94 replies to this topic

[and then]

http://www.huffingto..._n_1946100.html

The title may seem extreme but I don't think so.  Since when is it necessary for a (presumably) trained law enforcement officer to fire a shot into the CHEST of a kid who weigh less than 200 lbs who was demonstrably unarmed since he was NAKED?  What happened to non lethal force?  This student was almost certainly high on something and could have been taken down without killing him.  Even if the officer had no other choice than to discharge his sidearm - what ever happened to shooting the legs?

[Stellar]

Have you ever shot a pistol, and then?

[Bavarian Raven]

Quote

MOBILE, Ala. — A police officer at the University of South Alabama has fatally shot a naked student whom authorities said repeatedly charged the officer.

There's your answer. Just because someone is naked, doesn't make them any less dangerous.

[DarkHunter]

If the kind was on something like PCP or bath salts then shooting him in the chest is the only thing that was going to stop him, also shooting him in the leg would be rather difficult.  It is hard enough to hit a target with a pistol let alone a moving target that is charging at you.

[catch-me-if-you-can]

Two words: Red Tape

[Hilander]

While I am totally against excessive force sometimes that is the only answer.  Look what others have done on PCP and bath salts.

[Euphorbia]

DarkHunter, on 08 October 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

If the kind was on something like PCP or bath salts then shooting him in the chest is the only thing that was going to stop him, also shooting him in the leg would be rather difficult.  It is hard enough to hit a target with a pistol let alone a moving target that is charging at you.

You find it difficult therefor it can't be done....even by someone trained to use a weapon? It says the officer retreated several times....so.... why didn't he retreat back into the building and call for backup? Why is shooting someone in the chest always the first resort? Did the officer panic? If so, should he even be an officer?

There are non-lethal means to take someone down if necessary.....

I would like to see the campus video.

[Thanato]

Euphorbia, on 08 October 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

You find it difficult therefor it can't be done....even by someone trained to use a weapon? It says the officer retreated several times....so.... why didn't he retreat back into the building and call for backup? Why is shooting someone in the chest always the first resort? Did the officer panic? If so, should he even be an officer?

There are non-lethal means to take someone down if necessary.....

I would like to see the campus video.

Well obviously it wasnt his first choice, since his first choice was to try and defuse the situation. However apparently the student kept charging the officer.

~Thanato

[DarkHunter]

Euphorbia, on 08 October 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

You find it difficult therefor it can't be done....even by someone trained to use a weapon? It says the officer retreated several times....so.... why didn't he retreat back into the building and call for backup? Why is shooting someone in the chest always the first resort? Did the officer panic? If so, should he even be an officer?

There are non-lethal means to take someone down if necessary.....

I would like to see the campus video.

Shooting a handgun accurately is extremely difficult even for skilled marksman, due to the short barrel length the slightest twitch can affect your aim greatly.  Once you add in the other factors such as a moving target, adrenaline, potentially the shooter was moving, with all those factors added in hitting the leg would be extremely difficult for anyone and it is only logical to aim for a larger area that relatively doesn't move much.  It also seems you are putting far to much credit into the handgun training officers retrieve, shooting a stationary cutout of a person is far different then shooting someone charging at you, even then they are trained to shoot center mass, not at legs or arms, which is exactly what this officer did.  

The articles mentions how the officer attempted retreating multiple times and it is possible that retreating back into the building was not an option.

In this case shooting him was the best option available at the time.  The person was moving around erratically, naked, and not listening or responding to the officer, all of which are indicators of PCP use.  I am not sure of your knowledge of drugs but with PCP unless you got multiple people to help restrain a person on PCP there is little to nothing you can do to stop them short of shooting them.  It is also possible that he was on bath salts instead since his characteristics could also fall under using bath salts instead.

I highly doubt the officer panicked since he first tried disarming the situation then did what he was trained to do.

What non lethal means are you suggesting be used, if he was on bath salts or PCP then restraining him alone would be highly dangerous, taseing may or may not have stopped him, pepper spray would of had little affect.  If he wasn't on drugs then why didn't he listen to the police officer or at least stop charging him.

[and then]

I have had quite a bit of handgun practice - none formal.  I realize the difficulty.  I even factored in the possibility of missing and unintentionally striking a bystander.  This young man was NAKED.  He was holding no weapon.  It's easy enough to discount that pepper spray or tazing might not work but if he had been your child I think you might have wanted someone to at least try.  What of the training of this "force"?  If ever there was a time for non lethal action - this was it.  This is my hometown and I find it sickening that a life was lost just because a young person was stupid enough to try a drug (unconfirmed supposition on my part) and he had an unexpected reaction to it.  If he had been armed - even with a knife - then I'd say no problem.  This young man was shot dead because of the lack of training of the "officer" and I expect some local attorney's are going to make his family very comfortable in the next couple of years.  There is NO excuse for executing an unarmed person whether they are violently high or not.  Non lethal means exist and in a campus setting should be the first option by training.

[Thanato]

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.

Edited by Thanato, 09 October 2012 - 11:26 AM.

[Cradle of Fish]

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

[and then]

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

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

This is my main beef....it seems to me that if non lethal force can ever be used then THIS was such a situation.  Suspect was NAKED and had no weapons.  A campus police officer should absolutely have non lethal means at hand to subdue a suspect.

[Babe Ruth]

Our government does not torture, and it does not use excessive force.  It does not do anything wrong.  The police are ONLY serving and protecting.

[Rafterman]

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.