Page 4 of 4
#121
Quote by Lemoninfluence
He could also have been completely sober and in distress. He knew nothing of the situation except there was a banging on the door and came out armed with no non-lethal tools.

Right. We don't know how the confrontation went and how the chase was initiated. We do know that the officer went out with weapon drawn (which until stated otherwise, I will assume to be because he had a naked kid hitting his door and potentially posing a threat to himself or to others rather than because he wanted to pop a cap in someone).

well then why use tasers ever? they could be on PCP and be ineffective.

He made the decision to not bring the taser BEFORE he knew the kid was on drugs.

The reason I brought PCP up is because a lot of people will react to it by removing their clothing and running around. PCP users are usually pretty obvious, and if this kid was on it, then tasing would have only pissed him off, meaning the officer would have been confronting a really pissed off druggie with a depressed CNS and constant adrenaline surges. We know that the kid was not on PCP, but the officer did not and had fair reason to suspect it.

We don't know what he was thinking or how the confrontation went down. If you want to pass judgment without those crucial bits of evidence, go for it, but realize that you are ignoring the most important part of this - how and why it happened.
#122
Quote by Arby911
Yep.

As an example, a 9mm 124 gr RN bullet exiting the muzzle at 1120fps has a maximum travel range of 2400 yards, well over a mile, and will impact at 350fps with more than enough energy to be lethal.

Warning shots are a Hollywood fiction, as are shoot-to-wound scenarios.


yah, guns are for killing people. there's really no way around that. if a police officer fires a gun, they must be willing to kill someone.

it seems a little strange to me that a police officers is allowed to carry a gun while not carrying a less than lethal weapon, such as a taser.
#123
Quote by Eastwinn
yah, guns are for killing people. there's really no way around that. if a police officer fires a gun, they must be willing to kill someone.

it seems a little strange to me that a police officers is allowed to carry a gun while not carrying a less than lethal weapon, such as a taser.


Some firearms are for killing people, many are not.

Agree on the second sentence but would extend it. If anyone pulls a firearm on another person, they must be willing to kill. If you can't do that, leave the firearm at home and take your chances.

Oddly enough I've read that firearms shootings generate fewer lawsuits per capita than do tasings, and if that's true then as with most things, it's a money issue.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#124
Quote by Arby911
Some firearms are for killing people, many are not.

Agree on the second sentence but would extend it. If anyone pulls a firearm on another person, they must be willing to kill. If you can't do that, leave the firearm at home and take your chances.

Oddly enough I've read that firearms shootings generate fewer lawsuits per capita than do tasings, and if that's true then as with most things, it's a money issue.


by guns i mean a weapon that fires a piece of metal super fast with a chemical explosive

maybe tasers are more likely to be used inappropriately than a proper gun. that would make tons of sense.
#125
Quote by Geldin
I'm basing that one off of personal experience. I've had a few experiences where I was supposed to be smoking pot, but what happened was extreme paranoia followed by huge bursts of easily-misdirected energy. I dunno about running around a police precinct naked, but I'm not gonna count it out.

I've smoked a fair bit of pot, I've never come close to running around naked and physically assaulting others. Paranoia can certainly come from smoking, as can bursts of energy from a good sativa strain. That isn't necessarily going to make one strip naked and physically assault ones peers and attempt to assault an officer.


Quote by Geldin
Like I said, there are far too many unknowns for me to pass judgment. In one scenario, it's completely illogical that the officer would open fire; in another hypothetical, it makes perfect sense. I will say this much - if he was running in fear of his life, he had good cause to shoot. We don't know how it all went down, simply that it did and now a kid is dead.

If he was running in fear of his life, to be quite frank he's not competent at his job. We're looking at a naked runt of a kid running at him on an unknown substance. Granted, that isn't exactly ideal, but that very likely doesn't mean that his only conceivable option was to open fire. I admit that, if a tazer for whatever reason wasn't standard issue to somebody in his position along with various other legitimate non-lethal tools/methods for stopping a potential threat in this scenario, I'd feel comfortable with shifting my blame from the officer upwards to whoever is responsible for this oversight in protocol.


Quote by Geldin
Fair point on the tazing, though I will point this out - a classic behavior of people on PCP is to remove their clothing and act out (precisely what it sounds like what the kid was doing). Not knowing what the kid was on and having him potentially right at the door, going out with a taser that might or might not effect the kid is a dicey proposition. In hindsight, tasing could well have been the second best option (the first being waiting for backup unless the kid did something that posed a legitimate threat to himself or others).

