Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, you like to try to put words in my mouth and determine what I meant? You must be a psychic!
But you conveniently ignored this from another post in this thread:
Next!
Could you be anymore condescending? This kind of attitude is why people can't stand cops. You can't disagree or debate, you have to insult everyone because clearly you know everything and anyone who disagrees with you is a moron, right?
I don't view this in the same vein as the NM minivan shooting, this seems justified. You grab a cop's baton and strike him you are going to get shot in any country.
Could you be anymore condescending? This kind of attitude is why people can't stand cops. You can't disagree or debate, you have to insult everyone because clearly you know everything and anyone who disagrees with you is a moron, right?
Actually, I can. I usually choose not to. As for the rest, pot meet kettle. But clearly this is an issue I'm passionate about - having a former partner disarmed and killed with his own gun will do that to you - so I will apologize for coming across as a grumpy old man.
I don't view this in the same vein as the NM minivan shooting, this seems justified. You grab a cop's baton and strike him you are going to get shot in any country.
I think the point was lost somewhere. That was the police officer didn't evaluate the situation properly and this put himself into a vulnerable position.
You wait for backup. Going it alone is stupid when there wasn't a need. The individual had stopped driving. At the point, the officer was dealing with a drunk. You don't go it alone with drunks, they can and will do things those not drunk will do. They are by every measure and according to the law, acting in a diminished mental state (as in under the influence).
At some point regardless of other things, someone has to be responsible for making a bad situation worse or is escalation until you shoot someone the way to go? If that is true, anyone can be shot by the police because everyone can be forced into a situation at which point they will get shot.
For example: The officer places the individual in a retaining hold and uses "tension" to gain compliance. Those who know, know what I mean with "tension". It is very painful although properly employed does no physical damage. At some point though, almost any person will resist if the tension is so great they fear the officer will not stop. The situation then becomes on of resistance where none was offered before. Then the officer escalates the use of force, always using just that much force to obtain compliance. That escalation process continues to develop until the use of lethal force is the threshold and someone gets shot.
In this case, the officer had options, all of which were better than the one he chose. There was no immediate threat to life, the car was parked and the individual got out of the car. At that point, the officer has a very good option available to him, use his vehicle as cover, remain out of physical contact and await back up.
Police officers are not required to retreat in the performance of their duties. That does not preclude them from not pursuing and doing so only when sufficient personnel and other resources are available. The option to use a gun and shoot is always there. That does not mean ignoring better options, even if it takes more time.
What was the hurry? Where was the individual going? He was near his home, out of the car. He wasn't going anywhere but to jail. It didn't have to end any other way.
I think the point was lost somewhere. That was the police officer didn't evaluate the situation properly and this put himself into a vulnerable position.
You wait for backup. Going it alone is stupid when there wasn't a need. The individual had stopped driving. At the point, the officer was dealing with a drunk. You don't go it alone with drunks, they can and will do things those not drunk will do. They are by every measure and according to the law, acting in a diminished mental state (as in under the influence).
At some point regardless of other things, someone has to be responsible for making a bad situation worse or is escalation until you shoot someone the way to go? If that is true, anyone can be shot by the police because everyone can be forced into a situation at which point they will get shot.
For example: The officer places the individual in a retaining hold and uses "tension" to gain compliance. Those who know, know what I mean with "tension". It is very painful although properly employed does no physical damage. At some point though, almost any person will resist if the tension is so great they fear the officer will not stop. The situation then becomes on of resistance where none was offered before. Then the officer escalates the use of force, always using just that much force to obtain compliance. That escalation process continues to develop until the use of lethal force is the threshold and someone gets shot.
In this case, the officer had options, all of which were better than the one he chose. There was no immediate threat to life, the car was parked and the individual got out of the car. At that point, the officer has a very good option available to him, use his vehicle as cover, remain out of physical contact and await back up.
Police officers are not required to retreat in the performance of their duties. That does not preclude them from not pursuing and doing so only when sufficient personnel and other resources are available. The option to use a gun and shoot is always there. That does not mean ignoring better options, even if it takes more time.
