How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Belz...]

I demonstrated unarmed me sre unlikely to be deadly by showing very few wrestlers kill with wrestler moves

1) Who cares about wrestlers ? Unarmed men can hurt you.

2) He doesn't need to be deadly to warrant deadly force. Or would you not shoot an attacker because you expect him to only put you in a wheelchair ?

 

[DreamingNaiad]

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.



He didn't have them with him.



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

Check the link on post #1093.

He did have all three with him.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

1) Who cares about wrestlers ? Unarmed men can hurt you.

2) He doesn't need to be deadly to warrant deadly force. Or would you not shoot an attacker because you expect him to only put you in a wheelchair ?

Was ending up in a wheelchair likely? Or unlikely?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

baton and spray

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.

This comment from last Friday gave a link to an AP story that said that he had a baton and pepper spray: "University spokesman Keith Ayers said Officer Trevis Austin, a four-year employee in his first police job, was armed with all three weapons when he walked outside the police station with his gun drawn to confront Gil Collar."

 

[Belz...]

Check the link on post #1093.

He did have all three with him.

In his office ? I'd like to know, then, why he thought it was urgent enough for him to go out with the gun but not the mace. As in, what exactly happened before he went out to confront the suspect.

Was ending up in a wheelchair likely? Or unlikely?

I don't know. Do you ?

 

[Nessie]

1) Who cares about wrestlers ? Unarmed men can hurt you.

2) He doesn't need to be deadly to warrant deadly force. Or would you not shoot an attacker because you expect him to only put you in a wheelchair ?

A competent police officer should deal with the threat posed by an unarmed person using their skills and kit. If they cannot, wrong job.

Your idea of assessing a threat is go to extreme theoretical outcome to justify deadly force, no matter what the chances are. That just shows you are not made of the stuff that a competent police officer is made of. Your posts also show you have either no understanding or are trolling about reasonable force.

 

[Nessie]

In his office ? I'd like to know, then, why he thought it was urgent enough for him to go out with the gun but not the mace. As in, what exactly happened before he went out to confront the suspect.



I don't know. Do you ?

So would we like to know why he went out with his gun drawn.

I say being put into a wheel chair by an unarmed man is highly unlikely. The reason why I say that is finding examples of people who have ended up in wheelchairs due to assaults has drawn a blank. Accidents through sports and vehicles finds lots.

If you don't know the answer yourself you are just trolling as you scrabble about trying to create a bit of doubt to try and justify your stance that those who say shooting Collar was excessive.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

In his office ? I'd like to know, then, why he thought it was urgent enough for him to go out with the gun but not the mace. As in, what exactly happened before he went out to confront the suspect.



I don't know. Do you ?

Try reading it.

He had pepper spray and a batin on his person when he walked out with the gun.

 

[Belz...]

Try reading it.

He had pepper spray and a batin on his person when he walked out with the gun.

A link would help. Anyway, if he did have the thing on him, one wonders why that wasn't his first option, unless he knew it wouldn't work (drugs).

 

[Belz...]

A competent police officer should deal with the threat posed by an unarmed person using their skills and kit. If they cannot, wrong job.

So they should be able to deal with any unarmed person at all times, without resorting to shooting them, ever ? Why does that sound like ideology and not pragmatism ?

Your idea of assessing a threat is go to extreme theoretical outcome to justify deadly force, no matter what the chances are.

No it's not. Maybe you should read what I write rather than what you think lies between the lines.

I say being put into a wheel chair by an unarmed man is highly unlikely.

Considering people have been beating each other into hospitals for thousands of years without weapons, I find that estimate suspect.

If you don't know the answer yourself you are just trolling

A) That doesn't follow.

B) You have no idea what that word means.

you scrabble about trying to create a bit of doubt to try and justify your stance that those who say shooting Collar was excessive.

Considering how much benefit of doubt I've given both the victim and the shooter, I'm starting to wonder if you read my posts at all.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

pepper spray and a baton

A link would help. Anyway, if he did have the thing on him, one wonders why that wasn't his first option, unless he knew it wouldn't work (drugs).

Here is yet another link.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

A link would help. Anyway, if he did have the thing on him, one wonders why that wasn't his first option, unless he knew it wouldn't work (drugs).

I told you which post had the link and now there are 2 links on this page. What more do you want?

 

[DreamingNaiad]

So they should be able to deal with any unarmed person at all times, without resorting to shooting them, ever ? Why does that sound like ideology and not pragmatism ?

No, but they should attempt to deal with them without moving straight to deadly force.

 

[Belz...]

I told you which post had the link and now there are 2 links on this page. What more do you want?

I just wanted to know if he had them "with him" as in "on him" or "in the office" or "at home" or "in his future life". It wasn't a complicated question. Anyway, I've read the article now.

No, but they should attempt to deal with them without moving straight to deadly force.

I would argue that he did. Did he enough ? That's another question, but I'm not sure at that point he wanted to risk grappling.

 

[Nessie]

I just wanted to know if he had them "with him" as in "on him" or "in the office" or "at home" or "in his future life". It wasn't a complicated question. Anyway, I've read the article now.



I would argue that he did. Did he enough ? That's another question, but I'm not sure at that point he wanted to risk grappling.

Those who know about policing always questioned Austins decision to leave the office without his kit, when that was thought o be the case. Those not in the know tried to excuse him fot doing that. Now we know the 4 years service officer fid fo what he was supposed to do.

Now by going straight to his gun we know he ignored other options and if that was to avoid an assault he did use excessive force. If he wanted to avoid a wrestle he had othrr options as well.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Not spam, and not incoherent, but your opinion. Gotcha. Did you report my "spamming the forum"?

You're still hung up on the problem that all you can establish is that the deceased was a non-zero risk.

Which is incorrect.

That's not enough to justify shooting someone, unless you're incredibly paranoid and place no value on human life.

Which I'm not, nor do I. So, looks like you're 0/2 so far...

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.

Did I ever claim that?

Drug impaired doesn't negate risk on an officer. In fact, most drugs exacerbate that risk. Of course, there are some exceptions to that.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

And you've never worked in US law enforcement.......so.....your opinion is just as valuable as mine....

 

[triforcharity]

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.

While you're correct, most people arrested pose very little threat to a police officer. My point was, that some of them COULD be, and I don't want any police officer to lose his life because he got complacent.

And I didn't ask you to bet money, I asked if you were willing to bet your life.

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.

No, it seems odd that your linked study mentioned nothing about paranoia, and was fatally flawed. It took random people and gave them a gun. No training, no idea of what a threat is, how to analyze those situations....

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

Here in the US, most officers treat every suspect they interact with as a deadly threat, until they're either restrained, or proven otherwise.

That fact that you don't, proves that you're unfamiliar with US law enforcement.

Not your fault, just the way it is.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Texas Sharpshooter logical fallacy.

 

[Belz...]

Those who know about policing always questioned Austins decision to leave the office without his kit, when that was thought o be the case.

And I agree, now that we know he had said kit. It's a matter of available data, not ideology.