Officer 'threatened' by naked man... shoots to kill.

[Forsher]

You have a choice between two options. No matter the pressure aiming at one or the other of them is easier. Neither may be easy but one will be easier than the other. That's what we're talking about when we are using easy. It's relative.

Again, I'll use the water analogy. Drinking water can be fatal... doesn't mean one doesn't do it.

Give it up, you're just making yourself look even more ridiculous.

I disagree. Especially given that:

• I've made no false claims, whatever you have to say... successfully shooting an individual in the knees (or even just one) will stop movement (crawling is available, mind and rolling too) more successfully than peppering a torso with bullets in the situation discussed... it just isn't likely to happen. And obviosuly that means it is useful but not practical.
  
• I haven't assumed that one thing is being discussed when, as a point of fact, it demonstratably isn't.

[Dyakovo]

Give it up, you're just making yourself look even more ridiculous.

I disagree. Especially given that:

• I've made no false claims, whatever you have to say... successfully shooting an individual in the knees (or even just one) will stop movement (crawling is available, mind and rolling too) more successfully than peppering a torso with bullets in the situation discussed... it just isn't likely to happen. And obviosuly that means it is useful but not practical.
  
• I haven't assumed that one thing is being discussed when, as a point of fact, it demonstratably isn't.

You being too ignorant to realize your claims are false is not the same thing as not making a false claim.
You've been claiming that shooting someone in the knee is a reasonable course of action. It isn't.

[Northern Dominus]

You've never had to really fire at anything under pressure have you? There's really nothing easy about it, not in the least.

Plus you can still kill somebody by shooting them in the knee. Catch them at the right angle and you open up the femoral artery. That's death in a matter of a few minutes due to exsanguination.

You have a choice between two options. No matter the pressure aiming at one or the other of them is easier. Neither may be easy but one will be easier than the other. That's what we're talking about when we are using easy. It's relative.

Again, I'll use the water analogy. Drinking water can be fatal... doesn't mean one doesn't do it.

What? Where does this apples to hand grenades comparison come from exactly?

I fail to see how shooting somebody in the knee is in any way viable when somebody loaded on a psychoactive drug is charging you for any medical or tactical reason whatsoever. If you're trying to make the point that aiming at center mass is "easier" because it's the bigger target then yes, generally people's knees are smaller than their torsos.

But again the whole act of drawing a firearm, taking steady aim, and pulling the trigger in a cotrolled manner isn't as easy to do as you apparently believe it is. See unlike COD-land everything from the weight of the firearm in question to environmental conditions to mental state can screw with that process in a variety of ways.

So is that your argument in its entirety? That knees are smaller than torsos?

[The Emerald Dawn]

I would hope that the police officer in question has one hell of an excuse, because CQC would have been my first resort, not retreating.

Naked man versus clothed cop, this isn't rocket surgery. Do you see what I did there?

[Dyakovo]

I would hope that the police officer in question has one hell of an excuse, because CQC would have been my first resort, not retreating.

Naked man versus clothed cop, this isn't rocket surgery. Do you see what I did there?

Engaging in CQC when you're carrying a loaded firearm is moronic. All you're doing is providing the other person with an opportunity to take your weapon.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I would hope that the police officer in question has one hell of an excuse, because CQC would have been my first resort, not retreating.

Naked man versus clothed cop, this isn't rocket surgery. Do you see what I did there?

Engaging in CQC when you're carrying a loaded firearm is moronic. All you're doing is providing the other person with an opportunity to take your weapon.

If your holster sucks, sure.

Control their hands, and you control them. A police officer should have received at least the training I did, and even I learned how to cuff someone who reaches for me.

If they are cuffed, the threat is reduced. If they persist, I would assume the officer has a foot, we already know the perp has a junk seeing as that was the weapon threatening the officer, boot meet junk, pop goes the weasel.

Hell, I'm pro-gun rights and even I think it is moronic to defend someone who shoots first and thinks second.

[Northern Dominus]

I would hope that the police officer in question has one hell of an excuse, because CQC would have been my first resort, not retreating.

Naked man versus clothed cop, this isn't rocket surgery. Do you see what I did there?

As Dya mentioned, whipping out a gun when you're that close is pretty much asking to have it wrenched from you and having a thigh drilled by your own weapon...
Which all of this is irrelevant because as of yet there isn't really a clear if the authorites in question really didn't have access to batons, pepper spray or tasers or they ignored their force continuum entirely and just shot Gil Collar out of...whatever, who knows.
You made a phrase understandable to dumb southern officers?

[Dyakovo]

Engaging in CQC when you're carrying a loaded firearm is moronic. All you're doing is providing the other person with an opportunity to take your weapon.

If your holster sucks, sure.

