[Purple Haize]

I would think once the student was disarmed, a non-lethal weapon would be a legitimate option. I know my views on this won't be popular, but an unarmed college student should not pose a lethal threat to a law enforcement officer.

In a fight where you legitimately think your life is in danger you use what you can. It's easy to sit removed from a highly energized situation and say 'Maybe the person in the fight should have done X". In a fight you do what you can to end it.

[ALUmnus]

I would think once the student was disarmed, a non-lethal weapon would be a legitimate option. I know my views on this won't be popular, but an unarmed college student should not pose a lethal threat to a law enforcement officer.

So, you as the officer, draw your gun. The student (who attacked you with a hammer, tried to get hold of your gun, and continues the assault) comes at you. What do you do? With your gun drawn you can't exactly wrestle with him or punch. Kick? The drawn gun is supposed to stop the attack. If it doesn't, you don't have many other options but to use it or run.

[BJWilliams]

Even without his primary weapon he continued his assault on the officer and so drastic and lethal action had to be taken. remember, the officer felt him "clawing at his neck" so its not like the threat was over despite his being "disarmed"

[Purple Haize]

The officer did a pretty good job following training. He tried to contact back up several times He continuously tried to create space between himself and the attacker. He tried to talk to the attacker.
I do believe you read it correctly that the attacker was reaching for the officers gun BEFORE it was drawn. That's an automatic 'Life Endangerment' variable. What was the attacker going to do with a holstered side arm? This officer correctly feared for his life for several reasons 1- Attacked unprovoked with a weapon 2- Attacker was attempting to take the officers holstered weapo. 3- Attacjer mounted the officer and confined attacking. Would you prefer that this office get killed or seriously mauled? What options did the officer have?
Now if you want to argue lack of training g then what training was th officer missing? How cost effective would further training be? Would you have enough viable personnel to complete the training or will you lose personnel and be unable to fill slots.
A question I have is the availability of a tazer. If one was available why not draw that first? If one was not available what was the reasoning behind that decision? Also, why no camera's? I would have liked to see those questions asked but have no problem with how this played out

[ALUmnus]

Yes it is easy for me to Monday morning QB this incident. It is also our job to do so as citizens. I have no doubt that my view of when it is appropriate for an officer of the law to use lethal force is different than a majority on here feel. That's okay, I appreciate our differences.

I completely agree that we give too much leeway with officers pulling the trigger, but it just seems like, based on his account, that this was a situation that allowed for it. But, no way to know for sure without a witness.

[Purple Haize]

I would think once the student was disarmed, a non-lethal weapon would be a legitimate option. I know my views on this won't be popular, but an unarmed college student should not pose a lethal threat to a law enforcement officer.

So, you as the officer, draw your gun. The student (who attacked you with a hammer, tried to get hold of your gun, and continues the assault) comes at you. What do you do? With your gun drawn you can't exactly wrestle with him or punch. Kick? The drawn gun is supposed to stop the attack. If it doesn't, you don't have many other options but to use it or run.

Some people are taught to not pull their gun if they aren't going to use it. Some interpret that to mean never put an unfired weapon back in your holster.

[Purple Haize]

If everything stated actually happened as stated, I can certainly understand the justification for utilizing lethal force. All we can really do, given the circumstances is go off of what the officer reported and the physical evidence.

My point about training is, why is a law enforcement officer getting his a** beaten by what appears to be a relatively scrawny college freshman? Obviously there can be exceptions to the rule, but normally a kid like that shouldn't be a threat to a trained officer once he is disarmed.

I also would have to question the availability of a taser, pepper spray, or other non-lethal weapon. Cameras would obviously be helpful in this case, but I'm not sure whether or not they are necessary in this particular area.

I guess I'm generally skeptical of government force, and while I don't work in law enforcement, I do work in public safety. I know the constant emphasis that is put on CYA in documentation. "He reached for my gun" just seems like the stock magic phrase that is used by law enforcement to justify whatever act of violence they participate in. We will never really know what happened, and I hope that justice was served. I also hope this officer is able to move on with his life and be a productive member of society.

And judging by the tone of your statements you don't believe the officers report. 'Hope he can be a productive member of society' makes it sound like you don't think he currently is one.

As for getting his azz kicked, the report stated that the assailant had a green belt in Ju Jitsu and studied other martial arts. What level of hand to hand combat traing should an officer have? Especially at the Campus security level?

[flamehunter]

Also the report stated that the officer tripped and fell as he was backing away from the kid. That put him at an immediate disadvantage and allowed the kid for at least a moment to have the upper hand. That would account for the butt-kicking part of your observation.

