Black Teen Fatally Shot By Austin Police Was Naked And Unarmed

To all those defending the PoPo's rapid use of deadly force I would like to state that from personal experience I know that there are other ways to deal with this, namely strength in numbers.

You see I used to work as a special police officer on the night shift of a gated community and we had this one guy who would come visit his mother in the neighborhood, big big guy too. Sometimes he would be all whacked out on PCP running around terrorizing the neighborhood. This has happened on more than one occasion and not once has anyone had to shoot him.

The proper response is to wait for back up which should not be far off and overwhelm the suspect with numbers until they go down and use multiple cuffs if needed. I know I've been there.











a reply to: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix
To all those defending the PoPo's rapid use of deadly force I would like to state that from personal experience I know that there are other ways to deal with this, namely strength in numbers.

You see I used to work as a special police officer on the night shift of a gated community and we had this one guy who would come visit his mother in the neighborhood, big big guy too. Sometimes he would be all whacked out on PCP running around terrorizing the neighborhood. This has happened on more than one occasion and not once has anyone had to shoot him.

The proper response is to wait for back up which should not be far off and overwhelm the suspect with numbers until they go down and use multiple cuffs if needed. I know I've been there.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

How do you wait for backup if the guy is already charging you ?

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Well, let's be accurate for a minute--LEOs don't write laws and legal definitions, so they have nothing to do with it.

As for "knowing" less-lethal options were available: Please tell me exactly what was available. Sure, the LEO could have allowed the dude that was obviously not acting like a normal human being to rush and tackle him, allowing access to his person and weapons (potentially). And maybe he had a taser--I haven't seen that to be the case, yet. If you now that he did, please provide the link for me.

Now, keep in mind that if the LEO only had either his hand-to-hand combat skills (which are probably lacking) and a firearm, you choose the firearm every time when someone is rushing you...it really is a no-brainer, because if you choose to take the guy on, even if well trained in ground combatives, the odds of him disabling you and being able to take your firearm and use it for whatever he deems necessary at the time are pretty high. High enough to where that is not a viable option in most cases.

And by the way, if you truly think that there is "nothing, whatsoever, deadly about the human anatomy," I'm quite certain that you are not trained in any sort of martial art or self-defense system. There are plenty of things that one can do with their bare hands, elbows, knees, and legs/feet that are absolutely lethal, even if death was not the intention.

a reply to: everyone

How do you wait for backup if the guy is already charging you ?

You draw your taser, hold position behind the police cruiser and you WAIT FOR BACKUP. You DO NOT shoot a naked unarmed individual. Where was the threat? Sodomy? Some gay touching? Have you ever heard of "hazards of the job"? Well, Mr. Gung Ho Judge Jury Executioner encountered a hazard of the job and, in that moment, elected himself judge, jury and executioner by taking an unarmed, relatively harmless life....something HE SIGNED UP for knowing the risks.

Black kid shot by black cop. So no racism.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, there certainly is one major difference.

What would that be?

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

I never said that non-violent means shouldn't have been used, but what I am saying is that I understand why lethal force was considered and used (from what I know...too many variables and details have yet to be released).

The problem with responses like yours is that you pretend that there is a one-size-fits-all response for scenarios like this, and there is. You fail to specify the terrorizing actions of this dude. Did he ever rush you with intent to tackle you to the ground? Did he ever do that to anyone who had a gun pulled and told him repeatedly to stop?

Hell, for all we know, the dude in the OP's story was looking for suicide by cop and wasn't going to stop until he was shot. Or maybe he was just running at the officer to give him an early Valentine's Day hug and tell him how much he loves police officers. Or maybe he rushed the officer with intent to do him bodily harm or worse.

I'm guess that the latter of the three is the most probable, and you need to recognize that there is a massive difference between someone "terrorizing the neighborhood" (whatever that means) and someone who is rushing an armed police officer who is ordering him to stop multiple times before firing.

If you can't acknowledge the difference in scenarios, you'll lose a lot of credibility in this discussion, former special police officer or not.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

How does hiding behind your cruiser impact a subject charging you? Is the cruiser now capable of movement on its own so it can serve as a blocking force? Or do we just do the looney tunes thing of running in circles and hoping for the best?

Given so little information about this incident, I have no opinion on it. But this OP and some of the comments in the thread reek of the idiotic notion that an officer has to put himself at a disadvantage before he can act.

