Black Teen Fatally Shot By Austin Police Was Naked And Unarmed

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: everyone

So this officer was obviously a first responder. First responders, I imagine, aren't the group that is armed.

You do realise we are discussing a police force that does carry guns right?

Arent you the one that brought this article up ? Then you should have been aware of this and you are just pretending to be ignorant about it right now. Otherwise we would have been having a discussion as to why this officer was carrying his own privately owned weapon instead of the issued non-lethals.

Again, nice try.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok, this is a weird tale. There can be no doubt that he was unarmed, so killing him is clearly the wrong decision. As countless others have said, on countless similar threads over the last couple of years, you would think that US Police would only be using deadly force when no other option was available given the current national mood.

That said, if the young guy just ran straight at him (no discussions, etc) i can understand why a gun was used - but again, clearly unarmed so why not hit legs or arms? We are often told that the Police are fully trained in firearms so they should be able to target the legs at least. That way, at least the guy is still alive and the cop hasn't shot an unarmed youth. Whatever is going on in the cops head, you can be sure he didn't set out that day thinking he would kill an unarmed kid - something he will live with for the rest of his life.

To us outsiders, it just seems more crazy shootings in the US. I am not really sure how you combat this problem either. Guns are such an entrenched part of your culture that simply saying follow the UK / European models won't work. Our Police are generally first class at dealing with similar situations but then we don't have a culture where people may pull a gun at the drop of a hat.

Now clearly, this wasn't the case here. But it does show just how difficult this will be to solve.

a reply to: everyone

Speaking of not putting words in people's mouths, at no point have I excused the teenager's behavior. I just don't find it circumstantial to warrant deadly force.

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: everyone

So this officer was obviously a first responder. First responders, I imagine, aren't the group that is armed.

You do realise we are discussing a police force that does carry guns right?

Arent you the one that brought this article up ? Then you should have been aware of this and you are just pretending to be ignorant about it right now. Otherwise we would have been having a discussion as to why this officer was carrying his own privately owned weapon instead of the issued non-lethals.

Again, nice try.

Irrelevant and you missed the point of what I meant there.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm sorry, none of this excuses lethal force in this situation. If being disarmed by a naked teenager is a worry of the police officer, don't draw your firearm. Like I've said previously, there are plenty of non-lethal methods they could have used to take this kid down.

You do know that there are police officers around the world that aren't allowed to carry firearms correct? I wonder how they manage?

You do realize that this is America, right? It's not some other place around the world. You know, I remember when I first got off the plane in Germany when I was stationed there--the first thing that stood out to me were the polizei walking in pairs, one with a semi-auto (I assume) rifle and the other with a German Shepard.

The thing here is that it's not about having the weapon drawn that opens it up for being disarmed, it's allowing another human being with apparent ill intent (and by all accounts, the LEO had every right to assume this suspect had ill intent) to get in tight with you where they can pull the weapon from your holster.

It's painfully obvious that you (but not only you) have minimal, if any, training in tactical self defense, law enforcement, or the military. I'm not saying that may have never served (if memory serves, I think that you have, but I could be wrong), it just means that you've never really been trained in situations where you are armed and you are in a hand-to-hand combat scenario. On the flip side, training in the opposite scenario (where someone is armed and you are trained to disable and disarm) would teach you the same reality: It's not that hard to disarm someone, even if you don't know what you're doing. But as far as LEOs go, they MUST assume the worst when it comes to a time when someone is charging them and ignoring orders to stop.

Yes, there are myriad scenarios after the fact where we can sit here and say the officer should have done this or that non-lethal thing, but what about saying the dumbass naked teenager should have stopped charging the officer? Have we considered the personal responsibility on the part of the suspect?

Nah, it's just always the cop's fault...

Maybe the officer could have done something different, but in the presumed 2-3 seconds that the officer spoke his commands to stop charging that then deciding that his life/safety was at risk enough to use deadly force, Monday-morning quarterbacking of the situation is irrelevant considering that we don't even have all of the details yet--and pretending that you know enough to make the claim that "there are plenty of non-lethal methods they could have used to take this kid down."

Like I've said before, jumping to your own conclusions based on spotty evidence and no video is about the most ignorant way you could treat a situation like this.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But it is exactly the teen's actions that lead to deadly force being a consideration in the first place.

I still have yet to find out if the officer who fired the shots was carrying a taser...do you have that fact on hand?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Hi Slapmonkey,

I am a complete outsider in this world - don't have a gun, never had training......so perhaps you could honestly answer if shooting to injure rather than kill would have been possible in this situation?

The reports do clearly state he charged straight at the officer in question so i understand that negotiating was never an option....but why not shoot his legs? Surely torso shots are always more likely to kill?

I'm a numpty on this topic so am genuinely asking, rather than trolling........

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
You do realize that this is America, right? It's not some other place around the world. You know, I remember when I first got off the plane in Germany when I was stationed there--the first thing that stood out to me were the polizei walking in pairs, one with a semi-auto (I assume) rifle and the other with a German Shepard.

What's this supposed to mean? We can't take suggestions on how to run our police forces from other countries that may do it better than us?

The thing here is that it's not about having the weapon drawn that opens it up for being disarmed, it's allowing another human being with apparent ill intent (and by all accounts, the LEO had every right to assume this suspect had ill intent) to get in tight with you where they can pull the weapon from your holster.

It's painfully obvious that you (but not only you) have minimal, if any, training in tactical self defense, law enforcement, or the military. I'm not saying that may have never served (if memory serves, I think that you have, but I could be wrong), it just means that you've never really been trained in situations where you are armed and you are in a hand-to-hand combat scenario. On the flip side, training in the opposite scenario (where someone is armed and you are trained to disable and disarm) would teach you the same reality: It's not that hard to disarm someone, even if you don't know what you're doing. But as far as LEOs go, they MUST assume the worst when it comes to a time when someone is charging them and ignoring orders to stop.