What was the hurry? Where was the individual going? He was near his home, out of the car. He wasn't going anywhere but to jail. It didn't have to end any other way.
Pain compliance holds have their uses but they also mean closing in on the individual and that can be problematic, especially when dealing with a drunk or druggie. But I digress. Neither you nor I were there. Ergo we only know what was reported in what you posted. Under those circumstances, neither you nor I know precisely what went down. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop you from pronouncing judgment on a case you know no more about than the rest of us. As has become your pattern, it's cops-0, perps-1.
If you beat a cop, then you are most likely committing aggravated assault and possibly attempted murder. He told the student to stop resisting 56 times . That's very patient in my opinion. He should have used a taser and immobilized him earlier instead of drawing out a baton.
Very tragic indeed though. As I advise, while drinking, determine your hard set limit Beforehand. I too am a college student and issues between campus cops and over drunk students are frequent here. Sometimes things turn nasty. Thankfully my religion condemns alcohol so I have never done it as a sincere worshipper.
Yes you're right about that. It's just incredibly sad that it cost him his life. I feel sorry for the police officer as well. That would be hard to live with. I do believe that he had every right to shoot him as soon as he raised the baton, but he wrestled it away. This makes it harder to justify using deadly force, but also not impossible to understand.
I think the point was lost somewhere. That was the police officer didn't evaluate the situation properly and this put himself into a vulnerable position.
You wait for backup. Going it alone is stupid when there wasn't a need. The individual had stopped driving. At the point, the officer was dealing with a drunk. You don't go it alone with drunks, they can and will do things those not drunk will do. They are by every measure and according to the law, acting in a diminished mental state (as in under the influence).
At some point regardless of other things, someone has to be responsible for making a bad situation worse or is escalation until you shoot someone the way to go? If that is true, anyone can be shot by the police because everyone can be forced into a situation at which point they will get shot.
For example: The officer places the individual in a retaining hold and uses "tension" to gain compliance. Those who know, know what I mean with "tension". It is very painful although properly employed does no physical damage. At some point though, almost any person will resist if the tension is so great they fear the officer will not stop. The situation then becomes on of resistance where none was offered before. Then the officer escalates the use of force, always using just that much force to obtain compliance. That escalation process continues to develop until the use of lethal force is the threshold and someone gets shot.
In this case, the officer had options, all of which were better than the one he chose. There was no immediate threat to life, the car was parked and the individual got out of the car. At that point, the officer has a very good option available to him, use his vehicle as cover, remain out of physical contact and await back up.
Police officers are not required to retreat in the performance of their duties. That does not preclude them from not pursuing and doing so only when sufficient personnel and other resources are available. The option to use a gun and shoot is always there. That does not mean ignoring better options, even if it takes more time.
What was the hurry? Where was the individual going? He was near his home, out of the car. He wasn't going anywhere but to jail. It didn't have to end any other way.
Maybe we should tell the cops not to ever engage people so that this never happens again.
Pain compliance holds have their uses but they also mean closing in on the individual and that can be problematic, especially when dealing with a drunk or druggie. But I digress. Neither you nor I were there. Ergo we only know what was reported in what you posted. Under those circumstances, neither you nor I know precisely what went down. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop you from pronouncing judgment on a case you know no more about than the rest of us. As has become your pattern, it's cops-0, perps-1.
The pattern is to think first, then not act in haste unless it is required.
As for what was reported, you can wait until doomsday and hope you get the full story, maybe a year from now.
As with your pattern, the officer himself could state what happened and you'd still say not all the information was known.
So my question to you is: Since no one every knows the full story, why do you bother posting? After all, just wait for the full story and then maybe next year bring it up.
As for the perps. You just can't read, don't want to or can't understand. In all my posts on this and similar topics, I always maintain that justice needs to be done, the suspects arrested and then let it get figured out in court if necessary and where required, lethal force is always an option. The difference between you and me is that you apparently think it is okay for the ends to justify the means.
In your apparent view, anything goes so long as the police are doing it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. That's very patient in my opinion. He should have used a taser and immobilized him earlier instead of drawing out a baton. 
