News loves Police shoot unarmed man stories.

[Billnew]

Metro Atlanta police officer shoots, kills naked, unarmed man - CNN.com

Someone called 911 to report a man "acting deranged, knocking on doors and crawling around naked," Alexander said.
When the officer arrived, the man charged at him, Alexander said.
"The officer called him to stop while stepping backward, drew his weapon and fired two shots," he said.
The man, struck twice in the upper body, died. Police later learned he was a resident at the complex.

Turned over to special investigation, since it was an unarmed man.

The man charged at the officier. If true, another justifiable homicide.

The race of neither shooter or shootee was given. Nor should it matter.

Mental health training? How can learning how to deal with a mental person prevent this shooting? The man charged as soon as he saw the cop. Nothing the cop could have said, would matter after the man charged.

Important facts of this story:
Derranged man acting crazy call recieved, when sighted man was challenged and man charged at police. Suspect was shot twice to end the charge, which also ended the man's life.

Other option:
Derranged man challenged, man charges,
"lets talk this out, I can help, what is your na...."
Derranged man tackles cop, beats him severely,
call for back up, officer down, crazy acting suspect now has a police firearm.

Once the man charged, the scenerio is pretty much set. Cop flees, cop wrestles with suspect, or cop shoots suspect.
Cop flees; unable to do his job, left the area, possibly leaving civilians in danger.
Cop wrestles suspect: Crazy people and people on drugs can use super-human strength. Thus one on one with a derranged person is not a good option. Even a large muscular cop can loose to a crazy person.
Cop shoots; suspect pushes the situation into deadly force, better a cop face it then an unarmed civilian.

I am not saying the cop is innocent, but the preliminary story sounds believable and sounds like the actions were justifiable.
Witnesses and evidence can disprove the story above, so as in all cases, it is better to wait until all the evdience is in before judging the case.

 

[Nithavela]

Once the man charged, the scenerio is pretty much set. Cop flees, cop wrestles with suspect, or cop shoots suspect.
Cop flees; unable to do his job, left the area, possibly leaving civilians in danger.
Cop wrestles suspect: Crazy people and people on drugs can use super-human strength. Thus one on one with a derranged person is not a good option. Even a large muscular cop can loose to a crazy person.
Cop shoots; suspect pushes the situation into deadly force, better a cop face it then an unarmed civilian.

If only there was some kind of non-lethal weapon.

Like, a weapon that shoots small metal darts that disable people with electricity.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

I am LE and I differ with one of your points. You seem to imply that if a subject makes an overt movement towards the officer which is perceived by said officer to be with hostile intent, than the use of deadly force is justified.

Please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation.

No, use of deadly force is not justified simply because a subject lunges at an officer.

As a legal principle deadly force is only justified when the user is in a state of well founded reasonable fear that there exists an imminent threat of great/grave bodily injury or death.

I can name many possible variables that would make the situation change but suffice to say that your situation alone without any enhancement does not justify deadly force.

But it would justify less than lethal force and may escalate.

 

[cow451]

Metro Atlanta police officer shoots, kills naked, unarmed man - CNN.com



Turned over to special investigation, since it was an unarmed man.

The man charged at the officier. If true, another justifiable homicide.

The race of neither shooter or shootee was given. Nor should it matter.

Mental health training? How can learning how to deal with a mental person prevent this shooting? The man charged as soon as he saw the cop. Nothing the cop could have said, would matter after the man charged.

Important facts of this story:
Derranged man acting crazy call recieved, when sighted man was challenged and man charged at police. Suspect was shot twice to end the charge, which also ended the man's life.

Other option:
Derranged man challenged, man charges,
"lets talk this out, I can help, what is your na...."
Derranged man tackles cop, beats him severely,
call for back up, officer down, crazy acting suspect now has a police firearm.

Once the man charged, the scenerio is pretty much set. Cop flees, cop wrestles with suspect, or cop shoots suspect.
Cop flees; unable to do his job, left the area, possibly leaving civilians in danger.
Cop wrestles suspect: Crazy people and people on drugs can use super-human strength. Thus one on one with a derranged person is not a good option. Even a large muscular cop can loose to a crazy person.
Cop shoots; suspect pushes the situation into deadly force, better a cop face it then an unarmed civilian.