So you don't think this situation could have been handled in ANY other way?

Yes, there are myriad scenarios after the fact where we can sit here and say the officer should have done this or that non-lethal thing, but what about saying the dumbass naked teenager should have stopped charging the officer? Have we considered the personal responsibility on the part of the suspect?

Nah, it's just always the cop's fault...

Yea, I'm going to side heavily against the guy with superior firepower first every time. Second guessing what he did after the fact is how you prevent these things from happening in the future.

Maybe the officer could have done something different, but in the presumed 2-3 seconds that the officer spoke his commands to stop charging that then deciding that his life/safety was at risk enough to use deadly force, Monday-morning quarterbacking of the situation is irrelevant considering that we don't even have all of the details yet--and pretending that you know enough to make the claim that "there are plenty of non-lethal methods they could have used to take this kid down."

Like I've said before, jumping to your own conclusions based on spotty evidence and no video is about the most ignorant way you could treat a situation like this.

And assuming the cop was in the right off of the same evidence is probably even more ignorant based on the perp being unarmed. That's why the cop was placed on administrative leave and there is an internal AND criminal investigation going on against the police officer.

Manley said there are two investigations into the incident, both an internal one and a criminal one.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But it is exactly the teen's actions that lead to deadly force being a consideration in the first place.

I still have yet to find out if the officer who fired the shots was carrying a taser...do you have that fact on hand?

The police refuse to admit if he had a taser or not, which makes me more suspicious of him.

Manley wouldn't say if a stun gun was deployed by the officer during the incident.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Hi Slapmonkey,

I am a complete outsider in this world - don't have a gun, never had training......so perhaps you could honestly answer if shooting to injure rather than kill would have been possible in this situation?

The reports do clearly state he charged straight at the officer in question so i understand that negotiating was never an option....but why not shoot his legs? Surely torso shots are always more likely to kill?

I'm a numpty on this topic so am genuinely asking, rather than trolling........

It is only in the movies that people shoot to wound. Handguns are fairly inaccurate, particularly when the shooter is under pressure. It isn't like in the movies where you can shoot a guy running at you in the knee cap while you are diving across the hood of the squad car. Or like in the Walking Dead where Rick Grimes can knock off four or five head shots while running across a field 30 yards away.

You always aim center mass. it is the largest target and you have a higher chance of hitting the intended target. In addition, police are trained to stop the threat which means, they shoot you until you are no longer a threat. If you survive, it is your lucky day.

Poor kid. Which future astronaut was he ?

Dindu Nuffins ?

Fidnigo Riott ?

Gibbs Medatt ?

And I hear he was just concerned that the officers could hurt themselves with those weapons. Trying to keep them safe by taking the weapons before the poorly trained cops shot themselves.

a reply to: Flavian

Even in the UK, your armed response officers are trained to shoot center mass.

a reply to: butcherguy

In response, I think we should send the majority of LEOs to learn from this...

www.nytimes.... com/2015/12/12/nyregion/us-police-leaders-visiting-scotland-get-lessons-on-avoiding-deadly-force.html?_r=0

a reply to: Krazysh0t

'17' is just a kid on paper. 17 year olds are, biologically, fully grown adults. I don't really understand what you're trying to say, that 17 year olds can't beat up adults? Go pick a fight with some 'kids' on the heavyweight varsity wrestling team then.. See how that turns out.

a reply to: RedDragon

Yes, because ALL seventeen year olds look like fully grown adults that could be varsity wrestlers... *eye roll*

originally posted by: RedDragon
a reply to: Krazysh0t

'17' is just a kid on paper. 17 year olds are, biologically, fully grown adults. I don't really understand what you're trying to say, that 17 year olds can't beat up adults? Go pick a fight with some 'kids' on the heavyweight varsity wrestling team then.. See how that turns out.

Yeah, it was always a hoot to see Trayvon and Michael Brown depicted as little itty bitty boys.

6'4" 300 #, yep, we should all just let that "kid" bum rush us and say "now now little feller".

a reply to: stevieray

Meanwhile, in Oregon, a white terrorist is killed by police forces, who WAS armed and that is police overreach.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

99% of people are fully grown by 16. An average 17 year old could unquestionably beat up the average 35+ year old.

Have you seen how physically weak/fat/slow the average 35 year old American is?? And yeah, all 17 year olds could be varsity wrestlers. That's what a varsity wrestler is LOL

And, not to mention, there's individual variance. I'm 5'8 160 lb. Not particularly small, definitely not large. Lots of 14 year olds are larger than me. Does being 28 magically give me an advantage?.. Of course not.

Every time something like this comes up, people use age as an excuse, like teenagers are babies that can't hurt anyone. Teenagers are or are very close to being fully grown adults. It's ridiculous.

originally posted by: RedDragon
a reply to: Krazysh0t

99% of people are fully grown by 16. An average 17 year old could unquestionably beat up the average 35+ year old. And yeah, all 17 year olds could be varsity wrestlers. That's what a varsity wrestler is LOL

Proof?

And, not to mention, there's individual variance. I'm 5'8 160 lb. Not particularly small, definitely not large. Lots of 14 year olds are larger than me. Does being 28 magically give me an advantage?.. Of course not.

Every time something like this comes up, people use age as an excuse, like teenagers are babies that can't hurt anyone. It's ridiculous.

Teenagers still haven't produced all their muscle mass and still have a tendency to grow more. By MOST accounts they AREN'T fully grown adults yet, but are close.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just look around next time you're on the street. The average 35 year old looks like they'd collapse walking up a flight of stairs. The average American male is 5'9 195 lb!