Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 58

Thread: Georgia Police Kill LGBTQ Activist

  1. #1

    Default Georgia Police Kill LGBTQ Activist

    A student was shot and killed by Georgia Campus police last Saturday after what appeared to be a mental health breakdown. The student, Scout Schultz was an engineering student and president of the Pride Alliance at Georgia Tech.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scout-s...e-overreacted/

    Schultz was a non-binary person who used they/their as pronouns relating to gender.

    Police were responding to a distress call about a student who appeared intoxicated, carrying a knife and possibly a gun on their hip. The call was actually made by Schultz who had also left three suicide notes in their dorm room.

    In the video of the shooting, you can see Schultz walking with what appears to be a knife towards the police. The police shout out to drop the knife, to which Scultz replies to go ahead and shoot. Eventually a shot is fired and screams are heard.

    After watching the video, I don't see any evidence that Schultz was lunging or rushing at the officer, or swinging the alleged knife threateningly. Reports have stated the "knife" was a multi-tool and didn't have the blade exposed. Photographs of the knife on the ground after the shooting show the blade was folded. There was no gun. From the video, it's hard to understand why a taser or pepper spray or some less violent means of suppression could not have been used rather than shooting the person to death. The cops seemed to be responding appropriately at first by attempting to de-escalate the situation, then suddenly a shot rings out after a final warning.

    This was obviously a mental health crisis. Schultz had attempted suicide two years ago. There is some debate as to whether Schultz was commiting 'suicide by cop.' What is even more debatable is how police can justify this shooting.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by Starrunner; 19-Sep-2017 at 20:52.

  2. #2
    MassIncon

    Default

    I guess the lesson here is don't walk towards police with a knife. It's sad, but cops are going to protect themselves from armed people, especially armed people who are totally unhinged.

    THere's NO need for the perp to "lunge" at anyone. In less than 2 seconds, someone with a knife can close a 21 foot gap and have the knife in your throat. This isn't the movies, it's real life. Come at a cop with a weapon, you're getting shot. Not all cops have tasers on their duty belts and even if they did, most people who are in fear for their life would opt for deadly force to stop a threat.

  3. #3

    Default

    "Go ahead and shoot" would mean to me in that situation that the person attacking will most likely try to stab me soon.
    I don't see why any officer should take any chances in these situations. Yeah, it probably would've worked out smooth with a taser. Let's say 90% probability. Then there is a 10% chance I wouldn't get back to my family because of this.
    Tragic thing happening but from what I've seen (which is not too much) the shooting should be okay.
    Edit: btw, why are you making this a LBGTQ thing?

  4. #4

    Default

    It is a shame that this person died, and I do believe it was suicide by cop, but I can't understand why some people are blaming the police. I know they couldn't help how they were feeling, but other people have escalated to extreme lengths to make sure they were killed, not incarcerated, by cops. I only hope their family and those in the LGBT club can heal from this sad situation. Though hearing that this person attempted suicide before, why weren't they receiving psychiatric treatment?

  5. #5

    Default

    When someone is facing you with something that you've determined is a deadly weapon--in the current environment of today especially-- it is irrelevant to a police officer whether or not a person has a particular sexual tendency/culture/troubled background or what-have-you. That does not enter the equation, nor should it. 99% of the time, they wouldn't even have a way of knowing that in the first place. Police officers are not therapists, nor counselors. There is always room for compassion in a situation--obviously--but, when faced with someone that could possibly mean you harm, it's better to be safe than sorry.

    If you are stupid enough to face a law enforcement officer in a threatening way, whether it be for the purposes of suicide-by-cop, or whatever reason. You have NO ONE to blame besides yourself if you end up dead.

    This entire situation reminds me of something I encountered at work recently--It bugs me how many people are outraged when people are shot during what SHOULD be, completely routine, non-violent traffic stops. There is a time and place to object to the methods/training or whatever of a particular officer, but while they're pointing a DEADLY WEAPON at you, in the interest of self-preservation, DO what the officer tells you. And then, later on when you're safely out of that situation, THEN work out what happened.

    The entire is tragic and sad (for both the victim, and the officer(s) that had to go through this.