Well since you seem to concede on my one issue, the biggest block between us comes from shared ignorance in regards to the whole escalation by a degree deal. I still believe that it seems logical for there to be a distinction between a non-lethal method such as a tazer and a lethal method such as a gun, it seems reasonable to assume that there would be a "degree" of difference between the two in regards to escalation of violence given the circumstance.

When an officer draws a gun, that means that they have intent to shoot. This isn't some sort of scare tactic or precautionary measure, if they have their gun out they have already predetermined that the appropriate course of action is to shoot with what could very well be deadly force. It seems wildly inappropriate that in this scenario, through banging on the door from a potentially drugged up, yet visibly unarmed person, that the best course of action for the officer was deemed to be drawing his gun.


Quote by Geldin
Lemme set this straight - I dismissed the taser because (1) we don't know if the officer had one at the time (they aren't always standard issue to campus police), (2) it might not have effected the kid depending on what he was on, (3) it might have had extremely adverse effects on the kid depending on what he was on, and (4) the officer may have believed that simply drawing his weapon might subdue the kid. There are a lot of "ifs" and "mights" in there, highlighting that there is a lot that we just don't know.

(1) If the officer did not have a tazer or similar means to non-lethally subdue an unarmed potential threat without using his gun, we simply shift the incompetence up the ladder to whoever is responsible for the flawed protocol which led to the unnecessary loss of life in this incident.

(2) This comes down to the escalation of violence by a degree rule that you provided. Seems as if the appropriate course of action in that particular situation would have been attempting to utilize a non-lethal method before moving to more dangerous means such as shooting centre-mass.

(3) The extremely adverse effects on the kid pale in comparison to a gunshot centre-mass, which turned out to be fatal in this case. Again, I don't buy this particular line of reasoning.

(4) That's not kosher. I reiterate, officers are only supposed to draw their weapons when the only deemed appropriate course of action is to shoot. There are no scare tactics, warning shots, or anything of the sort. If an officer draws his gun on you, he's going to shoot you centre-mass. It means all other methods of incapacitating a threat have been exhausted either due to escalation of the threat or due to alternative methods being exhausted. The premature drawing of the gun was wildly inappropriate, and as far as I can tell seems to be a breach in protocol. I believe I've adequately covered this in the other numbered points though.


Quote by Geldin
The trouble is that we don't have access to video footage of the confrontation or the chase. We know that chase footage exists, but we don't have public access. Barring further evidence and testimony, I'm not going to ascribe to malice what I can to incompetence (as in, I believe the officer intended to subdue rather than kill the student and initiated the confrontation with a non-violent resolution), and I'm not going to ascribe to incompetence what I can to my own lack of knowledge (meaning that I won't assume that the officer catastrophically mishandled the situation and escalated the level of violence until I see proof).

That's certainly fair to a certain degree. To attribute a certain claim of incompetence or malice on the part of the officer is premature without accepting that there are potential bits of information that could be revealed to have happened which alter the judgement. However, with our current knowledge base, it does not seem appropriate to state that there is incompetence present either from the officer or from higher ups in the department/jurisdiction that form the protocol or are responsible for what officers in these areas are equipped with. Regardless, right now it seems that this was an avoidable death and there are people who's failure in some capacity could have made this a different ending.

Quote by Geldin
There are way too many variables right now for me to be comfortable passing judgment on this one.

Fair enough.
#126
Quote by Geldin
Right. We don't know how the confrontation went and how the chase was initiated. We do know that the officer went out with weapon drawn (which until stated otherwise, I will assume to be because he had a naked kid hitting his door and potentially posing a threat to himself or to others rather than because he wanted to pop a cap in someone).


The reason I brought PCP up is because a lot of people will react to it by removing their clothing and running around. PCP users are usually pretty obvious, and if this kid was on it, then tasing would have only pissed him off, meaning the officer would have been confronting a really pissed off druggie with a depressed CNS and constant adrenaline surges. We know that the kid was not on PCP, but the officer did not and had fair reason to suspect it.

We don't know what he was thinking or how the confrontation went down. If you want to pass judgment without those crucial bits of evidence, go for it, but realize that you are ignoring the most important part of this - how and why it happened.


I'm saying that it's a mistake in and of itself to not have the less than lethal tools with him in the first place.

Ignoring any potentially justifying factors for using lethal force, he made the mistake of not giving himself any other options. That happened BEFORE any of the factors would have been considered.

And yes we're missing the important details, but there's nothing wrong with discussing the matter according to the details we have now.

What we know is that a kid banged on the door of the police station. After calling for backup the cop came out weapon drawn and without his pepper spray and baton to find the kid naked and apparently on drugs. There was a confrontation in which somehow the officer ended up being chased 50 feet away from the station. The kid got within 5 feet of the officer and so the officer opened fire.

