TexasCHLforum.com

mamabearCali wrote: edited to add: perhaps you don't mean to be so, but your responses have been quite patronizing and border on rude. I have tried to be very civil to you, even answering questions you seemed to mean to insult me by. Whenever police officers use force on a disabled person I would think that they would be trained to expect criticism and scrutiny.

mamabearCali wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:
Im quite certain that the cops would do everything in their power to mitigate being vomited on, or having their sense of smell assaulted by 2 week old corpses, or avoid the emotional trauma of picking up a dying 3 year old after an atrocity. Regretfully their job often calls upon them to "rassle" the pig.

Ummmm....I have been thrown up on many times as a teacher and a mom. Cornoners have to deal with week old corpses too. They chose their job....just as I and the coroner chose ours. Yucky icky nasty stuff is the part of many jobs.

Jim Beaux wrote: I am curious, just where was this guy's limbs amputated at....the wrist, the ankle, the forearm? I think totally trusting the media to form a conclusion is just...well let's just say it aint the best idea I have ever heard.... (let's do away with the justice system and rely on the National Enquirer ).

That is true...knowing where his limbs were amputated makes a huge difference on his movement capabilities. Right now I am working with the same lack of info as everyone else. Perhaps the light of information will shed some insight.

Jim Beaux wrote: Dont discount the fact that we have the luxury of looking at this shooting in the calm confines of a chair drinking coffee. The cops have to make life altering decisions under extreme conditions. They are human and make bad calls daily like we all do. If the cops did wrong they should burn, but at least allow their judgement the benefit of the facts.

I don't discount that at all...which is why I said above that it is entirely possible that they have the answers to the questions. Perhaps they were surprised and had no choice but to shoot. But very well armed able bodied men walked in a room with a disabled man with two limbs. When the two abled bodied men with thier full mental capacities claim self defense when they shoot the one armed one legged man I think some serious questions need to be asked. Of both their judgement and their use of force. I don't think it is wrong or rude to ask those questions.

Jim Beaux wrote: I think shooting someone who is attacking with a weapon is justified.... and it only takes one hand to hold a weapon.

A four year old can hold a pen...does the four year old have the capablilty to seriously injure me...no. This man could hold a pen, granted. Now could he hold the pen push his chair across the room jump up on one leg and stab an officer before pepper spray could be deployed......I find that somewhat doubtful. Possible, perhaps, but certainly worthy of some hard questions.

anygunanywhere wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:

Sorry. I did not intend my responses to sound that way.

I do have another question.

I know LEO expect scrutiny when they act, especially when they use deadly force. I would like to think that we would be subject to the same scrutiny.

Personally, I would expect that I would be given all of the same consideration as any LEO if and when I use deadly force.

Why would anyone expect to be criticized and second guessed - Monday morning quarterbacked - and accused of inappropriate action because they used deadly force against a double amputee crazy person?

I went back and reread your posts. To me they impune that if anyone were to use deadly force against a double amputee wheelchar bound crazy person regardless of the circumstances, they are automatically wrong.

I am not nor have I ever been a LEO. I was a paramedic for 12 years and an EMT basic for 4 years before that so I have some experience in situations similar to those that these LEO faced. Your comments infer that in every situation these first responders need to do all they can to "minimize the risk". Sorry, that does not happen. Situations are dynamic and these situations can change very quickly depending on what the actors are doing and their status.

I was lucky and I never had to defend myself in any situation. Paramedics have been injured in these types of situations. I can assure you that I would have defended myself if need be but my primary method of avoiding injury in any situation would have been to abandon the situation and let LEO intervene. I would have turned the situation over to the very ones whose actions you are questioning. Based on 16 years of field EMS, I can also assure you that the situation would not often have been a low risk scenario.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:I am not going to say what I might have done because I was not there. I do not have access to all of the facts. I am not trained as an LEO so I cannot second guess why non-lethal means were not applied.

A man died and that is a sad thing, true.

Did the officers act appropriately? That is for the DA and FBI to determine.

I still will stand by my statement that all, everyone, even crazy people are responsible for their actions. The excuse that they did not know what they were doing is irrelevant when they are attempting bodily harm to someone else.

I was working in California in 2004 and found myself cornered one night outside a fast food restaurant by a snotty nose addict in a near withdrawal state who demanded money. I had no cash and I was not going to give him my wallet. I pulled my blade and opened it behind my back. I told him that if he had any clarity remaining in his fried brain, he had better rethink what he was about to do, because I could guarantee to him the he would not survive what he was about to do and that I was not afraid of what was about to happen. In some circles he was not responsible for his actions becasuse of his addiction. In my world he was and he would have suffered the consequences of his actions, drug fried brain or not.

I am done.

Anygunanywhere

jmra wrote:I have tried to avoid this thread, but what can I say? I'm a glutton for punishment.

I am curious to know if anyone in this conversation has ever worked with the disabled or the mentally unstable? Anyone suggesting that a disabled person is somehow less capable of inflicting harm on another individual is speaking from a position of total ignorance of the capabilities of the "disabled" community.

I have seen members of this community accomplish feats that most would think impossible by a professionally trained athlete. Add mental instability/drug abuse into the equation and you have the makings for a very bad day.

If I were a betting man, I would suggest that the officers were lulled into a sense of false security ("disabled" man in a wheelchair) and were caught off guard by how quickly this individual was able to "close the gap" between them. I believe that this action combined with the "weapon" caused the officers to act instinctively.

Is there a lot of speculation in the above scenario? Yes, But not any more than most of what I have already read in this thread. The fact of the matter is the guy in the wheel chair might well have been able to beat most of the people on this forum in a butt kicking contest.

mamabearCali wrote:Entirely plausible. The only thing I would remind people of is that he had one arm, one leg. Wht could change they dynamics some.

jmra wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Entirely plausible. The only thing I would remind people of is that he had one arm, one leg. Wht could change they dynamics some.

I know "disabled" people who would actually be offended by that statement.

I believe these officers felt exactly the same way you do which is probably what got us to the end result. Underestimating these people will most of the time result in you being totally amazed by what they are physically capable of (in a good way). But, run into one that has ill intent and they will use that "lowering of the guard" to gain a strong advantage.

I can't help but think about the seasoned sergeant on patrol with the fresh meat that just got off the plane. The teenaged "warrior" looks on in horror as the sergeant raises his weapon at the little girl running toward them only the be more astonished as he picks himself up off the ground after the explosion, realizing that had the sergeant underestimated the enemy the bomb the girl was carrying would have killed them both.

I hope you never experience the realities that those who wear the uniform (be it the armed forces or LEO) are eventually forced to face at some point in their line of work. But, if you ever are, I assure you that it will change your life and your way of thinking forever.

mamabearCali wrote:Whenever police officers use force on a disabled person I would think that they would be trained to expect criticism and scrutiny.

smoothoperator wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Whenever police officers use force on a disabled person I would think that they would be trained to expect criticism and scrutiny.

I think there should be scrutiny of any deadly force. However, I think it's ignorant for someone to criticize before they scrutinize.

I also don't think force against a "disabled" person should be scrutinized any more than force against any citizen. In the investigation, the person's physical abilities should be one factor, along with their mental stability, history of violence, blood toxicology report, etc. But there shouldn't be extra scrutiny just because someone is "disabled" or "rich" or "looks like the President's imaginary son" and they get shot while attacking another human being.