  6. #6

    Default

    It sounded like "suicide by cop" to me. Police in the U. S. follow a specific set of guides in their training. Sadly, a person with a knife is told to drop the knife. The police told him several times. Instead of responding, he moved toward them and they followed their directive of shoot to kill. I knew some of the police officers who were assigned to the school where I used to teach, and they told me about some of these directives.

    We had one incident where a student brought a pellet gun to school. Another student saw him with it in the morning before classes began. She reported it and the administration sent our officer. He told me later that he was so relieved that the student didn't have the gun on him at the time, because if he was brandishing or showing the gun, his directive was to shoot to kill. He was still shaken up when he was telling me this because there was no way he wanted to shoot a junior high boy.

    Still, I wonder why the police in Georgia didn't shoot him in the shoulder. He would have dropped the gun from the impact of the bullet and he most likely would have survived. It's a tragedy. I always tend to side with the mentally ill because they can't be responsible for their behavior. We have to be responsible for our behavior when we respond to them and I believe we have a responsibility to protect those who are ill. I would have tried harder to preserve his life. Every life is precious.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by AnimeDude892 View Post
    The officer was a fucking murderer
    The officer(s) were right in their decision to fire. While he did take a life, it does not make one a murderer. And the worst part, is they have to live with it, which from what I've read is pretty hard for someone whose primary goal in life is to protect and serve.




    Quote Originally Posted by dogboy View Post
    It sounded like "suicide by cop" to me. Police in the U. S. follow a specific set of guides in their training. Sadly, a person with a knife is told to drop the knife. The police told him several times. Instead of responding, he moved toward them and they followed their directive of shoot to kill. I knew some of the police officers who were assigned to the school where I used to teach, and they told me about some of these directives.

    We had one incident where a student brought a pellet gun to school. Another student saw him with it in the morning before classes began. She reported it and the administration sent our officer. He told me later that he was so relieved that the student didn't have the gun on him at the time, because if he was brandishing or showing the gun, his directive was to shoot to kill. He was still shaken up when he was telling me this because there was no way he wanted to shoot a junior high boy.

    Still, I wonder why the police in Georgia didn't shoot him in the shoulder. He would have dropped the gun from the impact of the bullet and he most likely would have survived. It's a tragedy. I always tend to side with the mentally ill because they can't be responsible for their behavior. We have to be responsible for our behavior when we respond to them and I believe we have a responsibility to protect those who are ill. I would have tried harder to preserve his life. Every life is precious.
    Unfortunately, the best way to stop a threat is to aim for center mass. Aiming for a shoulder, especially with a hand gun, is unreliable and inaccurate. None the less, it is a tragedy for all involved, and I hope both the officers and the family of the student find peace some way.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by AnimeDude892 View Post
    The officer was a fucking murderer
    Assuming there's anything other than uninformed, knee-jerk reaction here - justify your position. Explain, in as many words as necessary, why this situation fulfills all the necessary elements for Murder, in any degree. Be explicit, cite your sources, strongly consider using Federal and Georgia law.


    Quote Originally Posted by dogboy View Post
    Still, I wonder why the police in Georgia didn't shoot him in the shoulder. He would have dropped the gun from the impact of the bullet and he most likely would have survived.
    Training is to always target center mass - there's too much chance of missing, probably hitting a bystander. Even if you hit center mass, over-penetration is still a possibility.

    Being horribly cynical, if it's reached the point where you're using your service weapon, there's no point in backing down now - put the threat down as quickly and effectively as you can.

    With the exception of several people I feel have no business being in law enforcement or government, no Law Enforcement or Sworn Officer I've ever know WANTS to use his service weapon. At the same time, all of them want to go home at the end of the day.

  9. #9

    Default

    Police in this country are fucking trained horribly, and this is just yet another example of how police are always trained to shoot first, and ask questions later. Honestly, the worst part about this story is how minor it is compared to other incidents of police shooting unarmed people, where it's just flat out murder. At least in this case, you could argue that the guy had a knife and shouted "Go ahead! Shoot me!". That doesn't make the shooting OK (You have tasers. You have pepper spray. The person is walking. They are not lunging at you. You don't even know if its a knife. You're just assuming it is), but it's hard to be outraged over this when there are so much worse incidents, like when police literally do a drive by shooting and kill a 12 year old boy within 2 seconds of arriving. But at least you could argue that this person was committing suicide by cop, especially with him shouting for the police to shoot them.

