Witnesses say police not justified in shooting naked man
- Thread starter ID_shooting
- Start date
- Status
Vex
Member
GunGoBoom said:
Depends on the laws of the state. Here in Ohio, there is no affirmative defense law. Therefore, if a cop shoots someone, the shooter has to go in front of a grand jury and risk indictment for murder. Even if the cop is cleared, there's a record of the charge, and at the top it says Murder. Not self defense, not police involved shooting, not justified shooting... it straight up says Murder, and that record will always be there.
griz
Member
Welcome to THR Nichols747. But you have violated policy by waiting for both sides of the story before jumping to conclusions.
Seriously, good to have you here.
Seriously, good to have you here.
Powderman
Member
Jeff White said:
This, by far, is THE single most intelligent post I have EVER seen on any Law Enforcement related post on this bulletin board.
THANK YOU! Where's that applause smiley?
tulsamal
Member
I wonder if it didn't work BECAUSE he was naked! The little barbs are meant to penetrate clothing and then get tangled up. Then comes the juice. If there are no clothes, both barbs would have to penetrate skin and stay put. Much tougher. I wonder if the Taser has ever even been tested against a naked subject!
Gregg
Nichols747
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 7
On the subject of tasers - it's been my observation that the barbs will penetrate skin quite easily, as they are designed to do. I am not an LEO, I am a paramedic in a rural county whose Sheriff's Office recently purchased tasers. I did the standby for 23 deputies being tased through t-shirts, and in all but two cases, the barbs penetrated the shirt and skin. The only time that they did not penetrate the skin was when they struck the shirt outside the profile of the deputies body.
From what I've seen, they must not have struck the man with both barbs. (I don't know charred skin would deflect a barb, but I have seen them stuck into leather coats.)
From what I've seen, they must not have struck the man with both barbs. (I don't know charred skin would deflect a barb, but I have seen them stuck into leather coats.)
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Whether the witnesses and family agree that Kaady should not have been shot isn't actually material. It is common for family and friends to claim the police used too much force on their sweet, kind, generous loved one. If the witnesses don't like cops, then they are likely to claim too much force was used. Additionally, the witnesses probably have no real idea as to all of the departmental and legal parameters in which lethal force can be used. In other words, they may have no idea at what point the suspect's behavior crossed the line to where lethal force against the suspect is legit.
It is up to the grand jury, not the witnesses and family, to determine if the shooting was legally valid or not.
From some of the descriptions if the man was burned badly and was wigging out because of it, then he very well may have had enough adrenaline going to make the shocks if applied at all ineffectual. From the sound of this, the police were responding to an accident and a person in need of assistance, not a combative subject that had committed a crime. Isn't there a difference there? As much as I hate to say this, these guys sound like Officer McGurk rather than the Sheriff Taylor of Mayberry.
Some of the excuses I've seen for methods to control unruly subjects just confuse me. I'd like to see any cop not struggle if I get him in some position where he's in a decidedly significant amount of pain. If someone grabbed you by the nads and told you to be still would you be able too? Some people you can bend an arm behind their back and you're just barely at a threshold of pain. My wrists can be way back there and its not a problem. Other people aren't as flexible, stiff joints or past injuries can cause a significant amount of pain that causes a person to struggle no matter what you say or no matter whom you are. Tasers will cause some people to go limp if they work. So will spray, others get defensive because that's how they're wired. The instinct to protect one's vitals or stop pain is a very strong response. Why more cops aren't in tune with this is strange to me. Seems like it would be part of the job.
Some of the excuses I've seen for methods to control unruly subjects just confuse me. I'd like to see any cop not struggle if I get him in some position where he's in a decidedly significant amount of pain. If someone grabbed you by the nads and told you to be still would you be able too? Some people you can bend an arm behind their back and you're just barely at a threshold of pain. My wrists can be way back there and its not a problem. Other people aren't as flexible, stiff joints or past injuries can cause a significant amount of pain that causes a person to struggle no matter what you say or no matter whom you are. Tasers will cause some people to go limp if they work. So will spray, others get defensive because that's how they're wired. The instinct to protect one's vitals or stop pain is a very strong response. Why more cops aren't in tune with this is strange to me. Seems like it would be part of the job.
The incident notwithstanding, pain compliance is just that, compliance through the use of pain. If I put you in a wrist lock or arm bar, its supposed to hurt. Thats your cue that Im not jacking around with you, your coming with me. If this causes you to involuntarily struggel, then Im going to assist you to the ground in a safe and rapid fashion, and you're still going with me.
