Oklahoma City police officer shoots, kills man holding metal pipe

a reply to: soberbacchus

Boy? He was 35. And the police probably could not make out what was being said in a high stress environment with multiple people yelling. Also the fact he was deaf means nothing he could still see police with weapons drawn yet continued to advance towards them while raising a pipe over his head

originally posted by: soberbacchus

As for the pipe, neighbors that were interviewed said the deaf boy liked to take walks in the neighborhood and regularly carried a pipe to ward off some stray dogs that have apparently been roaming the area.

And these officers would know that how?

Seeing police officers with weapons drawn would be a good time to stop advancing regardless of whether or not you had a pipe in your hand. Getting hit with a taser prong that was discharged in your direction is also a pretty strong hint that, "oh, hey, maybe I shouldn't advance on them with a potential weapon in hand".

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: soberbacchus

yet continued to advance towards them while raising a pipe over his head

Where did you see that account?

Advancing with a pipe held over his head?

Does that seem likely with officers aiming weapons at you?

Perhaps actual witness accounts (multiple) describe the event better than your apparent inventions?

www.nytimes.com...

Shot multiple times (perhaps 6+)
Was NOT holding the pipe over his head.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Read the accounts again he had the pipe raised while advancing towards the officers. And you are making the same point i am when you say why would he keep going towards officers with weapons drawn. The guy was acting very irrationally and had a weapon in his hand

a reply to: norhoc

Now

Read the accounts again he had the pipe raised

But before it was

while raising a pipe over his head

I think that was the point being made.

a reply to: roadgravel


Are you really down to parsing at what level it was raised to? Come on now. He was a grown man, with a metal pipe(weapon) raised and advancing towards two police officers with weapons drawn.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: roadgravel


Are you really down to parsing at what level it was raised to? Come on now. He was a grown man, with a metal pipe(weapon) raised and advancing towards two police officers with weapons drawn.

You are the one saying it was above his head so he was very threatening which wasn't true. Nice try at undoing it by defecting to me.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: soberbacchus

Read the accounts again he had the pipe raised while advancing towards the officers. And you are making the same point i am when you say why would he keep going towards officers with weapons drawn. The guy was acting very irrationally and had a weapon in his hand

Real life isn't like a hollywood movie. In real life, criminals will walk toward you when you have your gun drawn at them, if they think you're too squeamish to shoot. Happens all the time. Hundreds of people every year are disarmed and killed with their own guns because they hesistate on the trigger long enough for a criminal to get within striking distance.

Gun vs. pipe quickly becomes gun+pipe vs. unarmed officer.

The only question that needs to be asked in these situations is: "Was the guy advancing". If you stay where you are while you're holding a melee weapon, the police will never shoot you. Because at a distance, you are no threat to them. They have total advantage.

If you advance, then they know they are only a few seconds away from losing their advantage. In melee combat, a pipe is just as powerful as a gun (especially if the guy holding it is a big dude.)

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Yes I know, my argument the whole time has been that the polce were justified in shooting him. Dont know why you are lecturing me

a reply to: norhoc

a reply to: Krakatoa

Deaf and dumb doesn't mean deaf and stupid. Despite PC culture today, dumb per dictation means lack the human power to speak although to satisfy the PC police webster says "of a person; now often offensive." Anyway, my point is the guy wasn't stupid because he was deaf. Like someone pointed out... Did he not see guns/tasers drawn on him? He was deaf, not blind. And just because one officer pulled a taser doesn't mean the other wasn't justified in pulling a gun.

People can resist the taser. I'd link numerous videos if I weren't on my dinky little half-smart phone. But people have been known to attack with multiple tasers stuck off in them. When you have a guy carrying a lethal weapon who won't respond to your obvious demands, then I think he is justified.

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

Agree, thank you. Also I posted earlier the department involved stated it is their policy that if an officer deploys a taser in a situation like this it is policy for a second officer to draw their sidearm in case the taser doesn’t work.

A lot of people just don't understand that a gun is only better than a knife at range.

If you read very much about Doc Holliday, the guy who was friends with Wyatt Earp. He frequently killed people using a knife he wore around his neck instead of a gun. He carried both, but in close combat situations he would reach for the knife first, because it was MORE effective.

Cops are going to start dying a lot if the public keeps getting mad every time there is a death. In a nation of 300 Million people, it will always be possible to cherry pick the data and find some cop somewhere who can be misrepresented as having used lethal force in error.

The fact they haven't been able to find any cases of unmistakable misuse of force (out of a population so large) tells me the police are actually WAY more on top of this problem than anybody is willing to give them credit.