shown evidence that student wrestlers on drugs don't kill police officers and are a medium threat.

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

Fact is Austin reacted slowly

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

in that be had one reaction and despite keeping his distance

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

and having opportunities when Collar dropped to his knees to approach with cuffs, he did not do so.

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.

Also despite back up arriving very quickly he did not alter his tactics.

Irrelevant.

If people want to say he did not know about back up or when it would get there, he should have known as he could use a radio whilst holding his gun.

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

Hindsight is great, isn't it?

If he did not he and the dispatcher failed somehow.

In your opinion.

Austin failed to handle the situation and slow reactions played a part.

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

As I keep pointing out hundreds of thousands of people are arrested whilst high on drugs in all sorts of risk situations from low to high without shooting them.

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 also note dodges about whether Collar was a low medium or high risk and comparisons to see what others would consider as such a risk.

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.

 

[triforcharity]

I am the only one here to do any research on how dangerous wrestlers are.

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.

You have done nothing to back up your hypothesis.

Well, other than an unbiased opinion....

A cop not being sure about a threat level fom a nude student high and acting irrationally should not be a cop. The reason for that is if they cannot assess the threat level from seeing Collar then how will they do it in any other situation? I would worry Austin may be too inclined to shoot no matter what.

In your opinion.

 

[triforcharity]

I cannot find anything for the US, as in no lists nor an example of a police officer being beaten to death (just lots of reports of police beating others to death). Twenty five UK police officers have been assaulted or beaten to death since 1900.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty

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

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[triforcharity]

Is the sherriff Sam Cochran? Because according to a washington post article from 5(?) days ago, he hasn't said whether the shooting was justified or not.

Well, first off, a state agency seperate of any local or county law engorcement is the one who will officially investigate and make a determination if the shooting was justified.

Secondly, Sheriff Cochran already said that he felt the officers actions were justified, as far as he could see.

Mobile County Sheriff Sam Cochran has said it was unclear whether the officer could have done anything other than shoot Collar because he walked outside with his gun drawn.

"Had the officer had a Taser or some other less lethal instrument, I do not know if that officer would have had an opportunity to ... holster his pistol and to use something else because the events were evolving so rapidly and he was so close that had he put the pistol in the holster, I don't know that he could have drawn something else," Cochran told reporters earlier this week.

Cochran said he believed it was proper for the officer to go outside with his gun drawn after Collar repeatedly banged on windows at the campus police station, but he hasn't said whether he thought the shooting was justified.

Here's a link.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019413364_apusnakedstudentshot.html

 

[RandFan]

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.

Agreed.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Well, first off, a state agency seperate of any local or county law engorcement is the one who will officially investigate and make a determination if the shooting was justified.

Secondly, Sheriff Cochran already said that he felt the officers actions were justified, as far as he could see.



Here's a link.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019413364_apusnakedstudentshot.html

Yeah, I was just pointing out that he didn't quite agree that shooting was the best option. Only that going out with a gun was acceptable and that he wasn't sure if the gun could be holstered in time to pull out out a non lethal weapon.

I'm not saying he should make a comment either way. It would be unprofessional to do so before the investigation.

Oddly enough that was word for word the same article.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Spamming the forum with a huge number of posts, of increasing incoherence, none of which address the important problem with your views which has already been put to you, is not a persuasive argumentative technique.

You're still hung up on the problem that all you can establish is that the deceased was a non-zero risk. That's not enough to justify shooting someone, unless you're incredibly paranoid and place no value on human life. Given that anyone wearing clothes could have a concealed weapon making them much, much more dangerous than a small, naked, drug-impaired wrestler by your line of thinking police should shoot anyone, any time they resist arrest.

 

[Dan O.]

drug-impaired wrestler

First of all, until the toxicology report is released, drug use is at most an unsubstantiated rumor, one that has already been questioned because the described symptoms don't match the suggested drug. And second, there has been no indication that Gil Collar had continued wrestling since high school.

 

[Nessie]

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.

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.

 

[Nessie]

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

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. That is why police are trained and given such equipment.

The issue is how and why did Collar pose such a threat that he was shot instead? The lame excuses so far do not justify such.

 

[Nessie]

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

If you cannot follow my arguement just as for clarification. Fact is you have never cuffed anyone and do not know how effective they are at restraint. The key is restraint and psin or no pain if somone is cuffed and fast strapped they are going no where and pose a low threat.