    The real issue is that police are trained to treat everything as a threat, and to always shoot if they ever feel they are in the slightest bit of danger. There's this attitude of it's better to shoot and kill someone than take even a small risk on the job. Sure, that innocent person is now dead, but you got frightened and that person could've possibly been a threat. Better take them out. There's people in this thread literally arguing that it's better to target the center mass and kill them. It's not that these cops are particularly evil or had murderous intent, it's that we live in a society where police are paranoid that anyone could be armed, because we stupidly allow people to conceal deadly assault weapons, so police are always worried that person could open fire on them, think anything could possibly be a weapon, and if it's possibly a weapon, you could possibly be in danger. You can't possibly be in danger (even though we praise police for having a tough and dangerous job. You can't claim to have a dangerous job if you shoot at even the slightest bit of a threat, mostly killing innocent civilians). You must take out that threat immediately. Target the center mass, aim to kill, there's no point in backing down now, put the "threat" down as quickly and effectively as you can.

    There was a story a couple weeks ago where a police officer shot his photographer friend repeatedly (luckily he survived) because he thought the camera equipment was a weapon and began firing immediately. He didn't even realize the person he was shooting at was his friend until he was shot, realized that he shot his friend and called 911. This officer wasn't evil, but was so paranoid about any sort of possible threat that he nearly killed his friend because he couldn't bother to figure out who that person was, or if they even had a weapon. The disturbing part is just how OK everyone is with this, just calling the whole thing an accident and a tragedy. Yeah, it's tragic, and the whole thing was accidental. But immediately shooting because you were trained that every possible thing you see could be a weapon, and if you see a possible threat, put it down as quickly and effectively as you can, is not OK. It's gross negligence and anyone who is that paranoid and trigger happy should be fired immediately. You are not qualified to be a cop. You nearly killed your friend, and it would've been just as bad if it was a total stranger. But in our system, we reward paranoia. We reward freaking out and thinking that everyone and everything could be a weapon and is out to get you, and must be taken out immediately. I don't want to live in a dystopia where police can shoot anyone as long as they think you're armed, and can mistake anything their paranoid brains consider to be a gun.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a6dd0ff853bd

    Whenever one of these cop shoots someone stories comes out, everyone asks questions to the victim who got shot. "Did they have drugs in their system?" "Did they have a gun?" "They shouldn't have been carrying that thing. That looks like a gun." "They should've been more cooperative with the police." "They shouldn't have been acting like a bitch." "They shouldn't have run away from the police." Nobody ever questions the cop who shot the victim. Even in the most outrageous clear cut cases of police flat out murdering people, you'll still have people making outrageous claims defending the cops. Killing the person should only be done as an absolute last resort when they are genuinely in danger, but recently, we've been lowering the bar lower and lower to justify police shooting and killing people. Everyone always immediately concludes that "The police were justified in killing this person" and then work backwards to find whatever excuses they can come up with in order to justify it and make their conclusion correct.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Gsmax View Post
    Police in this country are fucking trained horribly, and this is just yet another example of how police are always trained to shoot first, and ask questions later. Honestly, the worst part about this story is how minor it is compared to other incidents of police shooting unarmed people, where it's just flat out murder. At least in this case, you could argue that the guy had a knife and shouted "Go ahead! Shoot me!". That doesn't make the shooting OK (You have tasers. You have pepper spray. The person is walking. They are not lunging at you. You don't even know if its a knife. You're just assuming it is), but it's hard to be outraged over this when there are so much worse incidents, like when police literally do a drive by shooting and kill a 12 year old boy within 2 seconds of arriving. But at least you could argue that this person was committing suicide by cop, especially with him shouting for the police to shoot them.

