I understand those that take the self defense side. I also understand the calls for better training and more restraint. It's a difficult situation one which is not as black and white as both sides make it seem. Way to many people get happy when a cop kills a criminal and way to many assume the incidents are all murder. 

It's not murder if the attacker has a knife, gun, baseball bat or any other form of weapon that can reasonably be considered lethal (i.e., no shooting a guy over a Swiss Army Knife). If there was another officer on scene after the perp stole the plainclothes officer's gun, that other officer would absolutely have been justified in aiming right between the eyes.

 

It is murder if the cop has no reasonable suspicion that the attacker is armed. A guy who runs up to a cop brandishing an airsoft gun that looks like the real thing, barely noticeable red ring or not, is armed as far as I'm concerned, and I know many people who would disagree with that and expect the officer to waste critical seconds looking to see if the perp's gun has a red ring around the barrel or not. In this case, there's been nothing said or reported to suggest that the officer would have had any reason to believe that the perp was armed with anything more than his bare fists, and imo, packing heat in a fist fight is murder. That's why I applaud the officer's decision not to shoot, even though it resulted in his taking a beating.

---

You probably shouldn't be allowed near weapons if your first thought is to kill somebody.

 

Did I ever say that it was my first thought?  NO.

 

Exactly...Probably shouldn't be in control of weapons. Be shooting everyone who approaches.


The guy wasn't even armed was he?

 

Did I say that I would have shot him just for approaching?  NO.

 

His first thought when somebody approaches him...


I dont think he would have shot the guy in the car for a traffic offense.


Crikey you are touchy.

 

Did I say that I would have shot him for a traffic offense?  NO.

 

I said that once he started being combative I would have stopped the action.

 

In my younger years I worked as a Deputy Sheriff.  I'm not a big guy and if confronted by a much larger guy that starts assaulting me, I had the power to stop the action by whatever means.  If I felt that his assault put my life in danger, then escalating up to deadly force is justified in order to stop the action.

 

The fact that he was unarmed has no bearing on it.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Did I ever say that it was my first thought?  NO.

 

 

Did I say that I would have shot him just for approaching?  NO.

 

 

Did I say that I would have shot him for a traffic offense?  NO.

 

I said that once he started being combative I would have stopped the action.

 

In my younger years I worked as a Deputy Sheriff.  I'm not a big guy and if confronted by a much larger guy that starts assaulting me, I had the power to stop the action by whatever means.  If I felt that his assault put my life in danger, then escalating up to deadly force is justified in order to stop the action.

 

The fact that he was unarmed has no bearing on it.

Just to clarify, you are saying if someone is being combative with an officer it is within his power and within his right to shoot that person in the head and claim he felt threatened? Do I have that right?

 

I think that is what people have a problem with. 

---

I said that once he started being combative I would have stopped the action.

 

In my younger years I worked as a Deputy Sheriff.  I'm not a big guy and if confronted by a much larger guy that starts assaulting me, I had the power to stop the action by whatever means.  If I felt that his assault put my life in danger, then escalating up to deadly force is justified in order to stop the action.

 

The fact that he was unarmed has no bearing on it.

I'll just throw this out there:

 

If someone shoots and kills someone else because a punch was thrown at them, what would you call it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now assume that the shooter is not a cop.

---

Just to clarify, you are saying if someone is being combative with an officer it is within his power and within his right to shoot that person in the head and claim he felt threatened? Do I have that right?

 

I think that is what people have a problem with. 

 

That's exactly what I am saying.  Look at the hypotheticals in this situation.

 

Say the officer in question is a female that is 5'5 and weighs around 130 and the person assaulting her is a male that is 6'2 and weighs around 240.  Who is going to win that fight?

 

If the officer feels that her life is threatened and in jeopardy, she can escalate to the next level in order to stop the action.  The "next level" in this case might be the use of deadly force.

 

The same goes for a male officer that is say 5'9 and weighs 170 and the person assaulting is again a male that is 6'2" and weighs around 240.  In this case, escalating to to the next level might be using mace or a taser to stop the action.  If that doesn't work, then the officer is justified in escalating again to deadly force.

