Shooting The Unarmed Man – The Fallacy Of Modern Perception

[MysterYvil]

No dodge, you never asked a question.

"(H)ave you ever been punched in earnest, Mr. "Punches are no big deal?" is a direct question...which that poster has not yet answered.

I think he has no idea what he is talking about, yet he persists in having strong opinions on subjects he knows nothing about.

He has posted not one thing to disabuse me (and other BARFers) of this impression.

 

[mean dad]

Yes, in your third post about getting punched you asked him a direct question.

 

[byke]

No one died so far.

I have been attacked 3 times by strangers though. I fought all three times and I am still here.

Are you going to troll me about that too?

The main point of discussion in this thread is based on the article which explains some of the reasoning behind shooting an unarmed person, like if they're physically attacking you. I feel that homicide may not be the appropriate reaction because I think it's very unlikely that you would die from a fist/foot attack, thus escalation. Reading post #8, it sounds like you also think death is unlikely. Then in post #56, it appears that you wish to play devil's advocate and challenge the idea that a person *could* be killed by introducing a hypothetical degree of violence beyond one punch (which I never suggested or contradicted, btw). I then throw out a bit of a sarcastic response about death surrounding your own personal experiences, which pertains just fine to this conversation. Aaaand now I'm a troll. Please explain what came off as trolling. The sarcastic response? In the sink?? Nooooooooooo...

 

[Marcoose]

" Kicking someone's ass is a voluntary action."

Possible new sig line.

Unless you have Tourette's Syndrome.

 

[sanjuro]

The main point of discussion in this thread is based on the article which explains some of the reasoning behind shooting an unarmed person, like if they're physically attacking you. I feel that homicide may not be the appropriate reaction because I think it's very unlikely that you would die from a fist/foot attack, thus escalation. Reading post #8, it sounds like you also think death is unlikely. Then in post #56, it appears that you wish to play devil's advocate and challenge the idea that a person *could* be killed by introducing a hypothetical degree of violence beyond one punch (which I never suggested or contradicted, btw).

Well, in my first post in this thread, I criticize the logic of the writer. Mentioning an UFC champion as what can happen in a fight is stupid.

But I think you can be badly hurt in a fist fight. Just look at Bryan Stow, who is unable to care for himself after being assaulted by two men, who after knocking him to the ground, kicked him to permanent brain damage.

My opinion about shooting an unarmed man is that there are too many possibilities to make a blanket statement. But I believe someone unarmed could hurt you badly, which would justify armed self-defense.

I then throw out a bit of a sarcastic response about death surrounding your own personal experiences, which pertains just fine to this conversation. Aaaand now I'm a troll. Please explain what came off as trolling. The sarcastic response? In the sink?? Nooooooooooo...

C'mon.

 

[byke]

Dude, just about anything you can think of, you can find someone who's had something bad come of it. Are you going to stop walking on sidewalks because somewhere a piano fell on someone's head? No, we ignore the ridiculously low likelihood risk and take ZERO steps to prepare for it because it's not worth handicapping yourself over. I think that cops don't need to kill people who punch them and the fear of death is either a lie, or taking an extreme action to prevent something that's super unlikely.

You didn't get/like the "Nooooooo..."? The sink is serious business now??

 

[sanjuro]

Dude, just about anything you can think of, you can find someone who's had something bad come of it. Are you going to stop walking on sidewalks because somewhere a piano fell on someone's head? No, we ignore the ridiculously low likelihood risk and take ZERO steps to prepare for it because it's not worth handicapping yourself over. I think that cops don't need to kill people who punch them and the fear of death is either a lie, or taking an extreme action to prevent something that's super unlikely.

You didn't get/like the "Nooooooo..."? The sink is serious business now??

I feel like I have to explain the nature of unarmed fights.

This week, a friend, a geeky-looking white man, was walking in his New Orleans neighborhood which is known for random violence. He said 5 black teens started harassing him, throwing rocks, and followed him until he fled.

He rightly feared for his life.

As for the police, one extreme is Eric Garner. He was unarmed and he was surrounded by 5 officers. Talking to the guy was the solution, not a chokehold.

As for officers being assaulted, 1 out of 10 are attacked. More than a quarter are unarmed assaults, and almost a third of them suffer injury.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2012/officers-assaulted/assaults_topic_page_-2012

In these instances, if an officer has been assaulted, no one can say he should not defend himself with his gun.