The mistakes in that situation came right at the beginning and then later on (as a consequence of the first mistake) when he went straight to lethal force.

Should any further evidence come out as to why he didn't take his pepper spray (e.g. it was empty and he hadn't been issued with another one) and baton (it was broken or he wasn't trained how to use it effectively) then I'll change my opinion and accept that he had no other option. However, as it stands, the guy killed a kid unnecessarily.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#127
This kid wasn't on LSD. Must have gotten some bad doses from that music festival. Seems like it must have been a pretty stupid alabama cop.
Gear:
Musicman Stingray 4 string HH
Tech 21 Sansamp Para Driver
Ampeg V-4B
Ampeg SVT-212AV 2x12

Gibson SG Standard
Vox AC15
Keeley compressor
Keeley Dark Side
Boss RC-2 Loop
Korg Pandora
Crybaby Wah
#128
Quote by Thrashtastic15

When an officer draws a gun, that means that they have intent to shoot. This isn't some sort of scare tactic or precautionary measure, if they have their gun out they have already predetermined that the appropriate course of action is to shoot with what could very well be deadly force.

(4) That's not kosher. I reiterate, officers are only supposed to draw their weapons when the only deemed appropriate course of action is to shoot. There are no scare tactics, warning shots, or anything of the sort. If an officer draws his gun on you, he's going to shoot you centre-mass. It means all other methods of incapacitating a threat have been exhausted either due to escalation of the threat or due to alternative methods being exhausted. The premature drawing of the gun was wildly inappropriate, and as far as I can tell seems to be a breach in protocol. I believe I've adequately covered this in the other numbered points though.


Sorry, but that's not really correct.

The use of force doctrines that I'm familiar with allow the drawing of a firearm when, in the officer's professional opinion, the use of deadly force may be justified due to known circumstances. They do not require a clear, immediate and compelling threat to DRAW a weapon, only to use it.

The simple fact is that most of the time, officers do NOT shoot, because the threat of deadly force is sufficient to control the situation. Officers draw their weapons many times more than they actually fire them.

In short form, the police use firearms overwhelmingly more often as 'scare tactics' than as force multipliers.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#129
Quote by Arby911
Sorry, but that's not really correct.

The use of force doctrines that I'm familiar with allow the drawing of a firearm when, in the officer's professional opinion, the use of deadly force may be justified due to known circumstances. They do not require a clear, immediate and compelling threat to DRAW a weapon, only to use it.

The simple fact is that most of the time, officers do NOT shoot, because the threat of deadly force is sufficient to control the situation. Officers draw their weapons many times more than they actually fire them.

In short form, the police use firearms overwhelmingly more often as 'scare tactics' than as force multipliers.

Maybe that's just a difference between Canada and America, but I've always been under the impression that's how it has worked. I've had officers tell me that first hand that's how their protocol functions in the past.
#130
Quote by Thrashtastic15
Maybe that's just a difference between Canada and America, but I've always been under the impression that's how it has worked. I've had officers tell me that first hand that's how their protocol functions in the past.

well they are cunts, probably trying to scare you
#131
Quote by captaincrunk
well they are cunts, probably trying to scare you

I'm the demographic that police officers are generally nice towards unless I'm committing a crime (even then, I have stories of being caught smoking by cops and not even having them get me to dispose of my smoking substances and paraphernalia). It hardly scares me knowing that they have more restraints against drawing firearms.
#132
It seems a lot of people here do not understand how dangerous even an unarmed aggressor can be. I encourage you to look up the Tueller Drill, which is a typical scenario often taught in law enforcement training. The drill usually involves an attacker with a knife, but it shows how quickly things get ugly.

Long story short, you really do not want to let an aggressor anywhere near you, because the results can be disastrous. If the kid really was chasing the officer in a threatening manner (and had already proven himself a danger to others), then the officer did the right thing.
Last edited by BlueBalrog at Oct 10, 2012,
#133
if the officer had fired a warning shot, people would have been pissed that he fired an unnecessary round on a college campus full of people.
DOESN'T REALLY CARE ABOUT RON WILSON
#134
Quote by Thrashtastic15
I'm the demographic that police officers are generally nice towards unless I'm committing a crime (even then, I have stories of being caught smoking by cops and not even having them get me to dispose of my smoking substances and paraphernalia). It hardly scares me knowing that they have more restraints against drawing firearms.



suuuure that exists.

the only people cops like are other cops
#135
Quote by captaincrunk


suuuure that exists.

the only people cops like are other cops

I've had a cop sitting in his cruiser watch me taking bong rips one morning. He put his siren on to make me panic and spill bong water all over myself/my bag, then laughed and drove off. That's the biggest dick move a cop has ever done to me, not charge me or even get me to get rid of my shit after breaking the law.

