Black Teen Fatally Shot By Austin Police Was Naked And Unarmed

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?

Yes, shooting in the torso is more likely to kill, as that is where they majority of vital organs are (well, all, I guess, other than the brain), but what most people do not understand is that if you deploy a firearm during a confrontation, the goal is to eliminate the threat. Period.

Now, "eliminate" does not necessarily mean kill--it means to quickly incapacitate in order to disable the individual from being a further threat. Yes, often times being shot in the torso kills, but often times it only wounds, as well (a LOT of variables go into that, like distance, amount of times shot, angle of bullet entry, etc.).

The reason that nearly every real training target is a silhouette of an human torso+head is because aiming "center mass" (at the center of the torso, where hitting the target is most likely...very few cops are expert marksmen) will almost get you a round on target every time (at least with stationary targets). Yes, when in the comfort of a firing range with no stress and all the time in the world, most cops could hit that target in the arm, or in the hand, or wherever would be the least-lethal point of entry--the realities of these skills change under stressful situations.

LEOs (and everyone else) lose accuracy and consistency when in high-stress situations. Couple that with a target who is moving, comments similar to "why didn't he just shoot his knee?" become grounded in Hollywood movies and not reality. The reality is that, in a stressful situation where you life is perceived to be in danger, aiming center mass is your best chance at eliminating the threat.

That is a long reasoning behind why law enforcement, Service Members, and anyone else who is in a position to carry and use a gun as a self-defense tool is taught to aim center mass.

Hopefully that helps.

Shooting an unarmed person is a bit much. But if somebody naked and crazy is 6'8" and built like a football linebacker, I'd beat a hasty retreat and call for backup. Once you get something like 4 vs. 1, a takedown isn't much more than dogpile tactics and getting a hold on each limb.

But I guess a cop would rather shoot somebody than be labeled as a scaredy-cat, even though most people wouldn't blame him given the same situation. There's still some mentality thing that needs to be worked out in police training that's apparently broken at the moment.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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?

Not at all--but what you are doing is comparing the two as if they are comparable, and they're not. Using other countries as a possible model that you think we should follow is one thing, but my point is that you can't compare the two and pretend that it's apples to apples.

And I've seen some videos of how these police in other countries manage--it's usually them hiding behind their cruisers and running away from knife- or gun-wielding suspect who could easily harm them. If you sped up the videos x2 and played Yakkety Saks, it'd almost be comical.

But I'm not dismissing the point that we do need to train our LEOs to deal better with their words and hands and patience than just using their firearm. But that doesn't mean that ever instance of using a firearm necessitates threads like these that basically call the cops stupid and dismiss the actions of the suspect.

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

You should know the answer to that question, because I've reiterated such a point more than once in this exact thread.

Weren't you just talking about other people putting words in your mouth a few posts above this one?

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.

No, constructively reviewing the actions once you have all of the evidence, then taking that and using it as a teaching tool is how you prevent things that are illegal or unnecessary from happening in the future.

That's far from what you are doing in this thread. In fact, your admittance that you will "side heavily against the guy with superior firepower first every time" sets in stone the bias that we can all infer from your OP. Approaching an officer-involved shooting with such illogical (and, I reiterate, apparently untrained) thinking is the worse thing to do in these instances.

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.

No, the LEO was placed on administrative leave because that's the SOP in EVERY SINGLE OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING in the majority of police departments, if not all of them. It has nothing to do with the specifics of the case, but they will always remain on administrative leave until at least the internal investigation is completed. Again, this is nothing abnormal. And in my opinion, it's good that there is an internal and external investigation happening--I think that should happen with every police shooting--at least all that are considered controversial or not caught on camera.

And when did I ever "assum[e] the cop was in the right off of the same evidence?" That is something that you're making up in your head. All I have ever advocated is that it's absolutely understandable as to the "why" behind him deciding that he had to use his firearm given the scenario (what we know, anyhow) and the probable exceptionally short time to make that decision as someone was bum-rushing him with (most likely) ill intent.

Can you understand the difference? At all? Because it's a pretty big difference.

Cops don't retreat and let whatever mayhem and violence take place on others, until they are in the advantage.

