Can't use the old "he reached for his waistband" excuse.

O: he was naked.
PDC: no, did he have any arms?
O: I said, he was naked.
PDC: did he have arms?
O: Well, yeah, he had two arms.
PDC: OK, so we write the report, he was armed and dangerous.

Armed with a deadly genital?

First degree nudity?

Sheesh.

If they are afraid of naked people all of a sudden. Our country has imploded.

Shouldn't it be:

Authorities say a police officer fatally shot a naked man, who didn't appear to have been armed, on Monday afternoon outside a suburban Atlanta apartment complex.

Last edited Mon Mar 9, 2015, 11:12 PM - Edit history (1)

And no I'm not saying the shooting was justified just that in general running towards anyone armed with a freaking gun in this kind of situation is dumb.

to follow the policies he or she is trained to follow while enforcing the law. Whether those policies were followed can be evaluated.

Whether that will happen, or whether it will just be an investigation into how to justify the shooting remains to be seen, though I know which I would bet on.

"towards" an armed police officer especially after all the officer related shootings that have been in the news.

"protect and serve" him. Someone he thought he had provided for, as a citizen along with all the rest of us.

But it appears that far too much those we ask to "serve" just serve themselves.

It's not unclear the way it is written. Looks like a judgment call to me.

It changes what "who" refers to. In this case, the sentence as written appears to imply that the suburban Atlanta apartment complex was unarmed, not the naked man. It's a weird personification and the intended meaning is still clear through context, but taken as written, it is incorrect. Either way, it's awkward and should have been re-written.

We can at least rest assured that this death-squad member will get the usual paid vacation as a reward for murder. I wonder if his victim was black.

The Bobbies are laughing their asses off reading about our police forces!

Killing a naked person! What a wuss!

In his homophobic mind, shooting him seemed the answer. Why didn't he have a taser at the ready?

I hope the police officer gets a comeuppance!

world.

With out regard of age, gender, even if not armed at the discretion of Police as long as the policeman feels threatened. When you are interacting with Police no matter who you may be, you are potentially moments from death.

There are consequences for police, they may need to resign in rare occasions or have to face a wrongful death lawsuit.

I do think executing them on the spot is a bit of an overreaction.

That has been known to happen occasionally from time to time.

The only others I have heard of, have involved heavy drug use. They don't fare very well, either, but they usually get wrapped up in blankets and taken to jail, if they don't get killed first.

I was under the impression deadly force was the LAST resort, not the first.

I had listened into a conversation a cop was having with someone else about Ferguson (should have left it alone) but I commented how as a USCG reservist I was a bit concerned that someone would mistake us as cops (long story but our current uniforms look like cop uniforms) and mentioned an incident where a member was surrounded by a group of young african-american males saying "what are you going to do now cop". The cop said he should have ran them over as "his life was threatened".
The level of threat is no longer the issue to them. It is an excuse to use force to get what they want. And what they want appears to be to be judge, jury and executioner; and to enforce compliance with whatever else they want at the time (someone to stop whatever, someone to shut up, etc.). Just as previously they invent probable cause or reasonable suspicion to search and stop whomever they want.
In otherwords, unless they are held accountable somewhere they will only get worse.

The police could not have known the circumstances that caused him act this way. I am remembering the case of the vile person here in Illinois-Wisconsin who victimized young men, one of whom survived by escaping, without clothes, from his imprisonment and torture. I just cannot comprehend the thinking of these "protectors".

He was helpless: how much would they risk, really, to act like adults?

Thanks for your comment. Good point.

as someone who would help him? and that is why he went toward the police - knowing that it would be obvious that he was unarmed?

oh my