[Purple Haize]

I don't disbelieve the officer's account. I'm just skeptical. And I don't have a good answer for how much training a law enforcement officer should have. I guess enough to take care of everyone with a tai-bo DVD without putting holes in their chest.

I definitely wasn't trying to imply that he's not a productive member of society. However, taking a man's life tends to have an impact on one's mental and emotional health. All I meant by that was that I hope he is able to move on from this with minimal issues.

Like I said you don't believe the officers account. 'Disbelief' and 'skeptical' make that clear. Your second paragraph is a good clarification that is true.
But again, you ask for a certain level of hand to hand experience but don't have specific answer. Do you know that the officer doesn't have the level of skill to beat someone with with a total Tai Bo training? Did the fact he tripped, while trying to create space and defuse the situation non violently btw, change to equation towards someone with a green belt in Ju Jitsu, which focuses on grappling?
I understand where you are coming from and your skepticism in general. But not in this case. There are much better cases to point to and say where skepticism is called for.

[alabama24]

I think this student just snapped. I have seen it happen.

I bet you have.

[PAmedic]

My point about training is, why is a law enforcement officer getting his a** beaten by what appears to be a relatively scrawny college freshman? Obviously there can be exceptions to the rule, but normally a kid like that shouldn't be a threat to a trained officer once he is disarmed.

http://www.newsadvance.com/news/local/p ... b2370.html

Bennett wrote no charges will be brought against Mulberry, as investigators felt he acted out of self-defense. Hathaway stood about 3 inches taller than the security officer, the Commonwealth’s Attorney office reported, and outweighed him by nearly 30 pounds.

did you even read the article before you started cop-bashing?

though maybe the Commonwealth's Attorney is a liar too, just like those a-hole cops out there.

[PAmedic]

I don't disbelieve the officer's account. I'm just skeptical. And I don't have a good answer for how much training a law enforcement officer should have. I guess enough to take care of everyone with a tai-bo DVD without putting holes in their chest.

1. "skeptical": as is- cops are liars. Just be honest with everyone and stop mincing around. You've been consistent since the story broke- have the balls to own it.
2. most people have no idea what or how much training we have: the beauty of it is that it doesn't stop you from running your mouth. God Bless America.
3. the standard by which police officers are judged is what action was "objectively reasonable" at the time. use of force is measured by what the officer knew at the scene, not by the "20/20 vision of hindsight" by Monday-morning quarterback like you. Graham v. Connor
4. deadly force is authorized and specifically supported by the Supreme Court in several circumstances directly applicable here: if an officer is threatened with a deadly weapon (sledge hammers count) or when the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm or death to the officer or to another. (getting clubbed with a hammer or shot with your own gun that someone is attempting to take from you) Tennessee v. Garner
5. if all else fails, revert back to point #1: cops are liars. You win.

[PAmedic]

and if it sounds like I took that personally it's because I did.

The mentality some people have when a cop defends his own life is insane.

evidently we should be willing to die so no one gets offended. you look in my wife and kids' eyes and tell them that.

[Purple Haize]

My point about training is, why is a law enforcement officer getting his a** beaten by what appears to be a relatively scrawny college freshman? Obviously there can be exceptions to the rule, but normally a kid like that shouldn't be a threat to a trained officer once he is disarmed.

http://www.newsadvance.com/news/local/p ... b2370.html

Bennett wrote no charges will be brought against Mulberry, as investigators felt he acted out of self-defense. Hathaway stood about 3 inches taller than the security officer, the Commonwealth’s Attorney office reported, and outweighed him by nearly 30 pounds.

did you even read the article before you started cop-bashing?

though maybe the Commonwealth's Attorney is a liar too, just like those a-hole cops out there.

Since everyone is at least 3" taller than you, I'll take your word for it! I don't know about everyone being 30 lbs heavier though

[jbock13]

Yeah, I know libertarians are of different spectrums but it seems most always question the police. And sure, when it comes to issues like DUI checkpoints, I get it. However, I also believe in the right of self-preservation, and had this kid complied this wouldn't have happened. Simple as that. Based on the investigation the officer was clearly justified.

[Purple Haize]

Yeah, I know libertarians are of different spectrums but it seems most always question the police. And sure, when it comes to issues like DUI checkpoints, I get it. However, I also believe in the right of self-preservation, and had this kid complied this wouldn't have happened. Simple as that. Based on the investigation the officer was clearly justified.

