Black Teen Fatally Shot By Austin Police Was Naked And Unarmed

I wonder what his skin-color has to do with it. Likely nothing, although there is the typical insinuation that he was killed because of his skin, and not because of his erratic behavior and violence.

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Black Teen Fatally Shot By Austin Police Was Naked And Unarmed

A black teenager who was naked and acting erratically in an Austin, Texas, neighborhood Monday was unarmed when he was fatally shot by police, the Austin Police Department says.

Police say that on Monday morning they received multiple calls from residents of the neighborhood in the northeast of the city reporting the teen, now identified as 17-year-old David Joseph, was "acting erratically" and "chasing" another male in a nearby apartment complex.

Austin Police Chief of Staff Brian Manley told reporters Tuesday that when police arrived at the scene, the teen was not wearing any clothes and proceeded to charge at veteran Officer Geoffrey Freeman, who is also black. Manley said the officer ordered Joseph to stop, but that he did not comply.

"Mr. Joseph ultimately charged at the officer and that's when shots were fired," Manley said, noting Freeman fired just seconds after the confrontation began.

Manley wouldn't say if a stun gun was deployed by the officer during the incident.

Ok. I cannot see a reasonable excuse to use deadly force in this circumstance. I mean the kid was CLEARLY unarmed. Heck he wasn't even clothed. How can you, as a police officer, get confused and think this kid represents a serious threat to your life?

Also, what's the deal with the stun gun? Not hearing if it was deployed or not certainly isn't damning evidence, but it doesn't help the police's case here.

Police say part of the incident was recorded on the officer's dashboard camera, but the shooting itself occurred off camera. Audio from the shooting was recorded and police say the officer can be heard ordering the teen to stop repeatedly after he began charging at the officer.

Well at least the cop ordered him to stop before firing... Though, why lethal force is the go to NEXT measure in the escalation of force measures in this police officer's head is beyond me. Especially for a naked teenager. If the teenager happens to attack him, is the cop afraid his nakedness will rub up against him or something? Sheesh, overpowering a teenager shouldn't exactly be cause for the use of a gun. Plus there are a plethora of non-lethal tactics who could have used first. Let's see off the top of my head there's mace, a stun gun, billie club, and your own hand to hand training that you should be receiving from your police training.

Being unarmed does not make you someone any less dangerous. It is not unheard of that a policeman winds up losing control of his firearm to a suspect.
.

Yeah, yeah it does make you far less dangerous.

Two men in a fist fight vs two men in a gun fight, which do you think has the higher mortality rate?

Could an officer lose control of his firearm? Certainly, is shooting an unarmed suspect ever a proper response? No. Not a #ing chance.

Have you ever seen someone on PCP? Shooting someone like that in the leg will have zero effect i can asure you of that and if i were that officer i would be thinking he was exactly on that, the moment he charged that officer all bets were off. If i where the officer i would also not have taken the risk and have chosen to be able to be with my family again that same night instead of a body bag just to save some PCP heads life instead of my own.

People should be held accountable for their own actions to it cannot all be on the police and running around like that and behaving like that is on him and him alone.

or try this, go to central park and take of all your close and start chasing people then single one person out and go straight for him and that person happens to have a gun on him. Now count your chances of being shot and then dare complain about it.

a reply to: eNumbra

wow lets look at everything as if its always black and white. progressive. forward thinking. i like that. because no naked kid on pcp ever injured or killed someone with their bare hands, right?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I wonder what his skin-color has to do with it. Likely nothing, although there is the typical insinuation that he was killed because of his skin, and not because of his erratic behavior and violence.

I seriously doubt that officer cared much for the color of his skin when he saw him comming at him. Probably the last worry on his mind. But you know why should the BLM let a good tragedy go to waste and not label it a racist action and run with it no matter what the facts say.

Maybe they should raise a statue of the kid ,penis in full view and all and call him a gentle giant that didnt do nothing *laugh*.

If the teenager happens to attack him, is the cop afraid his nakedness will rub up against him or something? Sheesh, overpowering a teenager shouldn't exactly be cause for the use of a gun.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


Yeah... we are all sure that was the main worry of the officer in that moment.
Geez, you are really trying hard to drive that agenda home aren't you.

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Black Teen Fatally Shot By Austin Police Was Naked And Unarmed

A black teenager who was naked and acting erratically in an Austin, Texas, neighborhood Monday was unarmed when he was fatally shot by police, the Austin Police Department says.

Police say that on Monday morning they received multiple calls from residents of the neighborhood in the northeast of the city reporting the teen, now identified as 17-year-old David Joseph, was "acting erratically" and "chasing" another male in a nearby apartment complex.

Austin Police Chief of Staff Brian Manley told reporters Tuesday that when police arrived at the scene, the teen was not wearing any clothes and proceeded to charge at veteran Officer Geoffrey Freeman, who is also black. Manley said the officer ordered Joseph to stop, but that he did not comply.

"Mr. Joseph ultimately charged at the officer and that's when shots were fired," Manley said, noting Freeman fired just seconds after the confrontation began.

Manley wouldn't say if a stun gun was deployed by the officer during the incident.

Ok. I cannot see a reasonable excuse to use deadly force in this circumstance. I mean the kid was CLEARLY unarmed. Heck he wasn't even clothed. How can you, as a police officer, get confused and think this kid represents a serious threat to your life?

Also, what's the deal with the stun gun? Not hearing if it was deployed or not certainly isn't damning evidence, but it doesn't help the police's case here.

Police say part of the incident was recorded on the officer's dashboard camera, but the shooting itself occurred off camera. Audio from the shooting was recorded and police say the officer can be heard ordering the teen to stop repeatedly after he began charging at the officer.

Well at least the cop ordered him to stop before firing... Though, why lethal force is the go to NEXT measure in the escalation of force measures in this police officer's head is beyond me. Especially for a naked teenager. If the teenager happens to attack him, is the cop afraid his nakedness will rub up against him or something? Sheesh, overpowering a teenager shouldn't exactly be cause for the use of a gun. Plus there are a plethora of non-lethal tactics who could have used first. Let's see off the top of my head there's mace, a stun gun, billie club, and your own hand to hand training that you should be receiving from your police training.

Being unarmed does not make you someone any less dangerous. It is not unheard of that a policeman winds up losing control of his firearm to a suspect.
.

Yeah, yeah it does make you far less dangerous.

Two men in a fist fight vs two men in a gun fight, which do you think has the higher mortality rate?

Could an officer lose control of his firearm? Certainly, is shooting an unarmed suspect ever a proper response? No. Not a #ing chance.

A man charging at an officer is most certainly dangerous. My father was a cop. One of his best friends who was also a cop was shot by an "unarmed suspect" during a routine arrest. The suspect managed to get control of the officer's weapon. Fortunately, he was not killed.

It is totally irrelevant if a guy is naked and unarmed. Once you charge a cop, all bets are off. On a good day, you might just end up with your face in the cement or tazed. On a bad day, you get your azz shot. That is the risk you take. What did Clint Eastwood say, "Do you feel lucky?"

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Black Teen Fatally Shot By Austin Police Was Naked And Unarmed

A black teenager who was naked and acting erratically in an Austin, Texas, neighborhood Monday was unarmed when he was fatally shot by police, the Austin Police Department says.

Police say that on Monday morning they received multiple calls from residents of the neighborhood in the northeast of the city reporting the teen, now identified as 17-year-old David Joseph, was "acting erratically" and "chasing" another male in a nearby apartment complex.

Austin Police Chief of Staff Brian Manley told reporters Tuesday that when police arrived at the scene, the teen was not wearing any clothes and proceeded to charge at veteran Officer Geoffrey Freeman, who is also black. Manley said the officer ordered Joseph to stop, but that he did not comply.

"Mr. Joseph ultimately charged at the officer and that's when shots were fired," Manley said, noting Freeman fired just seconds after the confrontation began.

Manley wouldn't say if a stun gun was deployed by the officer during the incident.

Ok. I cannot see a reasonable excuse to use deadly force in this circumstance. I mean the kid was CLEARLY unarmed. Heck he wasn't even clothed. How can you, as a police officer, get confused and think this kid represents a serious threat to your life?

Also, what's the deal with the stun gun? Not hearing if it was deployed or not certainly isn't damning evidence, but it doesn't help the police's case here.

Police say part of the incident was recorded on the officer's dashboard camera, but the shooting itself occurred off camera. Audio from the shooting was recorded and police say the officer can be heard ordering the teen to stop repeatedly after he began charging at the officer.

Well at least the cop ordered him to stop before firing... Though, why lethal force is the go to NEXT measure in the escalation of force measures in this police officer's head is beyond me. Especially for a naked teenager. If the teenager happens to attack him, is the cop afraid his nakedness will rub up against him or something? Sheesh, overpowering a teenager shouldn't exactly be cause for the use of a gun. Plus there are a plethora of non-lethal tactics who could have used first. Let's see off the top of my head there's mace, a stun gun, billie club, and your own hand to hand training that you should be receiving from your police training.

Why do you emphasize his skin color when we KNOW that cops do this to white people also? If it was a naked white kid would you have even made the thread, much less emphasized his skin color? I seriously doubt it.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: intrptr


Unarmed? He was naked, (i.e., crazy), has teeth (can bite) and maybe STD, transmissible by crazy biting naked person…. bang bang.

Yet, if he had driven a speeding truck at police, crashed nearly striking one of them, leapt out waving his arms, and had a side arm ... he would have been perfectly harmless.

Gotcha.

"leapt out waving his arms " -- his hands were up.

Do we have video of this naked unarmed person being shot?

Dont bother, they have a agenda to push. they cant be bothered with the truth of the matter as it gets in their way to much.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not going to comment on this case, as there is (at this point) a severe lack of evidence for any intelligent human being make a conclusion about it either way.

I am, however, going to take on your garbage assessment about an unarmed person charging you not being a threat to your safety/life.

I will preface it with this--have you ever been one to regurgitate the comment that someone with a gun is more likely to have it used against them? If the answer is yes, it just adds to the flaw in your statement.

Now, if I cared to (and I don't), I could embed numerous videos to show you why and how someone with no weapon could take out an officer, because there a literally thousands of these videos online. But let's take the Michael Brown incident way back in Ferguson--he was an unarmed teenager, yet he nearly (or at least attempted to) disarmed the LEO in an apparent attempt to take the weapon (and do who knows what with it once he had it). If Wilson had not been in the relative safety of his vehicle--a tight space--then he may not have been able to stop Brown from taking that weapon.

An officer in open space with a suspect charging at them--armed or not--has a duty to ensure that said suspect does not get into a position to disable him, let alone take his weapon. Once anyone allows an opponent to take them to the ground or even just get within fighting distance, all bets are off, and whether you accept it or not, LEOs are generally not trained in ground combative very well (or hand-to-hand combatives at all, really). Yes, that is a flaw in the system, but it is a reality nonetheless.

So, officers are left to either rely on a taser or their firearm, and not all LEOs carry tasers. If this one had one, he should have deployed it before a firearm, especially knowing that he had backup on scene...but like I said, I don't know if he did. This article mentions that most police on that particular force carry tasers, but doesn't specify if this officer did.

But the reality here is that, while you emphasize "kid" and that he was "CLEARLY unarmed," the reality of life is that there are many 17-year-olds strong enough and big enough to take down grown men, and that unarmed or not, charging at and potentially taking a LEO to the ground where he and his weapon are at risk is not a very intelligent thing to do, knowing that a police officer has the right to fire at you if you do not stop charging after multiple orders to do so.

You can demonize the LEO all you want to, and you can just shrug off the asinine actions by this "kid," but using ideologically tinted glasses to look at cases like this--and doing so well before there is enough information known--is a really bad recipe to cook up. Knee-jerk reactions like this are a major part of the problem.

originally posted by: everyone
Have you ever seen someone on PCP? Shooting someone like that in the leg will have zero effect i can asure you of that and if i were that officer i would be thinking he was exactly on that, the moment he charged that officer all bets were off. If i where the officer i would also not have taken the risk and have chosen to be able to be with my family again that same night instead of a body bag just to save some PCP heads life instead of my own.

