BAD Law Enforcement: Campus Police LEO Shoots and Kills Naked Freshman - Page 3

BAD Law Enforcement: Campus Police LEO Shoots and Kills Naked Freshman

This is a discussion on BAD Law Enforcement: Campus Police LEO Shoots and Kills Naked Freshman within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; First of all, never, ever underestimate the capacity of your opponent. You never know what abilities they have. I had the opportunity to teach self-defense ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 66
Like Tree39Likes

Thread: BAD Law Enforcement: Campus Police LEO Shoots and Kills Naked Freshman

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array JoJoGunn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    2,983
    First of all, never, ever underestimate the capacity of your opponent. You never know what abilities they have.

    I had the opportunity to teach self-defense technique many years ago to a group of Police Officers. I weighed in at a mere 140lbs, looked weak and not effective. During a demonstration a 6' 3", 230 lb officer grabbed me with the strength of about two men. I could not break his hold on my Karate uniform with one technique. He then asked in not so nice way, "what do you do when THIS happens?"

    While the others watched, I said, "this", then smacked him with the palm of my right hand into his forehead. As his head went back reacting to this, I stepped left, and with my left hand quickly reached around to the "rat tail" piece of hair sticking out from his military cut and yanked it with everything I had. His head went all the way back, he let go of me, and my right hand came up under his chin and I twisted his fat head to the right and then promptly dropped his massive frame on to the mat below.

    As I came down, I drove my right knee into his solar plexus and he gasped all the air out of his lungs. Needless to say when he jumped up from this, he was not a happy camper. I stepped back into my Karate defensive stance and his brother officers were howling with laughter....he glared at me flushed red with anger and acted like he was just going to beat me senselesss. That is when I said "never underestimate your opponent."

    He got mad and left the training, embarassed by this.

    So perhaps this cop was truly not underestimating his opponent. We were not there, we don't know the frame of mind this cop had and placed into the same situation, we must make snap decisions in seconds.
    TX expat likes this.
    "A Smith & Wesson always beats 4 aces!"

    The Man Prayer. "Im a man, I can change, if I have to.....I guess!" ~ Red Green


  2. #32
    Member Array JayTee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    wine country, USA
    Posts
    96
    Just a question: shouldn't the use of lethal force with a deadly weapon be the last option? Or does that only apply to civilians and not law enforcement? I ask because I honestly don't know. And because I just have this feeling that if a 5'7" 135lb naked teenager confronted me and I shot him to death with my legally concealed weapon, that I'd be sitting behind bars right now facing murder charges.

  3. #33
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,098
    Quote Originally Posted by JayTee View Post
    Just a question: shouldn't the use of lethal force with a deadly weapon be the last option? Or does that only apply to civilians and not law enforcement? I ask because I honestly don't know. And because I just have this feeling that if a 5'7" 135lb naked teenager confronted me and I shot him to death with my legally concealed weapon, that I'd be sitting behind bars right now facing murder charges.
    The individual situation is going to determine what is, or isn't, justified (along with politics and public reaction). As far as "last options" go, please see post #30. Determining when an officer, or anyone else who finds themselves in that unfortunate situation, is out of other 'options' can just as easily lead to the 'wrong' person ending up dead. The point is, you just don't know what someone in that sort of situation is going to end up doing, so your 'last' option may be your first option, as well as your only option. It just depends.

  4. #34
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    Quote Originally Posted by JayTee View Post
    Just a question: shouldn't the use of lethal force with a deadly weapon be the last option? Or does that only apply to civilians and not law enforcement? I ask because I honestly don't know. And because I just have this feeling that if a 5'7" 135lb naked teenager confronted me and I shot him to death with my legally concealed weapon, that I'd be sitting behind bars right now facing murder charges.
    It was reported the officer retreated multiple times and the deceased charged the officer multiple times. What do you believe he was attempting to do?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  5. #35
    Member Array JayTee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    wine country, USA
    Posts
    96
    Hmm....I'm not so sure that is the best logic to use. If the thinking that "using other options can lead to the wrong person being dead" or "your last option may be your first option" then why even have other options? Shouldn't we then just shoot first and ask questions later? No, I've always been taught to exhaust all other options first and use lethal force last. Again, maybe this doesn't apply to law enforcement, I don't know.