Control their hands, and you control them. A police officer should have received at least the training I did, and even I learned how to cuff someone who reaches for me.

If they are cuffed, the threat is reduced. If they persist, I would assume the officer has a foot, we already know the perp has a junk seeing as that was the weapon threatening the officer, boot meet junk, pop goes the weasel.

Hell, I'm pro-gun rights and even I think it is moronic to defend someone who shoots first and thinks second.

Good thing that's not what happened here then...

[Dyakovo]

I would hope that the police officer in question has one hell of an excuse, because CQC would have been my first resort, not retreating.

Naked man versus clothed cop, this isn't rocket surgery. Do you see what I did there?

As Dya mentioned, whipping out a gun when you're that close is pretty much asking to have it wrenched from you and having a thigh drilled by your own weapon...
Which all of this is irrelevant because as of yet there isn't really a clear if the authorites in question really didn't have access to batons, pepper spray or tasers or they ignored their force continuum entirely and just shot Gil Collar out of...whatever, who knows.
You made a phrase understandable to dumb southern officers?

Indeed. It's quite possible the this officer did have other reasonable options available to him... If he did then he was not justified in shooting.
The information currently available doesn't indicate that this the case though...

[Northern Dominus]

As Dya mentioned, whipping out a gun when you're that close is pretty much asking to have it wrenched from you and having a thigh drilled by your own weapon...
Which all of this is irrelevant because as of yet there isn't really a clear if the authorites in question really didn't have access to batons, pepper spray or tasers or they ignored their force continuum entirely and just shot Gil Collar out of...whatever, who knows.
You made a phrase understandable to dumb southern officers?

Indeed. It's quite possible the this officer did have other reasonable options available to him... If he did then he was not justified in shooting.
The information currently available doesn't indicate that this the case though...

Well the campus police claim that the particular officer didn't have any sort of less-lethal device on him.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 ... 54295.html

Which is kind of dubious considering the student went to Campus PD headquarters...but I digress, there is no clear chain of events or evidence beyond speculation so there's no point in speculating before any evidence is presented either way.

[Condunum]

Engaging in CQC when you're carrying a loaded firearm is moronic. All you're doing is providing the other person with an opportunity to take your weapon.

If your holster sucks, sure.

Control their hands, and you control them. A police officer should have received at least the training I did, and even I learned how to cuff someone who reaches for me.

If they are cuffed, the threat is reduced. If they persist, I would assume the officer has a foot, we already know the perp has a junk seeing as that was the weapon threatening the officer, boot meet junk, pop goes the weasel.

Hell, I'm pro-gun rights and even I think it is moronic to defend someone who shoots first and thinks second.

The entire reason not to engage in CQC is to eliminate that risk. The man supposedly seemed deranged and enraged. Why would the officer needlessly risk his, and possibly other lives?

The officer didn't shoot first and engage second, as far as I can tell. He tried to back away from the man to calm the situation down, and the man kept charging him.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

20 years ago, that could have easily been me. And I wouldn't even have been on drugs.

[Gauthier]

Tim Allen did write a book titled "Don't Stand Too Close to a Naked Man".

But seriously, WTH? Since when did a naked man constitute an armed threat? Um, don't answer that.

[Forsher]

I disagree. Especially given that:

• I've made no false claims, whatever you have to say... successfully shooting an individual in the knees (or even just one) will stop movement (crawling is available, mind and rolling too) more successfully than peppering a torso with bullets in the situation discussed... it just isn't likely to happen. And obviosuly that means it is useful but not practical.
  
• I haven't assumed that one thing is being discussed when, as a point of fact, it demonstratably isn't.

Your being too ignorant to realize your claims are false is not the same thing as not making a false claim.
You've been claiming that shooting someone in the knee is a reasonable course of action. It isn't.

I have been claiming that shooting someone in the knee would be a successful means of impeding motion when body shots have clearly not been. This is different to "a reasonable course of action" which is your summary of my claim which suggests that I am saying that aiming for the knees would be a practical decision... that is to say, likely to hit the target.

What I have seen in this thread in the responses to my posts is a failure to separate "taking out the knees" and "take out the knees". The former is a statement that answers, "What would impede motion significantly regardless of drugs and be unlikely to be fatal?" This, one must remember, is what I have been saying. In contrast, the latter answers the question, "What should I do in a pressure situation to impede the motion of an individual?" This is what responders have been presenting my position as. This is why a large part of the last couple of pages of this thread have consisted of my agreeing with statements to the effect that shooting the knees would be impractical. The practicality of the action is an appropriate criticism of the latter but not the former statements. An appropriate but incorrect line of attack of my claim is that "taking out the knees" would not impede the movement of an individual.

You have a choice between two options. No matter the pressure aiming at one or the other of them is easier. Neither may be easy but one will be easier than the other. That's what we're talking about when we are using easy. It's relative.

Again, I'll use the water analogy. Drinking water can be fatal... doesn't mean one doesn't do it.

What? Where does this apples to hand grenades comparison come from exactly?

I fail to see how shooting somebody in the knee is in any way viable when somebody loaded on a psychoactive drug is charging you for any medical or tactical reason whatsoever. If you're trying to make the point that aiming at center mass is "easier" because it's the bigger target then yes, generally people's knees are smaller than their torsos.

But again the whole act of drawing a firearm, taking steady aim, and pulling the trigger in a cotrolled manner isn't as easy to do as you apparently believe it is. See unlike COD-land everything from the weight of the firearm in question to environmental conditions to mental state can screw with that process in a variety of ways.

So is that your argument in its entirety? That knees are smaller than torsos?

I assume that you are referring to the "water analogy". Basically it is pointing out that whether or not something can be fatal is not such an important question as how likely it is to be fatal. While it does not speak in relative terms, it really should because we're, here, largely comparing knee wounds to chest/torso wounds.

Taking "viable" as meaning essentially the same thing as "practica" I haven't been claiming that. Mind you I have often been forced to prove (to no avail I might add as it's completely ignored by responders) that I have been saying that it isn't practical, merely something that would work.

Now, I maintain that shooting the knees would impede the motion of an individual regardless of whatsort of drugs they're on.

Please explain, and you won't succeed*, where exactly I said that one is likely to be successful when aiming at the knees. And by successful I mean the bullet hits the target aimed at.

*There's a possibility that this is what is conveyed at one point where I was sort of tongue tied after repeatedly having to repeat that it is impractical, prove that I had been saying that it was impractical and clarify what I meant by ease and use. Actually, the use of use may be the issue as I have a wide experience of NSG selectively reading, in this case ignoring that ease and use are being presented as different things (albeit not mutually exclusive).

[Dyakovo]

Your being too ignorant to realize your claims are false is not the same thing as not making a false claim.
You've been claiming that shooting someone in the knee is a reasonable course of action. It isn't.

I have been claiming that shooting someone in the knee would be a successful means of impeding motion when body shots have clearly not been. This is different to "a reasonable course of action" which is your summary of my claim which suggests that I am saying that aiming for the knees would be a practical decision... that is to say, likely to hit the target.

What I have seen in this thread in the responses to my posts is a failure to separate "taking out the knees" and "take out the knees". The former is a statement that answers, "What would impede motion significantly regardless of drugs and be unlikely to be fatal?" This, one must remember, is what I have been saying. In contrast, the latter answers the question, "What should I do in a pressure situation to impede the motion of an individual?" This is what responders have been presenting my position as. This is why a large part of the last couple of pages of this thread have consisted of my agreeing with statements to the effect that shooting the knees would be impractical. The practicality of the action is an appropriate criticism of the latter but not the former statements. An appropriate but incorrect line of attack of my claim is that "taking out the knees" would not impede the movement of an individual.

What? Where does this apples to hand grenades comparison come from exactly?

I fail to see how shooting somebody in the knee is in any way viable when somebody loaded on a psychoactive drug is charging you for any medical or tactical reason whatsoever. If you're trying to make the point that aiming at center mass is "easier" because it's the bigger target then yes, generally people's knees are smaller than their torsos.

But again the whole act of drawing a firearm, taking steady aim, and pulling the trigger in a cotrolled manner isn't as easy to do as you apparently believe it is. See unlike COD-land everything from the weight of the firearm in question to environmental conditions to mental state can screw with that process in a variety of ways.

So is that your argument in its entirety? That knees are smaller than torsos?

I assume that you are referring to the "water analogy". Basically it is pointing out that whether or not something can be fatal is not such an important question as how likely it is to be fatal. While it does not speak in relative terms, it really should because we're, here, largely comparing knee wounds to chest/torso wounds.

Taking "viable" as meaning essentially the same thing as "practica" I haven't been claiming that. Mind you I have often been forced to prove (to no avail I might add as it's completely ignored by responders) that I have been saying that it isn't practical, merely something that would work.

Now, I maintain that shooting the knees would impede the motion of an individual regardless of whatsort of drugs they're on.

Please explain, and you won't succeed*, where exactly I said that one is likely to be successful when aiming at the knees. And by successful I mean the bullet hits the target aimed at.

*There's a possibility that this is what is conveyed at one point where I was sort of tongue tied after repeatedly having to repeat that it is impractical, prove that I had been saying that it was impractical and clarify what I meant by ease and use. Actually, the use of use may be the issue as I have a wide experience of NSG selectively reading, in this case ignoring that ease and use are being presented as different things (albeit not mutually exclusive).

Shooting someone in the knee would only be a successful means of impeding motion if you manage to hit, which isn't going to happen except through dumb luck. Real life isn't the movies or videogames as you seem to believe.

[Greed and Death]

http://news.yahoo.com/friends-baffled-killing-ala-college-student-145154839.html

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Classmates and friends are questioning why a police officer fatally shot a University of South Alabama freshman who was naked and had been banging on a window at police headquarters.

Campus officials didn't give any indication that Gil Collar, 18, of Wetumpka had a weapon when he was shot. A university spokesman said he was fatally wounded about 1:30 a.m. Saturday after an officer heard a bang on a window and went outside to investigate.

A statement issued by university spokesman Keith Ayers said Collar, who wrestled at Wetumpka High School before enrolling at South Alabama, assumed a "fighting stance" and chased an officer before being shot. The officer tried to retreat numerous times to defuse the situation before opening fire, the school said.

But sophomore Tyler Kendrick said campus authorities haven't provided any satisfying answers about why Collar was killed.

"Really, it just upsets me that there's no other way to apprehend an unarmed student rather than shooting him. I don't understand that," Kendrick said.

Student Joshua Frye said it seemed the officer could have used something other than a firearm to stop Collar.

"What I feel is that a cop has more than a gun," he said.

The officer was placed on paid leave, and an autopsy will determine if drugs or alcohol were involved.

Campus officials said the confrontation was recorded by security cameras. The video and other information has been turned over to the district attorney and the Mobile County Sheriff's Office, which will review the shooting.

Colgan Meanor went to high school with Collar and then enrolled at the same college.

"He was a great, loving guy who always made people smile," she said. "He's not the kind of guy that people knew him and said he would do something like this."

Collar was the second person killed on the South Alabama campus since last year.

A university freshman was charged with murder in the fatal stabbing of another teenager who was slain in an on-campus apartment in July 2011. The victim was a visitor to campus and was not enrolled, authorities said.

Ayers said South Alabama, located near downtown Mobile, was still "a very safe campus," despite Collar's death.

... so a police officer went to investigate a naked man pounding on the window at Police station, assumed a 'fighting stance' and apparently chased the officer a bit before being shot...

yeah... I think either drugs or alcohol was involved somewhere... but do you think this was a justified shooting?

for me, with the amount of information given... I would have to say yes... but that depends on what else an investigation turns up.

Guy is a wrestler, so he is likely 250 pounds of muscle so I would say yes.

Sadly protest had forced the officers of this town to stop carrying tasers.

[Forsher]

I have been claiming that shooting someone in the knee would be a successful means of impeding motion when body shots have clearly not been. This is different to "a reasonable course of action" which is your summary of my claim which suggests that I am saying that aiming for the knees would be a practical decision... that is to say, likely to hit the target.

What I have seen in this thread in the responses to my posts is a failure to separate "taking out the knees" and "take out the knees". The former is a statement that answers, "What would impede motion significantly regardless of drugs and be unlikely to be fatal?" This, one must remember, is what I have been saying. In contrast, the latter answers the question, "What should I do in a pressure situation to impede the motion of an individual?" This is what responders have been presenting my position as. This is why a large part of the last couple of pages of this thread have consisted of my agreeing with statements to the effect that shooting the knees would be impractical. The practicality of the action is an appropriate criticism of the latter but not the former statements. An appropriate but incorrect line of attack of my claim is that "taking out the knees" would not impede the movement of an individual.



I assume that you are referring to the "water analogy". Basically it is pointing out that whether or not something can be fatal is not such an important question as how likely it is to be fatal. While it does not speak in relative terms, it really should because we're, here, largely comparing knee wounds to chest/torso wounds.

Taking "viable" as meaning essentially the same thing as "practica" I haven't been claiming that. Mind you I have often been forced to prove (to no avail I might add as it's completely ignored by responders) that I have been saying that it isn't practical, merely something that would work.

Now, I maintain that shooting the knees would impede the motion of an individual regardless of whatsort of drugs they're on.

Please explain, and you won't succeed*, where exactly I said that one is likely to be successful when aiming at the knees. And by successful I mean the bullet hits the target aimed at.

*There's a possibility that this is what is conveyed at one point where I was sort of tongue tied after repeatedly having to repeat that it is impractical, prove that I had been saying that it was impractical and clarify what I meant by ease and use. Actually, the use of use may be the issue as I have a wide experience of NSG selectively reading, in this case ignoring that ease and use are being presented as different things (albeit not mutually exclusive).

Shooting someone in the knee would only be a successful means of impeding motion if you manage to hit, which isn't going to happen except through dumb luck. Real life isn't the movies or videogames as you seem to believe.

Then why is the tone of this series disagreement? You agree that the action if successful would work and I have been at pains to point out that I am not suggesting that one tries this.