 

Those that are "commending" the officer in the OP for not using deadly force are wrong.  A police officer should NEVER have to endure an assault like that and should use ANY means necessary up to and including deadly force to stop the action.  Unfortunately, people seem to forget that our police officers serve us and should NEVER be attacked the way that this guy was.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'll just throw this out there:

 

If someone shoots and kills someone else because a punch was thrown at them, what would you call it?

 

It depends on the circumstances.  It could be self defense.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now assume that the shooter is not a cop.

 

Same answer.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Unfortunately, people seem to forget that our police officers serve us

They most certainly do not.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politi...meone.html

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3742.10

http://www.copblock.org/10032/to-protect...d-collect/ (note: CopBlock is an extreme organization, one I don't agree with the tactics of, but they occasionally make a valid point or two in between bouts of antagonistic idiocy)

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasle...ction.html

---

I'll just throw this out there:

 

If someone shoots and kills someone else because a punch was thrown at them, what would you call it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now assume that the shooter is not a cop.

 

I have one working kidney. If someone lands a good kidney shot and/or especially if they get my on the ground into a position where they can kick, there is a significantly more than a non-zero chance I'm don't live. It may be "just a punch" to you, but if I'm about to take a beatdown, I'm going to do what I can to avoid dying. Sorry if you feel differently, but the courts would not convict me of murder.

---

That's exactly what I am saying.  Look at the hypotheticals in this situation.

 

Say the officer in question is a female that is 5'5 and weighs around 130 and the person assaulting her is a male that is 6'2 and weighs around 240.  Who is going to win that fight?

 

If the officer feels that her life is threatened and in jeopardy, she can escalate to the next level in order to stop the action.  The "next level" in this case might be the use of deadly force.

 

The same goes for a male officer that is say 5'9 and weighs 170 and the person assaulting is again a male that is 6'2" and weighs around 240.  In this case, escalating to to the next level might be using mace or a taser to stop the action.  If that doesn't work, then the officer is justified in escalating again to deadly force.

 

Those that are "commending" the officer in the OP for not using deadly force are wrong.  A police officer should NEVER have to endure an assault like that and should use ANY means necessary up to and including deadly force to stop the action.  Unfortunately, people seem to forget that our police officers serve us and should NEVER be attacked the way that this guy was.

Correct no one should be assaulting police officers or threatening them no one will dispute that. If cops wore body cameras there would rarely if ever be a dispute over the validity of them shooting suspects. As with the recent case of the cop murdering the guy as he tried to drive away. 

 

Don't cops get training in taking down combative suspects? Non lethal methods of restraint? I guess if they don't then are being trained to shoot instead? You see the problem people have right? They assume cops are trained for these situations and just resort to the lethal method because they don't care. However, maybe they are not trained properly?

---

I have one working kidney. If someone lands a good kidney shot and/or especially if they get my on the ground into a position where they can kick, there is a significantly more than a non-zero chance I'm don't live. It may be "just a punch" to you, but if I'm about to take a beatdown, I'm going to do what I can to avoid dying. Sorry if you feel differently, but the courts would not convict me of murder.

Kids take beating all the time from their parents and from other kids in schools. Should they carry weapons and defend against these attacks that surely in some cases cause them to fear for their lives with deadly force?

---

Kids take beating all the time from their parents and from other kids in schools. Should they carry weapons and defend against these attacks that surely in some cases cause them to fear for their lives with deadly force?

 

Should I allow one or more individuals to beat me down knowing that a good punch/kick to the kidney could end my life?

---

Should I allow one or more individuals to beat me down knowing that a good punch/kick to the kidney could end my life?

I am not saying you should but my question remains. One good punch to the temple can end a person's life. Should they allow their parents or classmates to beat them down knowing that is the case?

 

I should clarify that no I don't think anyone should roll over and just take a beating. I question at what point is ending another person's life justified and in some cases just dismissed in due course because of one person's word.

---

I am not saying you should but my question remains. One good punch to the temple can end a person's life. Should they allow their parents or classmates to beat them down knowing that is the case?