Some cops are douchebags, other cops are competent. But when you're an upper middle class white male in a very low crime city, cops are fairly civil as long as you conduct yourself in a proper, polite, Canadian fashion.
#136
Quote by ElCapitan143
I love how all the people posting on here are 12 year old morons.

I'd be willing to bet that none of us are 12, and most of us aren't morons.
Quote by Trowzaa
I wish I was American.

~ A Rolling Potato Gathers No Moss ~
#138
Honestly he should have just tackled him because no weapons were needed. This guy wasn't a wrestler or football player right? The cop is much more at fault than the kid. BUT that doesn't mean taking LSD at a music festival is a good idea if you can't handle your shit. I have been to my share of about 40-70,000 people electronic concerts, I talk to plenty of calm nice people who tell me they are on acid. Since they are calm and normal-ish, "I'm definitely not the most sober one there..." then that is totally fine with me. The second they freak out because it affects them wrong, that is there fault and no one else's. If you choose to take it then the responsibility to handle yourself is yours. Research what you take before you take to decide if it is for you or not. Death should not be the penalty, very, very few things in my mind would even brush against that penalty. However if he had lived, I would expect him to spend some time in jail and maybe some fines. The cop however should get into some serious trouble for his actions, that is ridiculous. Tackling the guy wouldn't have been that much. I've seen rent-a-cops do it.
grok it.

SKREAM!

Listen to jazz, it's good for you...
#140
Quote by dubstar92
This guy wasn't a wrestler

that's exactly what he was
Quote by Arby911
Yep.

As an example, a 9mm 124 gr RN bullet exiting the muzzle at 1120fps has a maximum travel range of 2400 yards, well over a mile, and will impact at 350fps with more than enough energy to be lethal.

Warning shots are a Hollywood fiction, as are shoot-to-wound scenarios.

Maybe I quoted it wrong, but he claimed that shooting a gun upwards (as a warning shot) was lethal. I'm pretty sure Mythbusters disproved that, or concluded it was extremely unlikely

281-330-8004, that's my cell phone number, hit me up on the low
#141
Quote by samick007
To all of you suggesting they fire a warning shot. Really? Are you kidding me?

I don't see why they couldn't just tackle the guy though. It's not like they've been specifically trained to handle potentially dangerous people or anything.


This. There was a episode on COPS which had police going after a naked person and they wrestled him to the ground. Why the cop didn't wrestle this person to the ground,i don't understand.
#143
Quote by OddOneOut
And there's still no problem with guns?

This ends now, eat the goddamn beans!
#144
Quote by OddOneOut
And there's still no problem with guns?

To say that there is not a problem with guns would be silly.

To say that the problem stems from the fact that guns are used would also be silly.

To say that the problem with guns stems from improper training, testing that is not thorough enough, etc., would not be silly.
Quote by Trowzaa
I wish I was American.

~ A Rolling Potato Gathers No Moss ~
#145
Quote by Colgate Total
Who cares? One less dumb ass in the world.


Yeah, you'll go far in life with that kind of logic, you insensitive c*nt.


Guess they shouldn't even let you carry a gun in the police, except if you're in a mission or in a dangerous suburb...

A drunken kid couldn't have been handled easily by a bunch of trained cops (yeah that doesn't sound right, more like a bunch of failed thugs but still...).
It's always like that those guys act like they are above the law and get away with nothing because "they are heroes and it wasn't really their fault".
#146
Quote by OddOneOut
And there's still no problem with guns?


No, no problem at all. In fact the firearm in question did exactly what it was manufactured to do, accurately fire a high speed projectile.

The fact that someone was in the path of said projectile, or that the projectile perhaps needn't be fired isn't a consequence of the firearm.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#147
Quote by Thrashtastic15
I've had a cop sitting in his cruiser watch me taking bong rips one morning. He put his siren on to make me panic and spill bong water all over myself/my bag, then laughed and drove off. That's the biggest dick move a cop has ever done to me, not charge me or even get me to get rid of my shit after breaking the law.

Some cops are douchebags, other cops are competent. But when you're an upper middle class white male in a very low crime city, cops are fairly civil as long as you conduct yourself in a proper, polite, Canadian fashion.

so if someone else did that to you, you'd think they must really like you, right?
#148
Quote by captaincrunk
so if someone else did that to you, you'd think they must really like you, right?


If the usual alternative was arresting me and possible incarceration, I'd be inclined to consider it a favor...
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin