From the campus police policybook:

 

A copy of the university’s weapons policy, released to The Associated Press in response to an open records request, shows an officer’s actions in cases where force is necessary should be based on how much a suspect resists. Deadly force is justified only when a suspect has the intent, ability and opportunity to kill or injure someone else, the policy states.

 

The policy says that an officer’s attempt to control a situation “should match (the) level of resistance then move up or down as resistance changes.” But Ayers declined comment on how the guidelines are interpreted when an officer is confronted by someone who doesn’t have a weapon, yet could present a threat.

 

In the video the student was advancing with his arms out to his sides and his palms open. Do you not think that makes it obvious that he did not have a concealed weapon? Especially since he was naked and had no pockets or clothing to conceal it in?

 

The police officer had his gun drawn and the naked man kept coming after him after repeated verbal commands to stop.

 

If they engaged in a fight and the naked man got his gun you think he would have just given it back?

 

"Deadly force is justified only when a suspect has the intent, ability and opportunity to kill or injure someone else, the policy states."

 

So if a suspect has the intent, ability and opportunity to kill or injure deadly force is justified.

 

He continued to approach an armed police officer after being told to stop. That shows me intent to at the very least injure. Ability and opportunity are obviously there as well. Your quote makes me lean more towards it being justified than the opposite.

 

Would a reasonable person go outside to begin with if the person was naked and banging on their door? I wouldn't. I own multiple firearms and would protect myself but I'd hate to have to live with the fact that I elevated the confrontation to the point that someone lost their life when neither I nor anyone else was in any immediate danger.

 

Once again you say something which you do not know to be true. You have no clue if no one else was in immediate danger.

As society continues to not defend those that defend them it will lead to a society where good men do nothing, then people will be left to defend them-self. For a society that loves parity it will love the fact that its a level playing field for good vs evil...

As society continues to not defend those that defend them it will lead to a society where good men do nothing, then people will be left to defend them-self. For a society that loves parity it will love the fact that its a level playing field for good vs evil...

 

And to not question authority leads to its abuse...

Would a reasonable person go outside to begin with if the person was naked and banging on their door? I wouldn't. I own multiple firearms and would protect myself but I'd hate to have to live with the fact that I elevated the confrontation to the point that someone lost their life when neither I nor anyone else was in any immediate danger.

That's the difference in me and you, you knock on my door and I'm going to address the situation not huddle my family together and "hope" everything works out... I have little to no value for someones life that chooses to get juiced up on LSD and harass and assault everyone in sight...

Once again you say something which you do not know to be true. You have no clue if no one else was in immediate danger.

 

In your situation you asked what a reasonable person would do in that situation. If he were banging on my door and I could see him I think I could determine whether I, or anyone else was in any immediate danger. If not, I certainly wouldn't go outside and subject myself or anyone inside my house to that danger. You can argue about a lot but there is no arguing that point. If I don't go outside, I don't have to make that choice. If no one is in danger I'm not putting myself in that position.

And to not question authority leads to its abuse...

This is beyond questioning authority... this is uninformed people drawing conclusions that seem to air on the side of the criminal, each case is different the only thing that remains the same is the uninformed people drawing conclusions...

That's the difference in me and you, you knock on my door and I'm going to address the situation not huddle my family together and "hope" everything works out... I have little to no value for someones life that chooses to get juiced up on LSD and harass and assault everyone in sight...

 

I wouldn't huddle my family together and hope everything works out. You are putting words in my mouth. Attempt to break into my house and threaten the safety of me and my family and see how much "hoping" I do. As I said I own multiple firearms and would not hesitate to use them to protect myself. However, if I and my family are not in danger I do not feel it is my job to serve as judge, jury and executioner of someone. If they are outside, they are not a danger. Let them kick in the door or bust through a windown and they force me to make that choice.

This is beyond questioning authority... this is uninformed people drawing conclusions that seem to air on the side of the criminal, each case is different the only thing that remains the same is the uninformed people drawing conclusions...

 

No, I have asked a series of fair questions that should have to be answered satisfactorily in order for this to be considered a justified shooting.

In your situation you asked what a reasonable person would do in that situation. If he were banging on my door and I could see him I think I could determine whether I, or anyone else was in any immediate danger. If not, I certainly wouldn't go outside and subject myself or anyone inside my house to that danger. You can argue about a lot but there is no arguing that point. If I don't go outside, I don't have to make that choice. If no one is in danger I'm not putting myself in that position.

You like scenarios that make you feel warm and fuzzy, what if you don't address the situation and the aggressor douses your house with gas and sets it on fire? What if you don't answer the door and he leaves your house and kills your neighbor and his two children? You could've done something and didn't because you air on the side of the criminal and give him the benefit of the doubt...

No, I have asked a series of fair questions that should have to be answered satisfactorily in order for this to be considered a justified shooting.

 

You've drawn a conclusion and that's clear by your post, the only info or insight you have is some articles you read on the internet... That makes you uninformed...

You've drawn a conclusion and that's clear by your post, the only info or insight you have is some articles you read on the internet... That makes you uninformed...

 

So you don't think that any of the questions that I've asked deserve to be answered?

You like scenarios that make you feel warm and fuzzy, what if you don't address the situation and the aggressor douses your house with gas and sets it on fire? What if you don't answer the door and he leaves your house and kills your neighbor and his two children? You could've done something and didn't because you air on the side of the criminal and give him the benefit of the doubt...

 

So just from where is this naked man that is banging on my door going to produce the gas can and lighter? You're changing the situation. If he's naked and banging on my door he isn't dousing it with anything and he is not hurting anyone. It is not my job to escalate the situation by charging outside with a gun drawn. That is the job of the police who should be called. Since you like changing the scenario how about this: How would you feel if you opened up the door and put two in his face and then found out that the person had a blood sugar malfunction and was completely disoriented? Because it can be pretty hard to distinguish between someone who has a medical condition and someone on drugs. Would that make you all warm and fuzzy that you chose to defend yourself when you weren't in any immediate danger?

So you don't think that any of the questions that I've asked deserve to be answered?

They will be answered. Those questions have always been answered, the difference is the public draws conclusions and the public outcry often determines the outcome of that questioning, please the masses...

So just from where is this naked man that is banging on my door going to produce the gas can and lighter? You're changing the situation. If he's naked and banging on my door he isn't dousing it with anything and he is not hurting anyone. It is not my job to escalate the situation by charging outside with a gun drawn. That is the job of the police who should be called. Since you like changing the scenario how about this: How would you feel if you opened up the door and put two in his face and then found out that the person had a blood sugar malfunction and was completely disoriented? Because it can be pretty hard to distinguish between someone who has a medical condition and someone on drugs. Would that make you all warm and fuzzy that you chose to defend yourself when you weren't in any immediate danger?

If he bangs on my door naked and doesn't follow my commands and comes toward me, no I would not feel sorry... and the scenario was the guy beats on your door, you do nothing, he leaves and gets gas from your garage or his car etc. and set your house on fire, or he leaves and goes next door and kill your neighbor's. Would you regret doing nothing when you had the chance?