[CNN] Union: Pistol-whipped detective didn't shoot attacker because of headlines

Exactly.

I have heard my uncle talking about a time where this huge guy was on drugs and the tasers weren't stopping him at all. It took a bunch of officers to subdue him because he was so big.

But you are correct... tasers don't always work. Like I said earlier in the thread... tasers are generally used to subdue a resisting suspect. Not as a first line of defense against a violent suspect.

 

I asked for the likely scenario. If he wasn't killed after pulling his gun and being beaten with it why would it be more likely without a gun? Why are unarmed police targets? What do criminals have to gain by going after cops with weapons? This guy wanted to escape, the cop had a gun, so escaping meant incapacitating the cop.

 

I said he'd be more likely to be killed during any altercation if he didn't have a gun at all.

Cops are safer with guns.

However, in this very specific situation that the story is about, he very easily could have been killed with his own gun.

If police were unarmed, police would get killed a lot more often by criminals with weapons when they are confronted.

Criminals kill police officers all the time even though the police have guns.

 

I support cops most of time as well. We all know that most cops are good or great cops, which I personally have stated before. However, not all of them are good cops. In my opinion Darren Wilson is not a good cop and escalated a situation that never should have happened. Michael Brown was not walking out of a convenience store he had just robbed when Darren Wilson shot him, he was also unarmed.

 

But he wasn't he was beaten with it. He wasn't safer in this situation with a gun, he was less safe.

 

He was only unsafe because he didn't do his job, if he had done his job, he'd have been fine. Take the gun out of the equation and he still takes a beating, and is possibly hurt worse.

 

True tazers are not 100% effective but in established self-defense law that applies to all people (LE and civilians) appropriate and reasonable force in the standard and lethal force isn't justified as a first option.

Now I will say that there are many many situations where lethal force is an option but it is a mistake to presume that most cases are like that. I will also say that we do need to know more about this situation to assess it.

 

All of the incidents in question involved circumstances in which the officer would be in reasonable apprehension of imminent death or great bodily injury, because someone attacking you can cause great bodily injury or death, be they armed or unarmed. That is all that is required to respond with deadly force. Michael Brown charging Officer Wilson allows for the use of deadly force, which is why the grand jury didn't indict him. The guy in this case got close enough to the cop to take his gun, which would allow for the use of deadly force.

 

I'm not disagreeing that this situation might've justified deadly force. I'm not arguing that there aren't situations where lethal force is justified. What I was arguing with in my initial post in this thread was that this is a case where media outcry over other incidents is putting LE lives at risk because LE are hesitating. What I cited in my first post was that there is established procedures for dealing with this and that this LEO didn't follow those resulting in his own injuries.

I think this is a case of an LEO acting poorly in a situation.

Further without knowing more and admittedly speculative we don't know how exactly this situation worked out. There may have been earlier instances prior to the suspect getting the LEO's weapon where other options besides lethal force might've been possible. Anyway if your starting point is when the suspect can get the LEO's weapon (at arm's reach) at that point the chances of being able to successfully stop the suspect even with lethal force has greatly diminished.

 

Do you mean doing his job as in going to investigate a burglary like he was supposed to do instead of making traffic stops... He probably wouldn't have staples in his head if he would have done that.

As Bandwagoner keeps saying _ he was getting his azz beat with the gun... So that azz beating may have been less severe seeing how the guy wouldn't have been able to take his gun and beat his azz with it.

 

I mean doing his job as in shooting that ******* instead of letting his gun get taken away.

He was going to get attacked no matter what, if he wasn't knocked unconscious by the gun, the guy likely beats him a lot more to ensure that he's incapacitated...that could have led to more severe injuries or even death.

If you are unwilling or unable to shoot someone, you shouldn't be a cop.

 

What is your evidence for that? Pulling a gun on people tends to increase the probability they are willing to attack you.

 

Really? So you are more likely to attack someone who is pointing a gun at you than someone who is unarmed?

Yeah, that's logical.

 

You are saying things that everyone here already knows. Laws in America are often not what hey should be and Police Officer training and often fit requirements are not exactly what they should be either. This creates situations where critical thinking is not a requirement it's just kill or be killed. Even today we've seen a young man who was running at the police get gunned down because one officer thought he was attacking when he was running toward them for help. It will likely be deemed justified but it shouldn't be. As a cop you can always say you feared for your life, you can always say you thought the guy would overpower you. Like in the Darren Wilson case if didn't think he could subdue him get back in the car wait for backup. No one would have been killed in that circumstance.

 

Motivation for attacking unarmed person = none

motivation for attacking person point gun at me = to acquire said gun and not be shot

 

He could be correct. People who are charging a police officer are likely mentally ill or suffering from some form of psychosis. Seeing a gun may make them more violent instead of calming them down.

 

Okay, so two guys are in an argument and talking tough acting like they are about to fight. One guy pulls out a gun and tells the other guy to back off.

Were they more likely to fight when they were both under the assumption that it was an unarmed fist fight?

Or are they more likely to fight after one guy has a deadly weapon?


I'm 100% certain the guy with a gun pointed at him is much more likely to back down when he has a gun pointed at him than when he was acting tough not knowing the guy was armed.

 

So you're telling me in the USA that the police should not carry guns? Is that what you're saying?

The cops are safer on the streets without a firearm?

 

Are you intentionally being ridiculous? His motivation for attacking the cop was to incapacitate the cop so he could make an escape, he'd have attacked him no matter what....only since the cop had a gun he should have been safe, unfortunately he failed to do his job and ended up in the hospital as a result.

 

Ahh so motivation is escape. when the cop pulls a gun his motivation changes to take gun away then escape.