I am not saying the cop is innocent, but the preliminary story sounds believable and sounds like the actions were justifiable.
Witnesses and evidence can disprove the story above, so as in all cases, it is better to wait until all the evdience is in before judging the case.

Bill comes dangerously close to a valid point. The local cop is now the front line of the mental health system. Congratulations, conservatives. You are saving the taxpayers so much money.

That said, some psychotic people are dangerous. If the cop wasn't trained properly and did not have a non-lethal means of dealing with the situation, that's on the municipality.

 

[Billnew]

Less then lethal force:
Cops: Man High on PCP Ignores Tazering, Attacks Stamford Officer | Stamford, CT Patch

Ore. man on meth fights off 12 cops while masturbating in bar


TheChristiansurvivalguide:
I agree they could use less then lethal force,
but did they have the option?
One cop versus crazed person might not have been an option.
Again, I am not saying the cop is innocent, but he might be.

I have said it before,
I was a SP in the AF, A fire team decided to handcuff me, because they were bored.
I was able to keep from being cuffed with 6 larger then I, men. Of course, they could not beat me or injure me, but they could not over power me and allow them to cuff me. (I am 5'4 and was in shape.) I also was not hyped up nor on any drugs.

People can put up quite a fight when they want too.

Never used a taser, can you point and shoot just as fast as a pistol?

 

[Billnew]

Bill comes dangerously close to a valid point. The local cop is now the front line of the mental health system. Congratulations, conservatives. You are saving the taxpayers so much money.

That said, some psychotic people are dangerous. If the cop wasn't trained properly and did not have a non-lethal means of dealing with the situation, that's on the municipality.

Thank you liberals for handing money to lazy people instead of helping truly needy people. Both sides ignore the mentally ill, just for the additional votes.
If you want to help someone, pay for it. To many politicians want to give away today what they want future politicians to tax away in 5-10 yrs, when the poitician is out of office of course.
If you want to help the truly needy, then cut spending on something that isn't as needed.
ie balanced budgets.

 

[dgiharris]

You make it sound like waiting for backup is not an option. I mean, a naked man isn't going to disappear in a puff of smoke.

However, to be fair, real life situations can escalate in the blink of an eye. If I'm a cop and I see someone who is naked banging on a door acting crazy, then I would try to wait for backup to arrive since the writing is on the wall that some level of force is going to be necessary. But it depends on the circumstances, if said person is on the cusp of actually gaining entry or is destroying a lot of property in the process then yeah I'm going to intervene.

Since said person is naked and I am armed with various non-lethal devices to include a taser, pepper spray, mace, and a baton as well as being a highly trained person in the area of physical combat, I'm not overly worried about some random crazy naked person. I'm fairly confident in my abilities and the overwhelming advantage I have being trained and armed that I can submit a naked person without having to shoot him.

However, I've noticed that a decent percentage of police (30%-ish) are in horrific physical shape and level of fitness and likewise probably aren't good in a scrape and I can easily see one of those types of officers not being very confident in their ability to handle a situation one-on-one and thus resorting to using their firearm out of fear. But it is my argument said people should not be patrol officers but that is a separate argument. These types of police though will usually figure out a way to write their report such that deadly force was justified. You know, the good ol, "He reached for something..." or "I thought he had a weapon..."

though that will be a really tough sale in this case since the person was naked.

 

[dgiharris]

....

Never used a taser, can you point and shoot just as fast as a pistol?

Yes, however tasers do not have a 100% contact depending on the clothing the individual is wearing. Success rate is around 95% for people wearing normal type clothing like a T-shirt or thin jacket.

Success rate drops considerably if the person is wearing something like a jacket or multiple layers of clothing (but against a naked person you'd have near a 100% success rate). Also, range is a factor, most tasers are only good around 20ft so that is pretty damn close. Last problem with tasers is accuracy. Hitting different areas results in different responses. The back is ideal because it is a large muscle group, however if you strike an area that is not a large muscle group you will get varying levels of effectiveness and may or may not disable the person completely.

With all that being said, tasers are very effective and if you are trained in their usage, you should have a high degree of confidence it will work.

 

[bill5]

Turned over to special investigation, since it was an unarmed man.

The man charged at the officier. If true, another justifiable homicide.

The race of neither shooter or shootee was given. Nor should it matter.

lol

You dinosaur. If whitey shoots black guy, whitey evil, black guy poor innocent victim, whitey belongs in jail. If not, it's OK to riot and cause chaos and commit all kinds of crime in protest. No other facts matter. Ferguson proved that in spades.