  6. #36
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    In a similar situation you might find yourself behind bars. If we assume you to be a reasonable person, the legality of your use of force depends on what you reasonably believed that person to be doing or attempting to do at the time that force was used. If you reasonably believed him to be doing or attempting certain acts then deadly force is presumed under Alabama law to be justified. If he was reasonably believed to be committing or attempting something else it is not.

    So whether you are behind bars or walking the streets depends very much on, what do you believe he was doing or attempting to do?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  7. #37
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,098
    Quote Originally Posted by JayTee View Post
    Hmm....I'm not so sure that is the best logic to use. If the thinking that "using other options can lead to the wrong person being dead" or "your last option may be your first option" then why even have other options? Shouldn't we then just shoot first and ask questions later? No, I've always been taught to exhaust all other options first and use lethal force last. Again, maybe this doesn't apply to law enforcement, I don't know.
    No, what I'm saying is that every situation is different and you can't rope it all up with any sort of catch all rule like "exhaust all other options first and use lethal force last". If the officer in the other posted scenario had shot the assailant instead of getting letting it go to the ground, then he would be alive today. Trying to portray my response as "shoot first and ask questions later" is both inaccurate and inflammatory. The basic idea of protecting yourself and fearing for your life, is no different for LE or the average civillian who is carrying concealed; what is different is that the responding LEO has a professional obligation to respond to that situation, whereas you, as a civillian, could turn and just flee, if that option was a viable one to you (once again, that would all boil down to your individual situation).
    Secret Spuk likes this.

  8. #38
    VIP Member Array Bad Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Where the deer and the antelope roam
    Posts
    3,661
    First of all in my 32 years of LEO experience 25 of that was on the street. I have only been scared enough in one fight to think about deadly force. That guy was half my size, I had got one cuff on, broke his humorous, right collar bone, several ribs and pounded his bladder and kidneys and still he fought. I found out after he went to the hospital he was on PCP and heroin. I have fought lots of drug crazed and just crazy people and they scare me to death. The cop made that decision based on his/her training and experience. The courts will decide if it was the right one based on facts.
    Secret Spuk and Mike1956 like this.
    My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.

    “Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo.”
    - H. G. Wells -

  9. #39
    Member Array JayTee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    wine country, USA
    Posts
    96
    Another thing just kinda dawned on me as well. It seems that most posters here keep repeating the theme of never underestimating your opponent and that even a very small framed naked teenager can cause you serious harm or death. Well sure, there's always that possibility that even a 95 pound blind drunk woman can cause some damage, but should it be completely out of the question for an officer to take some kind of risk at all against these kind of '"threats"? I mean, aren't law enforcement agencies and police unions constantly telling us how risky the job is? What happened to good 'ol fashioned policework of getting your hands dirty once in a while before resorting to the gun, especially against a much smaller and unarmed assailant?

    Don't get me wrong, I know how dangerous this line of work can be (uncle is a retired detective) and am mostly just trying to provide some food for thought. But I also can't buy in to this idea that just because there's a possibility that even a small, unarmed person has the remote chance to do harm, that it is perfectly acceptable to use lethal force.

  10. #40
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    7,746
    Quote Originally Posted by JayTee View Post
    Another thing just kinda dawned on me as well. It seems that most posters here keep repeating the theme of never underestimating your opponent and that even a very small framed naked teenager can cause you serious harm or death. Well sure, there's always that possibility that even a 95 pound blind drunk woman can cause some damage, but should it be completely out of the question for an officer to take some kind of risk at all against these kind of '"threats"? I mean, aren't law enforcement agencies and police unions constantly telling us how risky the job is? What happened to good 'ol fashioned policework of getting your hands dirty once in a while before resorting to the gun, especially against a much smaller and unarmed assailant?

