95 replies to this topic

[Hasina]

Cradle of Fish, on 09 October 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

Don't they teach hand to hand techniques to police?

Cause I'd totally go toe to toe with a nude man who may be high out of his mind and let him get within range to bite, scratch or spit in my face. Good thing cops are immune to any sexually transmitted diseases or any disease for that matter, eh?

[Euphorbia]

Dredimus, on 09 October 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

Speaking as some one in the law enforcement/security arena... I can tell you that we are not trained to shoot for limbs for various and some obvious reasons... but the main reason it comes down to these days would be Law Suit. An officer disfiguring / maiming  a suspect would be pretty much a legal blood bath for the officer and his department. Millions of dollars would end up being paid out to the suspect and his family because of damages. Beyond that, any training you take for the military, police force, Armed Security... you are trained to fire at center mass. It is supposed to be understood that if you have to discharge that weapon you must feel that you or others safety/life are in danger.


PCP and Bathsalts are hella drugs... in some cases they essentially turn you into the incredible hulk. Ive seen instances where the suspect was shot multiple times, or tased multiple times to accomplish little to nothing... and where up to 6 officers were unable to subdue the suspect. Its a dangerous situation.

So, you're afraid of a lawsuit for maiming someone so the obvious solution is to shoot to kill.......yeah, makes perfect sense....

[Travelling Man]

Regarding the question about pepper spray or Tasers - I know of SEVEN law enforcement jurisdictions here in Alabama that got rid of both of those tools because of possible lawsuits - the students getting sprayed in the Occupy debacle in NY, and several people dying from complications after being Tased.

They went back to the tried and true - if an officer is in fear for their life - or to prevent the possible loss of life of another - they pull their pistols. A pistol is considered DEADLY FORCE every time you shoot it - there are no "wounding shots", so no aiming at arms or legs. They aim center-mass and after repeated warnings about what's to come, they fire - and they fire to stop whatever aggressive behavior they are encountering. If it takes one shot, then it takes one shot. If it takes numerous shots, then it took numerous shots - it doesn't matter!

Wait for the toxicology reports to come out about this kid - and you will find that he was either REALLY drunk, stoned - or both.

Then, perhaps we can have some apologies from those jumping on the, "Cops are wrong," bandwagon. I won't hold my breath, though.

[Stellar]

Thanato, on 09 October 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

did the officer have a tazer? did the officer feel he was a physical risk? did the officer call for back up and during that time the weapon was discharged due to the risk posed?

Some one who is acting in a threatening way does not need a weapon. if the are on mind altering drugs they are the weapon.

Someone who is naked, unarmed and high should also not be a threat for a trained, armed and sober police officer.

[P4UL N0153]

Stellar, on 09 October 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

Someone who is naked, unarmed and high should also not be a threat for a trained, armed and sober police officer.

Why is that? This coming from your numerous years employed as an LEO conducting felony arrests on violent suspects?

[P4UL N0153]

Why so much sympathy for the lunatic who repeatedly charged an armed man and paid the price for his lunacy?

Would the reaction be the same if this man was on top of your child? Or spouse? Or elderly parent/grandparent?

[Dredimus]

Euphorbia, on 09 October 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

So, you're afraid of a lawsuit for maiming someone so the obvious solution is to shoot to kill.......yeah, makes perfect sense....

Or you could have paid attention to the whole post instead of picking your own lil tid bit out of it to comment on and yet still bring nothing useful to the conversation. Congrats on that.  And yes, shoot to kill is always the best option when confronted with an attacker who would love nothing more than to dispose of you, even if its with his bare hands. Why would I, as an officer, shoot you in the leg to stop you (which btw, some one on PCP probably wouldnt even notice) only to have you go to the hospital, get patched up, then go to jail just so you can turn around and sue me for damages... Ruining MY life because you were a drug addict who decided to be in public threatening people....

On another note, Technically its not "Shoot to Kill" its Shoot until the threat stops. Someone on PCP more than likely isnt gonna stop because you shot them in the arm or leg, and some may not even stop with a lung shot... there are multiple officer training sessions that use various videos of these incidents for training purposes. as I stated in the previous post... ive seen them pepper sprayed and tased with little to no effect.

[Euphorbia]

Maestro, on 09 October 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

Why so much sympathy for the lunatic who repeatedly charged an armed man and paid the price for his lunacy?

Would the reaction be the same if this man was on top of your child? Or spouse? Or elderly parent/grandparent?

Maybe because he was a human being! Without a toxicology report we don't know what or if he was on anything. Again, why shoot to kill? This is just another story as to why law enforcement is dealing with a lot of scrutiny these days. Cops that use excessive force are being videotaped all of the time and many cops are getting fired for it. If the campus video proves that this was his only option then so be it, but I haven't seen it and I don't know if the video has even been released to the public....

[Euphorbia]

Dredimus, on 09 October 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

Or you could have paid attention to the whole post instead of picking your own lil tid bit out of it to comment on and yet still bring nothing useful to the conversation. Congrats on that.  And yes, shoot to kill is always the best option when confronted with an attacker who would love nothing more than to dispose of you, even if its with his bare hands. Why would I, as an officer, shoot you in the leg to stop you (which btw, some one on PCP probably wouldnt even notice) only to have you go to the hospital, get patched up, then go to jail just so you can turn around and sue me for damages... Ruining MY life because you were a drug addict who decided to be in public threatening people....

On another note, Technically its not "Shoot to Kill" its Shoot until the threat stops. Someone on PCP more than likely isnt gonna stop because you shot them in the arm or leg, and some may not even stop with a lung shot... there are multiple officer training sessions that use various videos of these incidents for training purposes. as I stated in the previous post... ive seen them pepper sprayed and tased with little to no effect.