For me, Im not a Monday Morning Quarterback, and refuse to pass judgement. I will say that the officer is justified if he, for any reason, was in fear for his safety, AT THAT MOMENT. It doesnt matter what we see in a vidoe, or what witnesses saw, all that is taken into account is the immediate perception of the officer.
For me, Im not a Monday Morning Quarterback, and refuse to pass judgement. I will say that the officer is justified if he, for any reason, was in fear for his safety, AT THAT MOMENT. It doesnt matter what we see in a vidoe, or what witnesses saw, all that is taken into account is the immediate perception of the officer.
Yes, the reasonable man test is what it boils down to. Would a reasonable man, in the officer's shoes, feel that he was in dnager of death or great bodily injury. You absolutely cannot take into account any witnessess, videos, critiques, etc. Only what that man in that case felt.
As for the "Officer Safety" jab. I took this job. Its not really that dangerous, but Im going home at the end of my shift. Period. If I dont, I want it to be worth it, i.e., in protection of an innocent's life. I absopultely will not let some ??????? kill me just because he wants to. I will take any and every precaution I can to ensure my safety.If that offends the sensibilities of some, Im sorry. Thats the way it is. I owe that to my family.
As for the "Officer Safety" jab. I took this job. Its not really that dangerous, but Im going home at the end of my shift. Period. If I dont, I want it to be worth it, i.e., in protection of an innocent's life. I absopultely will not let some ??????? kill me just because he wants to. I will take any and every precaution I can to ensure my safety.If that offends the sensibilities of some, Im sorry. Thats the way it is. I owe that to my family.
280PLUS
Member
Don't kid yourself.
And thanks for taking the job.
Two things bug me at this point.
a) If the man was as burned as reported (charred skin, etc) he would have been in unbearable pain *before* hands were laid on his raw skin, which might explain his strange behavior and his reactions to the LEOs.
b) I'm still trying to see a way that he could've been a threat to the LEOs lives while standing on top of a patrol car naked.
I've not taken part in any cop bashing here as a search would prove if one was inclined to conduct one, but this case just stinks. Big time. I'm hoping that someone from the area can provide a follow up.
Biker
a) If the man was as burned as reported (charred skin, etc) he would have been in unbearable pain *before* hands were laid on his raw skin, which might explain his strange behavior and his reactions to the LEOs.
b) I'm still trying to see a way that he could've been a threat to the LEOs lives while standing on top of a patrol car naked.
I've not taken part in any cop bashing here as a search would prove if one was inclined to conduct one, but this case just stinks. Big time. I'm hoping that someone from the area can provide a follow up.
Biker
JJpdxpinkpistols
Member
Statistically, LE doesn't even factor into the top 10 when it comes to on the job deaths per 100,000.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/13/pf/dangerousjobs/?cnn=yes
Before accusing me of being anti-LE, keep in mind that *I* don't put my life on the line on a daily, weekly, or even yearly basis. I have to respect that, and I more than understand that for most LE, its a job...something that they want to come home from. I am just injecting a bit of factual data to circumvent a taste of hyperbole.
Now, a word of note: these figures are from 2002, beofre the creation of DHS, thus before we swelled the ranks of LE to include a bunch of new folks in various government agencies that count as sworn LE angents.
I found stats for 2004, but frankly, the page I found was a confused mess, so it isn't worth posting.
Oh, and while we are here, lets look at a Officer Down and pay a moment of respect for those who *did* die for our safety. They deserve our thanks.
http://www.odmp.org/
patrol120 said:
And in some cases it's going to not work because what you think is an appropriate level of force through twisting a joint may actually be far beyond a reasonable level of "ow... that hurts" to a level of "OMG you're ripping my arm out of its socket". Someone who's been burned over significant portions of their body is likely to be under some severe pain. So could someone who's got joint problems.
As I said, let me ask you, if a training instructor grabs you by the nads and squeezes/pulls and wants you to spread your legs in response are you going to be able to do it? Your natural response is going to be to double over and try to remove your self from the pain stimulus if not push their hands away. This is physiology. I've had this discussion with cop friends before.
Now, its one thing if it's a suspect, it's another if it's an unknown individual that's in distress. Cops seem to treat every person that's unruly as a suspect and try to restrain them with their methods. Sometimes thats appropriate, other times it's not. What do cops do when they find someone that's thrashing about and in distress? Try to cuff and restrain them if not then shoot them? Too bad for epileptics.
At some point there has to be a differentiation between help and detention does there not?
280PLUS
Member
I wouldn't rely on statistics too much, it's a dangerous job or can get that way in a heartbeat.