    Don't get me wrong, I know how dangerous this line of work can be (uncle is a retired detective) and am mostly just trying to provide some food for thought. But I also can't buy in to this idea that just because there's a possibility that even a small, unarmed person has the remote chance to do harm, that it is perfectly acceptable to use lethal force.
    With some of the new drugs out there in todays world getting hands on can be very dangerous for the officer. How much are we willing to risk others lives for. I have no doubt that this young man was a good kid. The drugs he took that night, is what turned him into something that no one knew. Sometimes stupid will hurt....
    Bad Bob likes this.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

    Never be ashamed of a scar. It simply means, that you were stronger than whatever tried to hurt you......

  11. #41
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,410
    I frequently criticize real police brutality, but this seems to be a justified shooting to me. Police are supposed to enforce the law, not run away from danger. In spite of this, the officer gave the kid several chances by retreating repeatedly. As far as the kid, sure, it is sad that he is dead, but, play stupid games, win stupid prizes...
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  12. #42
    Member Array pfries's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by JayTee View Post
    Just a question: shouldn't the use of lethal force with a deadly weapon be the last option?
    It is not a last option it is only an option.

    It still depends on the given situation.
    If some guy 50 feet away that appears not right, armed with a brick, is charging you, and screaming he is going to smash your head in.
    Are you first going to try and reason with him, then pull out the OC spray and so forth?

    I surely hope not!

    If that is the case you need to reassess your own readiness and mental preparedness,
    if you have chosen to carry/defend yourself you need to be prepared to do what is deemed necessary by you when it is deemed necessary by you.
    Knowing your local laws can help prepare you and your mindset in matters such as this.
    Mors est libertas


    MALAD JUSTED

  13. #43
    VIP Member Array Bad Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Where the deer and the antelope roam
    Posts
    3,661
    Quote Originally Posted by JayTee View Post
    Well sure, there's always that possibility that even a 95 pound blind drunk woman can cause some damage, but should it be completely out of the question for an officer to take some kind of risk at all against these kind of '"threats"? I mean, aren't law enforcement agencies and police unions constantly telling us how risky the job is? What happened to good 'ol fashioned policework of getting your hands dirty once in a while before resorting to the gun, especially against a much smaller and unarmed assailant?

    Don't get me wrong, I know how dangerous this line of work can be (uncle is a retired detective) and am mostly just trying to provide some food for thought. But I also can't buy in to this idea that just because there's a possibility that even a small, unarmed person has the remote chance to do harm, that it is perfectly acceptable to use lethal force.
    You have no idea how dangerous it is. The police are not hired to be thugs, nor are they hired or paid to be assaulted. There is a well defined use of force model in all agencies. Not all officers and not all agencies created equal. I just happen to work for some that valued training and were willing to pay for it. The question is; Are you willing to do what you want someone else to do for you? Have you ever faced a madman intent on eating your entrails? If not I suggest you withhold judgement until the facts are known.

    We know the student was naked and irrational, there is your first clue.
    TX expat and Secret Spuk like this.
    My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.

    “Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo.”
    - H. G. Wells -

  14. #44
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,098
    Quote Originally Posted by JayTee View Post
    Another thing just kinda dawned on me as well. It seems that most posters here keep repeating the theme of never underestimating your opponent and that even a very small framed naked teenager can cause you serious harm or death. Well sure, there's always that possibility that even a 95 pound blind drunk woman can cause some damage, but should it be completely out of the question for an officer to take some kind of risk at all against these kind of '"threats"? I mean, aren't law enforcement agencies and police unions constantly telling us how risky the job is? What happened to good 'ol fashioned policework of getting your hands dirty once in a while before resorting to the gun, especially against a much smaller and unarmed assailant?