I'll wait for toxicology reports before I start assuming someone's on PCP or simply deranged. Police are(should be) trained in numerous ways of taking control of a suspect, with everything in their arsenal, not just shoot anything that moves and settle for a suspension later

People should be held accountable for their own actions to it cannot all be on the police and running around like that and behaving like that is on him and him alone.

Good idea, you go shoot everyone who runs around naked outside of an apartment complex. I'll keep waiting for a decent justification as to why this guy was shot.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: eNumbra

wow lets look at everything as if its always black and white. progressive. forward thinking. i like that. because no naked kid on pcp ever injured or killed someone with their bare hands, right?

This is the same basic logic used in every attempt to ban guns, you realize this yes?

originally posted by: jobless1
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm totally on your side about this but I always try and place myself in the persons shoes and the cops shoes before coming to a judgement call on the situation. A naked man charging you while knowing you have a weapon isn't "functioning normally" Does that mean he was in the wrong? No. Maybe he was trying to get help! maybe it was drugs! maybe it was a domestic dispute gone scary wrong. A taser would have been ideal in that situation. Mace lol shot in some area would have stopped him quickly. Bean bag shot at the bean bag?

I wonder where the philosophy of containment went? This cop easily could have placed himself between the suspect and any random pedestrian who may have been out on the town until such time that it was safe to take down the suspect in a non-lethal manner. Taze him...pepper spray him...stun-gun him...beat him senseless with a baton. THOSE are APPROPRIATE responses. The "one and done" with a service pistol is NOT how training for these situations should have ever been. If that is the training that police are receiving, then they need to go back to "Kindergarten cop" school and start over with the basics of "Serve and Protect"...that mantra has been lost for a couple of generations now...now it's more like "Protect my paycheck"...or "Protect my team".

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not going to comment on this case, as there is (at this point) a severe lack of evidence for any intelligent human being make a conclusion about it either way.

I am, however, going to take on your garbage assessment about an unarmed person charging you not being a threat to your safety/life.

I will preface it with this--have you ever been one to regurgitate the comment that someone with a gun is more likely to have it used against them? If the answer is yes, it just adds to the flaw in your statement.

Now, if I cared to (and I don't), I could embed numerous videos to show you why and how someone with no weapon could take out an officer, because there a literally thousands of these videos online. But let's take the Michael Brown incident way back in Ferguson--he was an unarmed teenager, yet he nearly (or at least attempted to) disarmed the LEO in an apparent attempt to take the weapon (and do who knows what with it once he had it). If Wilson had not been in the relative safety of his vehicle--a tight space--then he may not have been able to stop Brown from taking that weapon.

An officer in open space with a suspect charging at them--armed or not--has a duty to ensure that said suspect does not get into a position to disable him, let alone take his weapon. Once anyone allows an opponent to take them to the ground or even just get within fighting distance, all bets are off, and whether you accept it or not, LEOs are generally not trained in ground combative very well (or hand-to-hand combatives at all, really). Yes, that is a flaw in the system, but it is a reality nonetheless.

So, officers are left to either rely on a taser or their firearm, and not all LEOs carry tasers. If this one had one, he should have deployed it before a firearm, especially knowing that he had backup on scene...but like I said, I don't know if he did. This article mentions that most police on that particular force carry tasers, but doesn't specify if this officer did.

But the reality here is that, while you emphasize "kid" and that he was "CLEARLY unarmed," the reality of life is that there are many 17-year-olds strong enough and big enough to take down grown men, and that unarmed or not, charging at and potentially taking a LEO to the ground where he and his weapon are at risk is not a very intelligent thing to do, knowing that a police officer has the right to fire at you if you do not stop charging after multiple orders to do so.

You can demonize the LEO all you want to, and you can just shrug off the asinine actions by this "kid," but using ideologically tinted glasses to look at cases like this--and doing so well before there is enough information known--is a really bad recipe to cook up. Knee-jerk reactions like this are a major part of the problem.

Amen.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I suspect these police are lucky that they held their guns the right way round. They could have been shot!

Or perhaps they were embarrassed by the comparative size of his "weapon"?