They stop the violence and mayhem as they encounter it.

geez, this is both maddening and disgusting.

originally posted by: RedDragon
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!

I'm 30 and I don't look like I'll collapse walking up a flight of stairs. I find this post to be highly sensationalized.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Sorry, I don't trust the police. I haven't for a long time. It happens when you get involved with the things I do.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

Again, waiting on actual evidence instead of inferring silence as a suspicion of guilt is probably the best policy--helps avoid this bias of yours.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I said it makes me more suspicious, I didn't say that that was a confirmation of guilt.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, that's on you, and speaking from your own experience is fine, but if you let that sour your opinion of every human being in a certain profession just because you have encountered some bad apples, that sounds like a judgment problem on your own end.

When you're involved in the things I am, you never have issues with law enforcement, and the few interactions that you do have with them, you treat them like human beings and with civility and I've never had anything go wrong. Of course, I haven't had any interactions since I've had my CCDW permit in the last two years, so who knows if that will change with that new detail.

But even in the throes of my misspent youth, full of bongs in my car, smoking weed in the park, and fleeing the scene of parties after drinking...all behaviors that I gave up long ago, I never had a bad encounter with an officer. Hell, I only got arrested once, but that's because I trying to steal lighters and Visine...didn't take a genius to know why. But my point is that you don't have to be a saint of a civilian in order to have only respectful interactions with police officers.

Sounds like you have some stories to tell, though. Maybe I (and the vast majority of people that I know) are just lucky, but something tells me that's not the case.

All I'm saying is that you don't have to trust the police in order to still employ the philosophy that it's best to wait for all the evidence before passing judgment.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fixed

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Is it ok to be biased and accept that I could be wrong if the required evidence comes through? Because I'm more than willing to say I was wrong if the evidence came through showing that the police officer was in the right.

I know we've discussed things extensively before, do you honestly think that I have any trouble admitting when I'm wrong if adequately proven so?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

My question is............did anyone ever figure out why no taser? That seems odd.

Austin is a sort of backwater city in many respects; I can understand they might not have the money for tasers.

But that does seem really strange.

a reply to: TonyS

Hard to know. The police aren't commenting on it yet.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Krazysh0t

My question is............did anyone ever figure out why no taser? That seems odd.

Austin is a sort of backwater city in many respects; I can understand they might not have the money for tasers.

But that does seem really strange.

He was nekkid. They was afeared that they would fry his naughty bits.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yea...........in many respects Austin still has some "small town" mentality. In some parts of Texas its not unusual that the Officer has to buy and provide his own equipment. Could be the case in Austin as well. Also, the media in Austin is highly concentrated and very tight about what is and isn't "published".............you may never hear any more about it at all if it doesn't fit their narrative.

a reply to: TonyS

That'll be unfortunate. This story needs a resolution, and it'll be a shame if we don't get one because the city is afraid it'll embarrass them.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry, I may have left the wrong idea..........the Austin media would squash the story if IT DOESN'T EMBARASS THE CITY OR THE POLICE. The accepted Media narative is that the Police are dangerous racist vermin and the City Gov't is incompetent. If the "truth" were to prove otherwise, they'll kill the story!

a reply to: TonyS

Well that's also unfortunate. I'd like the full story regardless if it shows my initial reactions to be wrong. I don't mind admitting such.

a reply to: Bedlam

It is odd given the laid back culture of the city. If you're not into breakfast tacos and juice shops, you're probably working in the tech/IT field. It's not a violent demographic of people; however, with all big cities there are the "don't go there late at night" areas, but they're small and definitely aren't resprensentative of the amount of deadly force that has been used here lately.

By chance, do remember where Motorola was located when u did some work for them? Curious because I can't remember where in Austin Motorola is located (guess I'll ask the girlfriend, too).

Cheers

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It was dark and the guy was charging the officer. In the moment how can you honestly say that officer was perfectly safe? If he didn't shoot he might have been punched. For all we know the teen could have even had hepatitis and he might have spit at the officer. The officer who has a family. If he didn't shoot, he might very well have gotten a serious disease or even been bruised.