 

[byke]

I've already agreed that I understand the perspective, but it's that perspective that *I think* would make me a bad policeman. With your friend, I wonder how many people those 5 teens have beaten to death? Perception versus reality and I think understanding reality may help with perception. The perception is that you're going to die, the reality is that you're probably not going to die. So, should one use lethal force every time the fight-or-flight is triggered? I think cooler heads result in fewer people dying, fewer people suffering from the emotional damage that occurs when you kill someone, and also stops promoting this awful fear induced cycle. I suppose there's nothing left but to disagree and move along.

 

[Brown81]

I am missing your point here byke.

Is it that just turning the other cheek and mellowing out will prevent cops from getting stabbed to death?

What would you have done to the knife guy in the video? Pass him a joint and ask him to mellow out (edit: cooler heads as you say)? I keed, but seriously what would you have done?

 

[Marcoose]

As for officers being assaulted, 1 out of 10 are attacked. More than a quarter are unarmed assaults, and almost a third of them suffer injury.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2012/officers-assaulted/assaults_topic_page_-2012

In these instances, if an officer has been assaulted, no one can say he should not defend himself with his gun.

Aren't kids no longer raised being taught not to disrespect and/or attack the police?

 

[byke]

I am missing your point here byke.

Is it that just turning the other cheek and mellowing out will prevent cops from getting stabbed to death?

What would you have done to the knife guy in the video? Pass him a joint and ask him to mellow out (edit: cooler heads as you say)? I keed, but seriously what would you have done?

I've tried to keep my comments towards the article in the OP and not the offshoots. So, none of this would apply to being attacked with a knife.

 

[sanjuro]

But there is a big difference between civilian personal defense and how a police officer should conduct himself.

Civilian personal defense is cut-and-dry: I am in danger and I need to exert enough violence to escape this danger and flee.

Police enter dangerous situations to keep the peace and make arrests. But he also has the authority and often a numerical superiority on his side.

If a suspect is striking an officer and he feels that he is going to suffer serious injury, obviously he should draw his weapon (if he can). But a lot of police brutality cases do involve unarmed suspects who are not fighting an officer.

 

[byke]

Civilian personal defense is cut-and-dry: I am in danger and I need to exert enough violence to escape this danger and flee.

Minor point, you do not have to retreat in California.

 

[sanjuro]

I've already agreed that I understand the perspective, but it's that perspective that *I think* would make me a bad policeman. With your friend, I wonder how many people those 5 teens have beaten to death? Perception versus reality and I think understanding reality may help with perception. The perception is that you're going to die, the reality is that you're probably not going to die. So, should one use lethal force every time the fight-or-flight is triggered? I think cooler heads result in fewer people dying, fewer people suffering from the emotional damage that occurs when you kill someone, and also stops promoting this awful fear induced cycle. I suppose there's nothing left but to disagree and move along.

I think my sticking point with your arguments is that you seem to imply there are two possibilities to unarmed violence: death or not dying. And since death is extremely unlikely, then using a gun is ridiculous.

I may portray myself as Batman or Bruce Lee, but I am a potential victim like my friend.

He and I spent several days this year together in his New Orleans neighborhood. I could have been attacked like he was.

And I don't mean like, "In the realm of all possibilities". I mean there are a lot of attacks, http://www.vice.com/read/new-orlean...ting-the-shit-out-of-its-artists-and-gays-820

There were also several baseball attacks on cyclists on a street I rode frequently. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/02/bicyclists_attacked_with_baseb.html

Around the Bay Area, my journeys through the most violent neighborhoods are rare and very short. In general, I'm not panicked about being attacked although I take basic precautions like being alert.

I don't want to be hurt. The last time I was attacked, in an iPhone robbery, I used my carry knife to free myself from the muggers' grasp then I ran away. I have no idea if they wanted to hurt me badly or kill me.

I think people should defend themselves rather than be hurt. But it is not a simple equation, like should you kill someone instead of being punched once in the face.

 

[sanjuro]

Minor point, you do not have to retreat in California.

No matter what the legal situation is, fleeing is the first tenet of all self-defense philosophies.

 

[byke]

I think my sticking point with your arguments is that you seem to imply there are two possibilities to unarmed violence: death or not dying. And since death is extremely unlikely, then using a gun is ridiculous.

I may portray myself as Batman or Bruce Lee, but I am a potential victim like my friend.

He and I spent several days this year together in his New Orleans neighborhood. I could have been attacked like he was.

And I don't mean like, "In the realm of all possibilities". I mean there are a lot of attacks, http://www.vice.com/read/new-orlean...ting-the-shit-out-of-its-artists-and-gays-820

There were also several baseball attacks on cyclists on a street I rode frequently. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/02/bicyclists_attacked_with_baseb.html

Around the Bay Area, my journeys through the most violent neighborhoods are rare and very short. In general, I'm not panicked about being attacked although I take basic precautions like being alert.