They are supposed to "Serve and Protect", not perpetrate.

originally posted by: eNumbra
Could an officer lose control of his firearm? Certainly, is shooting an unarmed suspect ever a proper response? No. Not a #ing chance.

I'm going to have to call out this absolute that you just stated as being one of the most ignorant comments in this thread.

I mean, seriously, did you think that through before you typed it out? You're telling me that there is NEVER a scenario in the history of human kind where shooting someone who was "unarmed" was not the appropriate response?

1. I think you know that the answer to that is, "Well, sure...but it doesn't fit my ideological narrative right now."

2. You are seemingly very ignorant to what constitutes "armed" when it comes to the legal system. It doesn't have to be a weapon in-hand.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am very surprised. Austin has for the most part pretty well trained police. They have a much higher standard of physical training than most forces. I have a few friends form Judo, Wrestling, and BJJ that are on the force.

All it takes is a couple rambos I guess. Very sad.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: intrptr


Unarmed? He was naked, (i.e., crazy), has teeth (can bite) and maybe STD, transmissible by crazy biting naked person…. bang bang.

Yet, if he had driven a speeding truck at police, crashed nearly striking one of them, leapt out waving his arms, and had a side arm ... he would have been perfectly harmless.

Gotcha.

"leapt out waving his arms " -- his hands were up.

Do we have video of this naked unarmed person being shot?

1) Ignore "driving speeding truck at police" Check.
2) Ignore "nearly striking one of them" Check.
3) Transpose "waving arms" to "hands up" ... one wonders, is there a particular angle of arm to body that is required?
4) Ignore "carrying sidearm"

Yet, the two situations ... an armed man evading arrest etc. etc. ... and a naked man with no weapons aside from tooth and nail ... are completely different.

Well, there certainly is one major difference.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You are seemingly very ignorant to what constitutes "armed" when it comes to the legal system. It doesn't have to be a weapon in-hand.

See, this is where LEO diverges from reality. If I am born with my body parts; same as most everyone else. Then I am born with appendages, anatomy and flesh. There is nothing, whatsoever, deadly about the human anatomy...yet cops tell us a different story. It helps them claim justifiable homicide; when, in fact, much less lethal means were more than enough to get the job done.

I think what pisses off citizens more than anything is knowing less lethal options were available; yet not used....all the while, LEO tells us there was no other viable alternative...when in reality, they do not know that lethal force was the only one available, because lethal means was the first option considered.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: eNumbra
Could an officer lose control of his firearm? Certainly, is shooting an unarmed suspect ever a proper response? No. Not a #ing chance.

I'm going to have to call out this absolute that you just stated as being one of the most ignorant comments in this thread.

I mean, seriously, did you think that through before you typed it out? You're telling me that there is NEVER a scenario in the history of human kind where shooting someone who was "unarmed" was not the appropriate response?

1. I think you know that the answer to that is, "Well, sure...but it doesn't fit my ideological narrative right now."

2. You are seemingly very ignorant to what constitutes "armed" when it comes to the legal system. It doesn't have to be a weapon in-hand.

There certainly are instances I can imagine where shooting an unarmed man would be justified, I'll admit I was overboard on that, but there's still a lot of missing information for making the call either way. But really? The most ignorant in the thread? Considering some of these comments, I'm taking that one as a compliment.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here is one also under the influence of PCP. notice how he also took off all his close. This is because of the PCP their bodies heat up so much they always start taking of clothing , usually they do indeed end up taking it all of,naked guy on the streets behaving erratic is a sure sign of a PCP user and that makes them very dangerous to everyone around them. So what would you have thought if you had arived on the scene seeing a bare naked guy chasing after people and charging you?

Notice how they Taze him mutliple times and gets pepper sprayed as many times and he doesnt seem phased by it and it takes them a entire group of police officers to keep him down when they finaly get him down.



then you have this one, also PCP. This guys guts are litterally hanging out of him. He feels nothing. You still think someon like that will not be life threatening to you when he decides to come for you ?

*Graphic content*
www.liveleak.com...

I would have taken the shot aswell.

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
new police motto "shoot first, ask questions later"!!!

Well, it IS Austin PD. They aren't known for a lot else.