Nichols747
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 7
Follow-up from today's news
Copied from KOIN.com today (10/24/05)
Officer, Deputy Cleared In Fatal Shooting Of Unarmed Man
Grand Jury Heard From 40+ Witnesses
OREGON CITY, Ore. -- A grand jury has cleared a Sandy police officer and a Clackamas County deputy in the fatal shooting of an unarmed, naked man.
Fouad Kaady was killed Sept. 8 near Sandy after allegedly going on a bizarre string of criminal acts.
Police say the 27-year-old was involved in three hit-and-run crashes, he kicked a man in the chest and was seen running naked and acting irrationally. He crashed his own car, which caught fire and burned.
Police say he was combative, and tasers did not subdue him. Kaady was shot after reportedly jumping on a squad car.
The grand jury heard from more than 40 witnesses before deciding Monday that the police would not face criminal charges.
According to the district attorney's office, the seven-member grand jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there was evidence that a crime had been committed by the officers. They made no other determination.
Throughout the secret grand jury proceedings, family and friends rallied outside the courthouse. They say Kaady was hurt and needed help from police.
One thing that isn't mentioned in this article is that at the time of the shooting, the subject had jumped from the car, stated "I'm going to kill you", and was lunging at the officer/deputy.
"IF true and complete...
Ordinary citizens that shoot clearly unarmed persons who are not a threat to safety, get convicted of murder and sent to prison for a loong time. Will these cops?"
Would it be a good shooting if an ordinary citizen shot an unarmed naked man who had committed three hit-and-runs, assaulted another citizen, threatened others, was growling and hooting like an animal, had laughed off less-lethal attempts to incapacitate the subject, jumped onto the citizen's car, then jumped down, stated "I'm going to kill you", and then lunged at the citizen?
GunGoesBoom, I used your quote as an example of several in this thread, not to single it out. I would wholeheartedly agree with your statement in many instances, and have great respect for your posts and positions. I just want to see people wait to let the legal system run it's course before we start villifying Law Enforcement Officers without all the facts. Simply being an LEO does not make you a Jackbooted Thug, nor does it take away your right to defend yourself.
That said, many people (for example, Mr. Kaady's family and friends) who will still regard this as a bad shooting, regardless of what the GJ found. However much I disagree with their - or anyone's - opinion, I respect their right to disagree with me.
AN
Copied from KOIN.com today (10/24/05)
Officer, Deputy Cleared In Fatal Shooting Of Unarmed Man
Grand Jury Heard From 40+ Witnesses
OREGON CITY, Ore. -- A grand jury has cleared a Sandy police officer and a Clackamas County deputy in the fatal shooting of an unarmed, naked man.
Fouad Kaady was killed Sept. 8 near Sandy after allegedly going on a bizarre string of criminal acts.
Police say the 27-year-old was involved in three hit-and-run crashes, he kicked a man in the chest and was seen running naked and acting irrationally. He crashed his own car, which caught fire and burned.
Police say he was combative, and tasers did not subdue him. Kaady was shot after reportedly jumping on a squad car.
The grand jury heard from more than 40 witnesses before deciding Monday that the police would not face criminal charges.
According to the district attorney's office, the seven-member grand jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there was evidence that a crime had been committed by the officers. They made no other determination.
Throughout the secret grand jury proceedings, family and friends rallied outside the courthouse. They say Kaady was hurt and needed help from police.
One thing that isn't mentioned in this article is that at the time of the shooting, the subject had jumped from the car, stated "I'm going to kill you", and was lunging at the officer/deputy.
"IF true and complete...
Ordinary citizens that shoot clearly unarmed persons who are not a threat to safety, get convicted of murder and sent to prison for a loong time. Will these cops?"
Would it be a good shooting if an ordinary citizen shot an unarmed naked man who had committed three hit-and-runs, assaulted another citizen, threatened others, was growling and hooting like an animal, had laughed off less-lethal attempts to incapacitate the subject, jumped onto the citizen's car, then jumped down, stated "I'm going to kill you", and then lunged at the citizen?
GunGoesBoom, I used your quote as an example of several in this thread, not to single it out. I would wholeheartedly agree with your statement in many instances, and have great respect for your posts and positions. I just want to see people wait to let the legal system run it's course before we start villifying Law Enforcement Officers without all the facts. Simply being an LEO does not make you a Jackbooted Thug, nor does it take away your right to defend yourself.
That said, many people (for example, Mr. Kaady's family and friends) who will still regard this as a bad shooting, regardless of what the GJ found. However much I disagree with their - or anyone's - opinion, I respect their right to disagree with me.
AN
- Status
Similar threads
