Ohhhh the terror of a young man with a baton advancing on an trained and armed officer! He certainly had every right to fire off six shots right away then... I guess for the rest of us hopeless civilians, anyone who even looks at us funny is a target for shooting in self defense right?
Did you think before you post? Can you kill someone with a baton? If someone comes at you with a baton can you avoid being hit and then disarm the attacker? Maybe you're a super bad ass. What about when the officer gets knocked out? When you are faced with deadly force you meet it with deadly force. Anything else, your competency as an officer (or human in general) will come into question. If you see if any other way, please, stop breathing.
Based on news articles, which is all we have right now, how was this officer trigger happy? If anything, he's trigger hesitant. Most officers would have given him lead poisoning the first time he tried to hit him with a baton.
He already showed he was willing to take a weapon (the baton) away from the cop. Is the cop to suspect he absolutely would not do the same with the gun at that point?
If I spent my youth going through police training and I had a gun while my would be assailant had nothing but a stick, I damn well should be able to come out of the situation with both of our heads intact. If you can't, you should probably stop breathing. Or better yet, just leave police work to real professionals.
While I think the officer is justified in doing what he did, I have a question. How is a scenario like this handled in countries where cops aren't allowed to carry guns (Germany, UK?)?
I think your view of police officers versus "everyday joe" is misguided. Training, a gun, etc. all help, but I could have spent my youth that way as well, and still be taken down by an "unarmed" person. Just depends on the situation, the other people, etc. This isn't a Steven Seagal movie. Moreover, it's not clear that this police officer (or most) do spend their youths with that type "training". Some do, most probably don't. I think, at the end of the day, police officers ARE just everyday joe's... who have had some level of training on on combat, gun use, and procedure, but are everyday guy's nonetheless. Now, add the elements of this story which seem to include: (1) cop not knowing anything about the victim - many have pointed to this just being an unarmed college kid who is normal a pretty chill guy. that's great, the cop had no way of knowing that and the kids actions pointed to the opposite, (2) victim already assaulting officer and taking his baton, (3) cop ordering victim to stand down, (3) victim bull charging the cop, (4) cop seemingly following procedure with regard to discharge of firearm - investigation to determine if appropriate though. Obviously we don't have ALL the facts, but with what I do have, I certainly can not say "trigger happy cop" or fault the cop a ton for valuing his life over that of the victim, who was acting in a threatening, criminalistic manner. Definitely interesting. The most logical argument for the cop's use of deadly force in this instance is the fact that the victim already got his baton from him and used it to assault him and would seemingly do the same with the cops gun... so the thought process was "can't let him get close, he may grab my gun somehow in a struggle and kill me". Again, logical, can't blame the cop. But that line of though only exists because the cop has the gun in the first place. Relative to the whole debate in America about gun control (which gun control advocates are and likely will continue to lose... because of boogeyman fears of 'they'll take our guns'), many of us who are proponents for increased (meaningful) gun control (like myself) are happy to allow people to continue to own and use weapons that impart serious force. Just not deadly force. Beyond the obvious (sprays, tasers, etc.) there are any number of current or future technological innovations that could happen in weaponry that would allow a cop (or victim of a crime) to effectively incapacitate a criminal/perpetrator in the same amount of time as a gun... without using deadly force. I mean the army is working on Vomit Guns and Pain Guns as is.
No you're not (necessarily), as much as you'd like to think so. More importantly, no one knows who can do what in a face to face confrontation, so everyone assumes the other person is a God-mode martial artist with military training and lasers on their heads. This is the nature of violence.
The trained officer in question had a gun. Might want to try remembering small details like this eh ?
unarmed 19 y/o shot over a $2 train ticket <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/G68UmLMO7CY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
^wtf does that have to do with anything? Maybe you should read up on that incident, too. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...arding-Jr-shot-dead-police-San-Francisco.html Police followed him because he failed to pay his ticket. He fled because he was violating his parole (which he served for prostituting a 14-year old). He shot at the police first. Ballistics tests also revealed he shot himself in the neck. Back on topic, the student acted violently towards the officer. He engaged in a scuffle, stole his baton, and charged him. The officer showed a lot of restraint by not shooting him after he stole his baton. It's unfortunate that he died, but he made a lot of wrong decisions.
Is it me or does that video get thrown around way too much around here? The cop ****ed up, and the guy was a bum. Completely irrelevant. Quit trying to get sympathy for the police with a video that's well over 15 years old. You are blind if you think society should not always ask questions and easily be silenced whenever a person with power uses it to justify killing a man. If we didn't look into it, ask questions, and seek punishment for wrongdoings then it's only a matter of time before the system collapses due to corruption. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/UuGCZZoy2mI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/KU0Imk2Bstg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The relevance is that an argument that someone pulled over for speeding cannot ever be legitimately shot is bunk. That video is the counterexample. You can question the shooting as you like, but the fact that the initial stop was for speeding is meaningless.
The only question I have is, where is the video? They provided some lame excuse with no address of where it happened so we can find out if there are any other cameras on the campus that may have caught it. Until I see the tape, I can't decide who is wrong. The problem is everyone already has their minds made up. They act like everything is so predictable in a story where so many unpredictable things occurred.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...hot-resisted-arrest-witness-article-1.1554002 Some highlights: Cop saw student's pickup swerving (alcohol related) Cop directed student to put hands behind his back 14x, he was under arrest 3x, and stop resisting 56x Witness saw student resist and attempt to hit the cop Family agrees student wasn't cooperating Seems like a closed case of drunk student being drunk and getting himself killed before he could kill someone else.