Any other combo: eh, not a big deal per se. Get with the times!

Bill comes dangerously close to a valid point. The local cop is now the front line of the mental health system. Congratulations, conservatives. You are saving the taxpayers so much money.

Yay trying to turn a thread into a political cat fight! See bill?? Now that's getting with the times! Watch n learn......

 

[Oafman]

If only there was some kind of non-lethal weapon.

Like, a weapon that shoots small metal darts that disable people with electricity.

Even an old-fashioned truncheon might work!

 

[cow451]

lol

Yay trying to turn a thread into a political cat fight! See bill?? Now that's getting with the times! Watch n learn......

Said the poster playing the race card........
The fact the deceased was obviously mentally ill seems quite relevant.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

When I did law enforcement with the Unites States Coast Guard for the last thirteen years, we had a use of force continuum that we followed. You used the force necessary to enforce compliance. To the best of my memory, it was as follows.

Level 1, officer presence
Level 2, verbal commands
Level 3, soft control techniques
Level 4, hard control techniques
Level 5, chemical weapon
Level 6, expandable baton
Level 7, firearm

While it is possible in rare circumstances to go from “good afternoon” to blasting away, usually one of the less deadly methods works better.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

TheChristiansurvivalguide:
I agree they could use less then lethal force,
but did they have the option?

Yes, he had soft hand techniques, locks, etc. even if he had no other tools but a firearm.

And again, the use of a firearm requires that the situation be that of an reasonable fear of imminent great bodily injury or death. An "unarmed" person certainly can cause death, but we are presupposing a physical altercation where the subject takes an action to create a reasonable fear of death. Thus far we have no information to suggest that.

One cop versus crazed person might not have been an option.

Agreed, but they'd have to be in the fight for their very lives for deadly force to be a legal option.

Again, I am not saying the cop is innocent, but he might be.

Agreed, we need more information about the incident itself to make any detetmination on justification. However, my opinion as stated above was specific to "a naked man lunging at an officer."

I have said it before,
I was a SP in the AF, A fire team decided to handcuff me, because they were bored.
I was able to keep from being cuffed with 6 larger then I, men. Of course, they could not beat me or injure me, but they could not over power me and allow them to cuff me. (I am 5'4 and was in shape.) I also was not hyped up nor on any drugs.

People can put up quite a fight when they want too.

Agreed. Resisting is not difficult.

Never used a taser, can you point and shoot just as fast as a pistol?

That depends on the carry method but in general its just slightly slower to target usually due to a crossdraw carry behind the mag pouch.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

You make it sound like waiting for backup is not an option. I mean, a naked man isn't going to disappear in a puff of smoke.

However, to be fair, real life situations can escalate in the blink of an eye. If I'm a cop and I see someone who is naked banging on a door acting crazy, then I would try to wait for backup to arrive since the writing is on the wall that some level of force is going to be necessary. But it depends on the circumstances, if said person is on the cusp of actually gaining entry or is destroying a lot of property in the process then yeah I'm going to intervene.

Since said person is naked and I am armed with various non-lethal devices to include a taser, pepper spray, mace, and a baton as well as being a highly trained person in the area of physical combat, I'm not overly worried about some random crazy naked person. I'm fairly confident in my abilities and the overwhelming advantage I have being trained and armed that I can submit a naked person without having to shoot him.

However, I've noticed that a decent percentage of police (30%-ish) are in horrific physical shape and level of fitness and likewise probably aren't good in a scrape and I can easily see one of those types of officers not being very confident in their ability to handle a situation one-on-one and thus resorting to using their firearm out of fear. But it is my argument said people should not be patrol officers but that is a separate argument. These types of police though will usually figure out a way to write their report such that deadly force was justified. You know, the good ol, "He reached for something..." or "I thought he had a weapon..."

though that will be a really tough sale in this case since the person was naked.

I agree with everything here...except where you implied that LEOs are highly trained in physical combat. That made me chuckle.

All great ideas and valid points. The addition I would make is that forensics doesn't lie. If forensics does not validate your statement you are in for a world of hurt.

 

[pgp_protector]

Forget Tasers, we need these.

Just disable disintegration.

 

[dgiharris]

I agree with everything here...except where you implied that LEOs are highly trained in physical combat. That made me chuckle.