That, plus armchair quarterbacking. But that's to be expected here, isn't it?

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz

You draw your taser, hold position behind the police cruiser and you WAIT FOR BACKUP. You DO NOT shoot a naked unarmed individual. Where was the threat? Sodomy? Some gay touching? Have you ever heard of "hazards of the job"? Well, Mr. Gung Ho Judge Jury Executioner encountered a hazard of the job and, in that moment, elected himself judge, jury and executioner by taking an unarmed, relatively harmless life....something HE SIGNED UP for knowing the risks.

Ah, yes...the magical barrier of the police cruiser, known world-wide as a magical suspect-stopping device that protects a LEO from every charging suspect.

Yes, there are risks, but that doesn't mean that LEOs need to put themselves in absolute danger if they can avoid a potentially life-threatening encounter. If you don't know how this suspect could have been a life-threatening individual, well, I don't know where to go in this conversation with you anymore.

And again, do you have proof that his specific officer carried a taser?

a reply to: Shamrock6

How does hiding behind your cruiser impact a subject charging you?

It doesn't. But that cop is not required to stay stationary. Now days, it seems like the philosophy is to "neutralize" the threat with deadly force before we ever....gawd forbid...wait them out.

Remember the good old days of standoffs between "cops and robers"? What happened to that? Why is Europe so effective at eliminating threats with non-lethal means? How about you work backwards and answer the last question first.

originally posted by: intrptr


Unarmed? He was naked, (i.e., crazy), has teeth (can bite) and maybe STD, transmissible by crazy biting naked person…. bang bang.

But if I (a lowly not a cop civilian) shot a naked man out on the open, that had not touched me...
I would be arrested, probably for murder.

originally posted by: intrptr


Unarmed? He was naked, (i.e., crazy), has teeth (can bite) and maybe STD, transmissible by crazy biting naked person…. bang bang.

ZOMBIE!!!! ZOMBIE!!! ZOMBIE!!! Get away everyone!!! Bang! Bang!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Become a cop, the police could use a lot more people like you.

On thing that a whole lot of you kind folks disallow is that cranked up individuals on drugs have amazing strength, and they don't know the word "stop." A cop is paid to take chances, but there are limits. Who would the kid have attacked if the cop hadn't come to assist?

Blame drugs or a lack of mental health resources available to the lad. It is a shame that his life has ended in such a fashion.

The cop was Black too, how can people be so brain dead as to cry racism?

The naked attacker was charging a cop, only reason to do that is to give him a hug or take his gun.....not going with the hug option here.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: intrptr


Unarmed? He was naked, (i.e., crazy), has teeth (can bite) and maybe STD, transmissible by crazy biting naked person…. bang bang.

Yet, if he had driven a speeding truck at police, crashed nearly striking one of them, leapt out waving his arms, and had a side arm ... he would have been perfectly harmless.

Gotcha.

"leapt out waving his arms " -- his hands were up.

Do we have video of this naked unarmed person being shot?

1) Ignore "driving speeding truck at police" Check.
2) Ignore "nearly striking one of them" Check.
3) Transpose "waving arms" to "hands up" ... one wonders, is there a particular angle of arm to body that is required?
4) Ignore "carrying sidearm"

Yet, the two situations ... an armed man evading arrest etc. etc. ... and a naked man with no weapons aside from tooth and nail ... are completely different.

Well, there certainly is one major difference.

my original reply about the cop shooting a naked man is from the cops training perspective, not mine. Personally I don't think it was justified, but I wasn't there, either.

a reply to: butcherguy

I agree, people are taking me wrong, he didn't need to be shot. Cop just felt threatened, can't really tell without video.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: intrptr


Unarmed? He was naked, (i.e., crazy), has teeth (can bite) and maybe STD, transmissible by crazy biting naked person…. bang bang.

ZOMBIE!!!! ZOMBIE!!! ZOMBIE!!! Get away everyone!!! Bang! Bang!

Exactly. They are trained by hollywood, not their reason.

Anyone remember the Trayvon Martin case?

Zimmerman was on his back with Trayvon on top of him...
Zimmerman had to stand trial, didn't he?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: butcherguy

I agree, people are taking me wrong, he didn't need to be shot. Cop just felt threatened, can't really tell without video.

I understand.
I also believe that the cop felt threatened. I would have felt threatened too.
I am guessing that the cop's training had some effect on how he handled the situation too.