Witnesses say police not justified in shooting naked man

[TheEgg]

Nichels747 -- while I agree with much of your post, it still just strikes me as on the extreme edge of acceptable action by the police officers involved. Certainly an LEO has no oblibation to allow themselves to be injured or killed -- from the information in the articles so far, I really don't see WHY the officers thought themselves in mortal danger, thus tripping the use of deadly force.

They might have a very good reason, but I just don't see it yet.

Maybe more information will be forthcoming from the officer's -- but I doubt it. I suspect that they have lawyers now that will forbid them to speak of his incident, in anticipation of the civil lawsuits surely to follow.

 

[pax]

Nichols747 ~

Thanks for posting the follow up report. I think your comments about it were spot-on.

pax

 

[Nichols747]

TheEgg,

I do agree that on the surface - naked and unarmed man acting bizarre is shot by police - this incident seems to be very close to the threshold of deadly-force. But when the circumstances of the case are brought to light, I think that the situation ended in the better of two outcomes.

1. Some posters wanted the police to back off and wait for backup to arrive to subdue the man. This was in a rural area, and I don't know how far away the next few responders were, but it could be a long wait.

2. This man was not fleeing the police, he jumped onto their parked vehicle, then jumped down and lunged at them.

3. Many of the posters here have advocated a "retreat" strategy by the officers - but the bulk of members here also seem to feel that an armed citizen should not be bound by a duty to retreat in defending themselves against an aggressor ("I'm going to kill you.")

4. We should look back to the case of Dep. Herzog to see that a naked man could be a very deadly threat, depending on his level of training and his commitment the fight. These officers have no idea if they are facing an drunk pacifist acting goofy, or a highly trained martial artist/crack commando/James Bond/super ninja/PCP freak. All they knew was that this subject is naked, apparently unbalanced for whatever reason, has commited several property crimes as well as at least one assault, is laughing off their less-lethal attempts at control, is approaching them, and has stated in no uncertain terms that he does intend to take their lives.

Whatever led up to this encounter, what should be considered is what the officers did when placed in that moment. Whatever led up to it, they were faced with an unknown aggressor, with intent, and presumably the means to carry out his threat. Being an LEO does not mean that you have any less right to protect your life. "Whatever it takes to go home at the end of my shift" could be correlated with a CCW Citizen saying "If I am involved in an incident where my life or my family is threatened, I will do whatever it takes to protect my life or family." or "go to slide-lock".

After this long rant, I will say this - if information comes out later showing that the officers did not act in accordance to established policies, then I will gladly change my position and retract my statements.

I know that there are many people here that disagree with my position. I would like to thank everyone for respecting each others thoughts on this particular case, and keeping this a very reasonable and civil discussion.

AN

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So as noted, it does not matter what the witnesses say or believe about the justification for the actions, just what the grand jury believes.

Similarly, it does really matter if the police's action were on the extreme edge of acceptable were clearly in the middle of being acceptable. All that matters is that the grand jury did not feel that a crime had been committed by the officers. So for a legal concern, it is really a sort of binary determination with no grey area.

Now, if on the edge as claimed, the value of the incident and grey area considerations will come from using it as a teaching example to educate LEOs in the future on dealing with fairly bizarre situations and apparently irrational naked people.

 

[Joejojoba111]

Just observing this thread, interesting.

Does anyone else find it curious that the only time the suspect allegedly used words to form a sentence was when he allegedly threatened to kill them? It just seems like a completely different behavior than everything else up to that point.

Add in that this is what exculpated the defendants, and I have to say it's curious.

Btw, to Jeff White, I think you should seriously reconsider your moderator duties. The stress seems to be getting to you. Capital letters, angry man. Bold letters, angrier man. Capital Bold letters in a 30-point font, an nervous wreck of a flailing man about to break down.

And the issue that drove you wild; you're angry that people are discussing, in a civil manner, a topical topic of discussion.

I'm no expert, but when you start screaming like a banshee at people who are minding their own business talking amongst themselves, you need a vacation, or a slap.

Maybe it's just me, but I found it completely out of taste, and incompatible with the position of moderator of a discussion board.

Sorry to offend, hope I don't get banned, but if you can censor discussions like that, then it's not too great a loss to be banned.

 

[TheEgg]

All that matters is that the grand jury did not feel that a crime had been committed by the officers.

While that certainly settles the criminal side of it, it sure does not settle the civil side. I would expect from what I have read of the family and some community group's interest in this incident, there will be a well funded civil suit brought against the officers, the city, the state, and probably the tooth fairy as well.

During the civil suit, we may find out more of the particulars. It would be interesting to hear them. Until then, we are pretty much beating the proverbial deceased equine.

Nichols747 -- I just wish there were something else that could be done in such situations -- just wishful thinking on my part, perhaps. This is not a good outcome for anyone (see my comments above about the probable civil suit.) I at first just thought, "***, why didn't they just get 2 or 3 other officers and do a dog pile on this guy, put restraints on him, and send him to the nut-house? Yes, the officers might have gotten roughed up some, but it seems like a reasonable chance to take, rather than have to shoot an un-armed man." The facts of the case obviously convinced the grand-jury enough to not indict, however. I can sort of accept that.

My comments earlier about the "I am going home at the end of my shift. Period" statements of some are designed to call into question what I think is an ill-thought out and poorly stated philosophy. First, as I have stated repeatedly, Cops have no obligation to allow themselves to be injured or killed in the performance of their duty. The other side of this is that there may be times when a cop must RISK injury or death to do their duty. At least, that is the way I see it.

So when I see the "PERIOD" phrase above, I wonder why do the cops who repeat this ever even bother to go out on a call? After all, it might be Dangerous out there.