Naked student shot dead in Alabama

[Phillip V]

Can a naked man simply be disabled via knock or squeeze to the balls?

[dps]

The late mr. Collar was, of course, heir to a proud Southern tradition.

Intoxicated stupicity?  Hardly unique to the south.

[Neil]

Yeah.  The chest is too much.  A knee cap or two would have done the job.

No it wouldn't have.  Once he made the decision to shoot, the chest was the only option.  The cop made the decision to kill him in defence of his life.  Maybe he mistook the penis for a blackjack?

[Martinus]

Your statement appeared to be broader than this case. I don't disagree that this could have been handled better.

That's an euphemistic way of calling what is in fact murder.

[Neil]

Your statement appeared to be broader than this case. I don't disagree that this could have been handled better.

That's an euphemistic way of calling what is in fact murder.

Quit being a fag.

[Tamas]

Your statement appeared to be broader than this case. I don't disagree that this could have been handled better.

That's an euphemistic way of calling what is in fact murder.

Ok so if a drugged-out-of-his-mind guy goes berserk on you (in a bad way) and you manage to kill him while defending your life, you are a murderer? Great.

[Martinus]

Your statement appeared to be broader than this case. I don't disagree that this could have been handled better.

That's an euphemistic way of calling what is in fact murder.

Quit being a fag.

I don't think you need to be a fag to define murder as any intentional killing of a human being except when justified.

I think we can all agree the killing was not justified in this case, and a trained professional shooting someone in the chest definitely has an intention of killing, within the meaning of "intention" as it is understood by criminal law.

[Martinus]

Your statement appeared to be broader than this case. I don't disagree that this could have been handled better.

That's an euphemistic way of calling what is in fact murder.

Ok so if a drugged-out-of-his-mind guy goes berserk on you (in a bad way) and you manage to kill him while defending your life, you are a murderer? Great.

If the guy does not pose a direct threat to your life and you are a trained professional that is capable of using a non-lethal method to incapacitate the attacker, then definitely yes.

[DGuller]

This goes back to the question I posed many times.  If you're an armed man confronting an aggressive unarmed man, what exactly are you supposed to do?  If you go by the maxim that an armed man can never shoot an unarmed man justifiably, then the unarmed man has a carte blanche to attack you and disarm you.  You're almost put in a situation where having a gun does indeed put you at an immediate disadvantage.

[Martinus]

This goes back to the question I posed many times.  If you're an armed man confronting an aggressive unarmed man, what exactly are you supposed to do?  If you go by the maxim that an armed man can never shoot an unarmed man justifiably, then the unarmed man has a carte blanche to attack you and disarm you.  You're almost put in a situation where having a gun does indeed put you at an immediate disadvantage.

I would say it varies depending on what other options you have. The standard should be higher for a trained professional, such as a cop or a security guard, than a "civilian". 

[CountDeMoney]

I think we can all agree the killing was not justified in this case,

Not necessarily.

and a trained professional shooting someone in the chest definitely has an intention of killing, within the meaning of "intention" as it is understood by criminal law.

Trained professionals are not trained to shoot anywhere else but center mass, nor are they trained to shoot with any intention other than to kill.

Really wish some of you morons wouldn't talk about shit you know nothing about.

[CountDeMoney]

If the guy does not pose a direct threat to your life and you are a trained professional that is capable of using a non-lethal method to incapacitate the attacker, then definitely yes.

You're assuming this officer had non-lethal methods available to him at the time.  That may not be the case.  And no, wrestling doesn't count.

[ulmont]

Trained professionals are not trained to shoot anywhere else but center mass, nor are they trained to shoot with any intention other than to kill.

Really wish some of you morons wouldn't talk about shit you know nothing about.

I was reading elsewhere that some of the European police forces are actually trained to shoot at the legs, but I can't find any primary sources.

[CountDeMoney]

I was reading elsewhere that some of the European police forces are actually trained to shoot at the legs, but I can't find any primary sources.

That certainly wouldn't surprise me.

Gee, let's aim at a wildly moving and narrow target like a leg, miss, let the round ricochet off the pavement, and kill a bystander a 1/2 block away. 

Yeah, that sounds European, alright.

[ulmont]

That certainly wouldn't surprise me.

Gee, let's aim at a wildly moving and narrow target like a leg, miss, let the round ricochet off the pavement, and kill a bystander a 1/2 block away. 

Yeah, that sounds European, alright.

"Police bullets mostly hit arms and legs; the bullet continues through the body part in approximately 50 percent of all incidents. No third party has been hit by a police bullet since the introduction of the Action 3 round."
http://www.politi.dk/NR/rdonlyres/20DE43AF-33F4-48C5-A710-6A58457E35D2/0/Engelskresum%C3%A9afendeligrapport.pdf