    Don't get me wrong, I know how dangerous this line of work can be (uncle is a retired detective) and am mostly just trying to provide some food for thought. But I also can't buy in to this idea that just because there's a possibility that even a small, unarmed person has the remote chance to do harm, that it is perfectly acceptable to use lethal force.
    Walking outside of your well lit police station is a risk. Confronting, by choice or not, any unbalanced subject is a risk.

    You seem to be of the opinion that because the officer chose not to allow the confrontation to go hand to hand, that he didn't do enough before he deployed his weapon. If this is an incorrect read on what you keep focusing on, please correct me. If it is correct, I'd like to know at what point you think the responding officer would have been justified? Where, in the events that would have transpired if the officer had not responded the way he did, would you say "ok, now he should shoot him". Seriously, just play it out and give me an example. The officer keeps his gun holstered, gets into a physical altercation, and then what?

    As reported, he did retreat several times and ordered the suspect to stop his agressive behavior. He also had the suspect return to an aggressive position after being shot and he didn't start shooting him a second time. I guess you don't want to accept the fact that anyone can easily find themselves overpowered and unarmed by an assailant that is being propelled by either some sort of intoxicant, or some sort of mental disorder, but it's a simple fact. We don't even know anything about the responding officer. Maybe he was on light duty for a reason. Maybe he had some physical impairment that precluded a wrestling match with a much younger, stronger opponent. Maybe he just has a wife and kids and didn't want to end up dead and that kid was acting crazy enough that he felt that was a serious possibility.

    If this kid was found in a bathtub, with a bunch of holes in him, and the door to the room had been kicked open, then I'd see a reason for some serious questions about how anyone could claim justification; that's just not the case here.

    It's tragic, to be sure, but unless some new facts come to light that really change the dynamics of the incident, I really don't see how anyone can realistically argue that the officer should have tried harder to end the situation a different way.

  15. #45
    VIP Member Array Secret Spuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    3,223
    My two cents...
    This is my opinion based on my own training, education, experience, and the available information.

    Was the shooting justified?... thats up to a Grand Jury, or a Coronor's jury.

    Should the Officer have shot the subject? Based on the above I say no. Is the Officer at fault? IMO probably only to a limited degree. I'm sure the officer responded based on his training or lack there of, The priorities set by his employer, The equipment he was issued, And concern for his own personal safety.

    I think a key subject for consideration was this. This was a campus police officer. Not a security officer. My information is that most institutions that maintain a force of sworn police officers do so in order to control crime reporting, crime patterns, investigations pertaining to the institution. In other words a rape taking place within the campus community would be reported to the campus police and investigated by the campus police. The University would have sway over the investigation, and the outcome. While thats an extreme example, the same could be said for any lesser crime. The priority of any police officer would be the well being of the victim, and the fast apprehention of the do'er, and his being brough to justice. A university may have different prorities, and offer different resoloutions in order to preserve the institutions reputation, or NCAA status.

    A universty is NOT a police department, and is beholden to the board of trustees, and Alumni. I doubt if most universities would spend anything other than the minimum training required for their officers other than whats required by statute. I doubt if a university would have the same consideration for minimun manning standards as a regular police department would. Again the University is not in the police business.

    If anyone did poll the members who are current, or former police officers who worked patrol... I'm sure we all would come up with a similar situation handled with much less fuss. So here we have this campus officer who is obviously not capable of handling this mess. (not of his doing) I'd have a couple of questions for his department. Was he equipped to handle such a situation? Was he trained to handle such a situation? Was adiquate assistance available to this officer? IMO these are the area's of major failure.
    Last edited by Secret Spuk; October 7th, 2012 at 11:51 PM.
    Bad Bob likes this.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

powered by mybb acting colleges
,
powered by mybb beat alcoholism
,
powered by mybb christian talk radio
,
powered by mybb kids playing nude
,

powered by mybb law

,
powered by mybb leadership academy
,

powered by mybb old head

,
powered by mybb old time radio online
,

powered by mybb savage talk radio

,
powered by mybb supervisor training
,
senior citizens clothes mybb
,
what are some of the challenges that police/leo face daily?
Click on a term to search for related topics.