All great ideas and valid points. The addition I would make is that forensics doesn't lie. If forensics does not validate your statement you are in for a world of hurt.

Serious question,

why aren't police officers ESPECIALLY patrol officers highly trained in physical combat???

Sure, if you are riding a desk I can understand not being a highly trained martial artist.

But if you are doing patrol and you run the daily risk of physical confrontations, then why wouldn't you be highly trained in physical combat/confrontations? Serious question, no snark intended?

I'm not saying all patrol officers should be black belts, but they should be able to take out 90% of citizens in a one-on-one engagement.

In college, I did a fair amount of Mixed Martial Arts and boxing. I more or less fought an average of probably 3 times a week for 4 years and I did that for fun. If I worked a job where I faced the actual threat of combat on a daily basis, I'd have a greater incentive to be highly trained in fighting and all manner of physical confrontations.

So to me, it seems a pretty glaring leak in police procedures if this is not the case and maybe a reason why there are a higher percentage of shootings than there needs to be? ????

I guess it goes back to why things are the way they are. I mean, if I had near unlimited authority to commit violence to include lethal force, then I guess I really don't have much incentive to be highly trained in physical combat. You either do as I say, or I beat you with my baton or if I feel that is too risky I simply shoot you.

 

[tulc]

Here's another problem: according to some witnesses Mr Hill (the naked dead man) wasn't so much "charging" at the officer as running with his hands up in the air

Some believe the shooting was justified while others aren't sure.

"He ran to the police. He runs wide open with the hands up," the witness said.

found here:
Police identify naked man shot, killed by DeKalb officer | www.wsbtv.com
tulc(Mr.Hill was the 200th person killed by US police in 2015)

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Serious question,

why aren't police officers ESPECIALLY patrol officers highly trained in physical combat???

This is a really good question with a poor excuse for an answer...money.

The cost for facilities, instructors, materials, and officer's pay is the easy part because its a simple formula. The difficult and potentially more costly issue is liability.

By liability I mean two things. First, that officers and Instructors will be injured as a natural occurence due to the nature of training and have medical costs/workers comp/subsequent OT costs to the agency for making up the man power. But also that increased training means less ability for the agency to claim that the officer acted outside of guidelines, essentially, reducing the oppurtunity for plausible deniability.

But if you are doing patrol and you run the daily risk of physical confrontations, then why wouldn't you be highly trained in physical combat/confrontations? Serious question, no snark intended?

Time constraints, money issues, allocation of time to other police issues like legal concepts or equipment training, lack of interest, no perceived need amongst other reasons. None are valid.

All of those issues work on a personal level as well.

I'm not saying all patrol officers should be black belts, but they should be able to take out 90% of citizens in a one-on-one engagement.

Wow, 90pct is asking alot.

There are other factors that make you less effective as a LEO in physical confrontations. Things like equipment weight, vest constrictions, divided awareness, adrenal issues, etc.

I roll jiu jitsu often. I'm ok in no gi. But put on a uniform with a gun on one side and a radio on the other and I'm a turtle. Just cant generate enough torque for reliable sweeps as the belt and equipment are just speedbumps in the way. I also just gave you quite a few grapple and latch points for clinching or wrestling.

In college, I did a fair amount of Mixed Martial Arts and boxing. I more or less fought an average of probably 3 times a week for 4 years and I did that for fun. If I worked a job where I faced the actual threat of combat on a daily basis, I'd have a greater incentive to be highly trained in fighting and all manner of physical confrontations.

The reality is that very few LEOs have to actively "fight" suspects on a regular basis. So many do not feel incentivized as you would.

So to me, it seems a pretty glaring leak in police procedures if this is not the case and maybe a reason why there are a higher percentage of shootings than there needs to be? ????

There are many factors leading to an increase in OIS but you are correct, lack of training in Defensive Tactics certainly is a big one.

I guess it goes back to why things are the way they are. I mean, if I had near unlimited authority to commit violence to include lethal force, then I guess I really don't have much incentive to be highly trained in physical combat. You either do as I say, or I beat you with my baton or if I feel that is too risky I simply shoot you.

Thats a bit of a stretch. I can understand why people might think similarly but cops do not have "unlimited authority to commit violence."

 

[Nithavela]

Serious question,

why aren't police officers ESPECIALLY patrol officers highly trained in physical combat???

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Thats a diagrace, literally.