 

I should clarify that no I don't think anyone should roll over and just take a beating. I question at what point is ending another person's life justified and in some cases just dismissed in due course because of one person's word.

 

My question still remains, too. At one point during the beatdown I'm suffering at the hands of 1 or more people is it okay for be to consider that I have 1 working kidney and I might not survive? They are unarmed, so is it ever okay? If so, at what point?

---

I have one working kidney. If someone lands a good kidney shot and/or especially if they get my on the ground into a position where they can kick, there is a significantly more than a non-zero chance I'm don't live. It may be "just a punch" to you, but if I'm about to take a beatdown, I'm going to do what I can to avoid dying. Sorry if you feel differently, but the courts would not convict me of murder.

Actually, they might. It's tough to prove justifiable homicide when the intent of the assailant to kill can't be proven. If they know of your condition or are made aware of it then start aiming for your stomach, yeah, pump them full of lead. But if someone throws a punch at your head then you shoot them based upon fear for your kidney, good luck not being convicted of manslaughter.

---

Actually, they might. It's tough to prove justifiable homicide when the intent of the assailant to kill can't be proven. If they know of your condition or are made aware of it then start aiming for your stomach, yeah, pump them full of lead. But if someone throws a punch at your head then you shoot them based upon fear for your kidney, good luck not being convicted of manslaughter.

 

Of course I would tell them "I have one working kidney, and I'm not interested in fighting because trauma to that kidney could end my life". If they start taking body shots, you're okay with me using lethal force to defend myself even if they are unarmed?

---

My question still remains, too. At one point during the beatdown I'm suffering at the hands of 1 or more people is it okay for be to consider that I have 1 working kidney and I might not survive? They are unarmed, so is it ever okay? If so, at what point?

TJBender answered better than I could have. 

---

Correct no one should be assaulting police officers or threatening them no one will dispute that. If cops wore body cameras there would rarely if ever be a dispute over the validity of them shooting suspects. As with the recent case of the cop murdering the guy as he tried to drive away. 

 

Don't cops get training in taking down combative suspects? Non lethal methods of restraint? I guess if they don't then are being trained to shoot instead? You see the problem people have right? They assume cops are trained for these situations and just resort to the lethal method because they don't care. However, maybe they are not trained properly?

 

Full disclosure.  It's been almost 30 years since I trained and worked as a police officer, so the training might be different.

 

Training in "hand to hand combat" is done as well as take down procedures.  However, in the "real world" and under stressful circumstances, sometimes that training kind of goes out the window.  There most certainly are ways to restrain someone in a non-lethal way, and that is always the first choice.  The last choice is always deadly force.

 

A police officer is never going to use deadly force "because they don't care".  The last thing that any police officer wants to do is use deadly force.

 

One of the things that was really drilled into us was liability.  You must take care of anyone, even a suspect that you've taken into custody no matter the crime.  When you pull over a car for a traffic violation, you are responsible for their safety as well as your own.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

TJBender answered better than I could have. 

 

So you're okay with me defending myself with a gun if they are unarmed? TJBender made it clear, earlier in this thread, that shooting an unarmed person is in no way justifiable. What gives?

---

Actually, they might. It's tough to prove justifiable homicide when the intent of the assailant to kill can't be proven. If they know of your condition or are made aware of it then start aiming for your stomach, yeah, pump them full of lead. But if someone throws a punch at your head then you shoot them based upon fear for your kidney, good luck not being convicted of manslaughter.

 

That's a whole different scenario and a whole different situation.  Again, if a police officer has reason to believe that his or her life is threatened, then deadly force is authorized.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

So you're okay with me defending myself with a gun if they are unarmed? TJBender made it clear, earlier in this thread, that shooting an unarmed person is in no way justifiable. What gives?

I deplore the killing of anyone. Period.

 

However, I am not you, and not in your situation. Self defense is just that. The courts will settle it. 

 

This discussion is about police officers though. Not a person with one kidney being punched in the kidney. I think it's reasonable to approach the two from different sets of standards.

---