Great show

[ATrain]

My point about training is, why is a law enforcement officer getting his a** beaten by what appears to be a relatively scrawny college freshman? Obviously there can be exceptions to the rule, but normally a kid like that shouldn't be a threat to a trained officer once he is disarmed.

http://www.newsadvance.com/news/local/p ... b2370.html

Bennett wrote no charges will be brought against Mulberry, as investigators felt he acted out of self-defense. Hathaway stood about 3 inches taller than the security officer, the Commonwealth’s Attorney office reported, and outweighed him by nearly 30 pounds.

did you even read the article before you started cop-bashing?

though maybe the Commonwealth's Attorney is a liar too, just like those a-hole cops out there.

Since everyone is at least 3" taller than you, I'll take your word for it! I don't know about everyone being 30 lbs heavier though

Based on the last time I saw Medic, I'd say I outweigh him by 30 lbs.

Also, I fully support the use of force...even if its deadly...in order to defend oneself. This officer did nothing wrong. He was attacked, he defended himself...and unfortunately the attacker died.

[flamesfilmguy]

Maybe Medic can answer this:
Why would the officer not have a round chambered? If that kid has a gun instead of a hammer we are talking about a dead police officer. I know thats playing the what if game but still.

[PAmedic]

No way would I speculate on the condition of the officer's weapon.

***

I can tell you it is standard practice to keep a hot gun, ie: round chambered and full mag.

it is not uncommon in CQB to have a weapon go out of battery if the muzzle is directly against the suspect...

another issue- though relatively rare- is a bad primer. either way, the common procedure is "tap rack go" for a type 1 malfunction like that. regardless you have to put the thing back in service ASAP.

[flamesfilmguy]

No way would I speculate on the condition of the officer's weapon.

***

I can tell you it is standard practice to keep a hot gun, ie: round chambered and full mag.

it is not uncommon in CQB to have a weapon go out of battery if the muzzle is directly against the suspect...

another issue- though relatively rare- is a bad primer. either way, the common procedure is "tap rack go" for a type 1 malfunction like that. regardless you have to put the thing back in service ASAP.

I guess the article read like the officer had to rack a round into the chamber. I completely understand not wanting to speculate I just wanted to make sure that was standard procedure to keep it +1. That puts (especially in CQB) the officer at a tactical disadvantage obviously if one is not chambered. I've never had an FTF on the first chambered round before but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.

[BJWilliams]

I'll defer to PA do the picking apart of your "counterpoints" (especially since he kinda is a cop and all) but I don't think he is expressing any disdain for the first amendment because he takes issue with what you are saying.

[PAmedic]

Couple of things, and I will be happy to respond to your points. I'm sorry you take this so personally. I'm not surprised, but I am sorry. After reading the article again and taking some time to think about it, I agree that the officer acted within the law.

1. Yes, cops are liars. People are liars. People cover their butts in situations, especially in something this serious. I don't hold cops on a pedestal. Sorry. That doesn't mean there is a lie in this case, but I don't automatically believe him because he's a police officer, any more than I believe anyone.
2. I think I have a pretty solid grasp on the training the run of the mill street cop has. Doesn't stop you from running your mouth either though, does it? I'm sorry you have such disdain for the First Amendment, since you are supposed to be defending the Constitution and all.

5. Again, cops are people. People are liars. Cops are people with power. People with power tend to abuse that power. Unfortunately, agents of the state have committed some of the most despicable crimes against citizens in US and world history. So no, I don't trust the police. The attitude you have displayed over this yet again shows your disdain for folks that don't bow down before the authority you have. In short, you sound like a cop.

appreciate the part in bold (no sarcasm- glad you were at least able to admit that part)

never said anyone should put cops on a pedestal. but that's a far cry from "I don't trust the police", "agents of the state have committed some of the most despicable crimes against citizens in US", and "Yes, cops are liars"

where you go off the rails is just assuming anything a cop says or writes in a report is a lie. You are way beyond "Skeptical"- that takes cynicism to a whole new level.

all that being said, you are absolutely entitled to your own opinion- and my brothers and sisters in blue will still work midnights keeping you safe. again; that's the beauty of our country and why our ancestors died protecting our freedoms. Many cops will do the same. God Bless America was not meant as sarcasm.

where you were wrong here is when you insinuated that this particular officer was a liar, likely guilty of "something" and at the very least incompetent. Your apology doesn't change that. The fact that you are a Liberty alum and this was a LU employee who just did his job, likely saving the life(s) of student(s), makes it even worse.