I don't want to be hurt. The last time I was attacked, in an iPhone robbery, I used my carry knife to free myself from the muggers' grasp then I ran away. I have no idea if they wanted to hurt me badly or kill me.

I think people should defend themselves rather than be hurt. But it is not a simple equation, like should you kill someone instead of being punched once in the face.

Again, my comments mostly pertain to the main focus of this thread, which is the article. Check out this quote:

Have you seen the viral videos of “the knockout game?” Many of those videos involve one solid blow to the head that results in an unconscious victim. There is laughing and yelling and everyone runs away. Well, what if they didn’t want to stop there? What if the attacker decided that he would just kill someone today? He now has an unconscious, helpless victim to beat to death.

This guy is using incredibly unlikely scenarios to reinforce killing people over a punch. That *mentality*, I have a problem with. You want to state that these things do actually happen? I agree, they do. You want to state that there are many possible injuries between a black eye and death? Of course there is. You think people should be able to defend themselves instead of being beaten? I agree, they should, but should a definitively lethal reaction be the automatic and appropriate response to a highly unlikely lethal action? I don't believe it should. I like merry-go-round's.

 

[sanjuro]

This guy is using incredibly unlikely scenarios to reinforce killing people over a punch. That *mentality*, I have a problem with. You want to state that these things do actually happen? I agree, they do. You want to state that there are many possible injuries between a black eye and death? Of course there is. You think people should be able to defend themselves instead of being beaten? I agree, they should, but should a definitively lethal reaction be the automatic and appropriate response to a highly unlikely lethal action? I don't believe it should. I like merry-go-round's.

On a personal level, I worry about my friend in New Orleans because I feel that he could be attacked again.

But I am hesitant to tell him to get a handgun. I don't want him to shoot someone, which is a possibility for him.

I have another friend who works a few blocks away, a tall imposing man who does carry a gun. I believe that his general posture, one that says, "If you fuck with me, you will be hurt", keeps most thugs at bay, so the only time he would use his gun is if his life is at risk, i.e. someone pointing a gun at him.

But my geeky friend does not intimidate anyone, making him a target for teens and other idiots. And pulling a gun is not a guarantee that the attackers will run away. He may be forced to shoot someone, which I do not want him to do.

I agree that there are violent situations which do not require deadly force as a response. But I don't want to see my friend beaten up, nor do I want him to shoot someone.

I'm not going to speculate what he should do. But it is a real life decision he needs to make.

 

[byke]

Nothing wrong with speculating on what you think he should do, I'm sure he values your opinion. If you think the clock is ticking before something really bad happens to him, he only has three choices; get a gun, let bad things happen, or leave. I've had the benefit of being a larger fellow, which is nice because I really don't like violence and find it suuuper caveman. Something to consider, it's virtually a guarantee that he would leave if he ever actually had to shoot someone. Maybe go straight to C and skip B?

 

[bojangle]

Again, my comments mostly pertain to the main focus of this thread, which is the article. Check out this quote:



This guy is using incredibly unlikely scenarios to reinforce killing people over a punch. That *mentality*, I have a problem with. You want to state that these things do actually happen? I agree, they do. You want to state that there are many possible injuries between a black eye and death? Of course there is. You think people should be able to defend themselves instead of being beaten? I agree, they should, but should a definitively lethal reaction be the automatic and appropriate response to a highly unlikely lethal action? I don't believe it should. I like merry-go-round's.

The likelihood a knockout punch will result in death, IMO, is a LOT greater when you're taking about the victim being a police officer. Imagine the type of person willing to do that and go up against an armed cop. What are his real intentions? What does he have to lose? Is he already facing a third strike and spending the rest of his life in prison? Now also consider that there is a firearm involved. An unconscious cop is as good as dead... Completely at the mercy of his attacker to disarm him and use his weapons against him. An enforcement stop by a police officer is an entirely different circumstance than a random person walking down the street.

EDIT: I'm not suggesting that cops just shoot anyone who tries to punch them. We carry other less lethal and intermediate weapons on us for a reason. The point of the article is that a cop having to shoot an unarmed person isn't outside the realm of possibilities of what could be considered reasonable and justified.

 

[byke]

To me, I agree that the type of person who punches a cop is different. Whether or not a person who punches a cop thinks that they're regular people and is willing to punch them the same as anyone else, I can't say. I do not agree with equating consciousness to death. If it's about vulnerability, you're vulnerable every time there aren't two of you back to back with your guns drawn.