I did pay attention to your whole post! Have you seen a toxicology report yet? I didn't think so, so you're making some assumptions here.

I believe police officers are ill-trained if excessive force is used. If I had to fire my weapon, I personally would have fired a warning shot first, then tried for a leg shot, then the chest as a last resort. Again, I would like to see the campus security video.....

[Corp]

Seems the student was shoot, got up and charged the officer again, before getting shoot again. I'm guessing he was on some powerful drugs to do that.

[supervike]

I'm sure George Zimmerman is very interested in this as well...

[Dredimus]

Euphorbia, on 09 October 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

I did pay attention to your whole post! Have you seen a toxicology report yet? I didn't think so, so you're making some assumptions here.

I believe police officers are ill-trained if excessive force is used. If I had to fire my weapon, I personally would have fired a warning shot first, then tried for a leg shot, then the chest as a last resort. Again, I would like to see the campus security video.....

I think you are missing the plot here.... This guy came to the campus Police department banging on windows... the officer came out... He charged the officer several times and the officer retreated, with weapon drawn, several times... the suspect was warned.. told to stop... he was non compliant and beligerant. Drugs or not, this person was a threat to life or limb. Some one who was not a threat, would have stopped when seeing a police officer telling him to STOP while he had his weapon drawn...


Just a few points.

• Even if the person you shoot is convicted of a crime for assaulting you, they can file a civil suit against you. The other guy can literally sue you from his jail cell. What else has he got to do?
  
• "Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt" is the standard for criminal trials. For civil trials, the plaintiff only has to prove a preponderance of evidence. In other words, the creep in jail who's suing you got the benefit of the doubt, not you.

• Forget about the myth of "shooting to wound." Shooting is shooting and reflects the use of potentially deadly force, and may result in death despite your best intentions. Shooting someone in the leg to wound them could open their femoral artery, which will cause death by blood loss in minutes.

EDIT To Add: Warning Shots are classified as "Pray And Spray" Rounds. And could potentially injure an innocent bystander. As an officer, you must account for every round you fire in a situation such as this.

Edited by Dredimus, 09 October 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[and then]

Rafterman, on 09 October 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

I always wonder about these types of discussions in that I have a strong feeling that the same folks talking about non-lethal options would be the some ones screaming if the kid had been tazered.

As far as the kid being naked, I seem to recall that the "face eater" down in Miami was naked and took multiple rounds before he stopped eating the other guy.

Not in my case.  I'm fully aware the guy was a danger to the cop and himself.  He obviously had a mental issue but the circumstances were such that the cop had several moments to back away from the danger.  In that amount of time he could have resorted to some other option IF that option were available to him.  That's part of what makes me angry.  It seems that either he hadn't been trained to use non lethal force OR he simply freaked and shot in a panic.  When the investigation is finished I suspect the University's insurance carrier is going to be on the hook for several million in damages.  I'm normally the first in line to support cops.  They have a dangerous thankless job and they earn next to nothing for what they go through.  But that is no excuse for fielding an improperly trained officer in a campus setting.

[Cradle of Fish]

Hasina, on 09 October 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Cause I'd totally go toe to toe with a nude man who may be high out of his mind and let him get within range to bite, scratch or spit in my face. Good thing cops are immune to any sexually transmitted diseases or any disease for that matter, eh?

I know scrawny people who could put you into an arm or wrist lock quite easily because they have the know how. Police officers are expected to be in good shape are they not? A couple of Jiujitsu moves and this kid could have been pinned to the ground with no means of biting or scratching. If diseases were the worry then why would you opt for the weapon that splatters blood everywhere?

It's all moot anyway. Who are we to say that the call he made was the right or the wrong one? We don't have the full story and it's not like the media would ever report it anyway. Maybe the kid was suicidal and wanted the cop to shoot him. Maybe he was a serious drug addict scumbag who 'deserved' it or maybe he was just a dumb kid who took a hit of something and wound up paying for it with his life. We can't change what happened and we can't judge the situation based on a tidbit of news.

What we can do is debate whether or not a similar situation could be avoided in the future. It doesn't help to say 'what if he was diseased?' because, if you haven't noticed, police get spat on, scratched and bitten all the time. It is a risk inherent in the job. I don't know what kind of training the police in the United States recieve, which is why I asked. One thing we do know is that if the officer did manage to disable the kid he would still be alive. Does anyone here not think that would be a better outcome?

[Euphorbia]

Dredimus, on 09 October 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

I think you are missing the plot here.... This guy came to the campus Police department banging on windows... the officer came out... He charged the officer several times and the officer retreated, with weapon drawn, several times... the suspect was warned.. told to stop... he was non compliant and beligerant. Drugs or not, this person was a threat to life or limb. Some one who was not a threat, would have stopped when seeing a police officer telling him to STOP while he had his weapon drawn...

If he had time to retreat several times, why didn't he retreat back into the building and/or call for backup?

Quote

Just a few points.

• Even if the person you shoot is convicted of a crime for assaulting you, they can file a civil suit against you. The other guy can literally sue you from his jail cell. What else has he got to do?
  
• "Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt" is the standard for criminal trials. For civil trials, the plaintiff only has to prove a preponderance of evidence. In other words, the creep in jail who's suing you got the benefit of the doubt, not you.

• Forget about the myth of "shooting to wound." Shooting is shooting and reflects the use of potentially deadly force, and may result in death despite your best intentions. Shooting someone in the leg to wound them could open their femoral artery, which will cause death by blood loss in minutes.

EDIT To Add: Warning Shots are classified as "Pray And Spray" Rounds. And could potentially injure an innocent bystander. As an officer, you must account for every round you fire in a situation such as this.

So shoot to kill to keep them from suing you? Do all police officers have this point of view?