    The real issue is that police are trained to treat everything as a threat, and to always shoot if they ever feel they are in the slightest bit of danger. There's this attitude of it's better to shoot and kill someone than take even a small risk on the job. Sure, that innocent person is now dead, but you got frightened and that person could've possibly been a threat. Better take them out. There's people in this thread literally arguing that it's better to target the center mass and kill them. It's not that these cops are particularly evil or had murderous intent, it's that we live in a society where police are paranoid that anyone could be armed, because we stupidly allow people to conceal deadly assault weapons, so police are always worried that person could open fire on them, think anything could possibly be a weapon, and if it's possibly a weapon, you could possibly be in danger. You can't possibly be in danger (even though we praise police for having a tough and dangerous job. You can't claim to have a dangerous job if you shoot at even the slightest bit of a threat, mostly killing innocent civilians). You must take out that threat immediately. Target the center mass, aim to kill, there's no point in backing down now, put the "threat" down as quickly and effectively as you can.
    So you propose that the lives of Sworn Officers are worth less than those of anyone else? That they are obligated to tolerate and allow much higher risk of grievous bodily harm or death than anyone else?

    Fine, let's play your game: detail for me an explicit set of evaluatory criteria that a Law Enforcement Officer can use in the field to determine whether or not the person approaching them with ambiguously hostile intent is, in fact, a true threat. Further, detail practicable responses along the entire Use of Force continuum to such situations. Remember, it needs to be explicitly unambiguous, comprehensive, and capable of being worked through quickly enough to be usable in the field.

    Following up on that, what's your background in Law Enforcement? From whence do you derive enough experience and/or training to pass judgement? Why is it that your hindsight analysis should be as or more valid than that of the officer on the spot with possibly only seconds to make a decision?

    On a related note, "assault weapon" is an undefined scare term; there is no bright-line consensus on what makes one firearm an "assault weapon" and another a hunting rifle. Many of the "features" specified by such legislation have little if anything to do with the function or effectiveness of the gun and everything to do with its cosmetic appearance.



    Quote Originally Posted by Gsmax View Post
    There was a story a couple weeks ago where a police officer shot his photographer friend repeatedly (luckily he survived) because he thought the camera equipment was a weapon and began firing immediately. He didn't even realize the person he was shooting at was his friend until he was shot, realized that he shot his friend and called 911. This officer wasn't evil, but was so paranoid about any sort of possible threat that he nearly killed his friend because he couldn't bother to figure out who that person was, or if they even had a weapon. The disturbing part is just how OK everyone is with this, just calling the whole thing an accident and a tragedy. Yeah, it's tragic, and the whole thing was accidental. But immediately shooting because you were trained that every possible thing you see could be a weapon, and if you see a possible threat, put it down as quickly and effectively as you can, is not OK. It's gross negligence and anyone who is that paranoid and trigger happy should be fired immediately. You are not qualified to be a cop. You nearly killed your friend, and it would've been just as bad if it was a total stranger. But in our system, we reward paranoia. We reward freaking out and thinking that everyone and everything could be a weapon and is out to get you, and must be taken out immediately. I don't want to live in a dystopia where police can shoot anyone as long as they think you're armed, and can mistake anything their paranoid brains consider to be a gun.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a6dd0ff853bd

    Whenever one of these cop shoots someone stories comes out, everyone asks questions to the victim who got shot. "Did they have drugs in their system?" "Did they have a gun?" "They shouldn't have been carrying that thing. That looks like a gun." "They should've been more cooperative with the police." "They shouldn't have been acting like a bitch." "They shouldn't have run away from the police." Nobody ever questions the cop who shot the victim. Even in the most outrageous clear cut cases of police flat out murdering people, you'll still have people making outrageous claims defending the cops. Killing the person should only be done as an absolute last resort when they are genuinely in danger, but recently, we've been lowering the bar lower and lower to justify police shooting and killing people. Everyone always immediately concludes that "The police were justified in killing this person" and then work backwards to find whatever excuses they can come up with in order to justify it and make their conclusion correct.
    Once again I see someone who is advocating making officers' lives less valuable, more expendable, disposable than everyone else. Once again I see hours and months of after the fact investigation being used to second guess and criticize decisions made in split seconds. Is every use of force justified or appropriate? I'd never claim that; LEOs are people, they make mistakes from time to time. On the other hand, it's also unreasonable to expect someone to make a decision in 15 seconds with the same clarity as someone doing so with hours of time and orders of magnitude more data.

Similar Threads

  1. LGBTQ- Why We Fight- A Journey Through the Past
    By Starrunner in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 17-Sep-2017, 04:19
  2. LGBTQ advice
    By LordFluffybuttz in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 22-Jul-2015, 02:16
  3. Georgia?
    By ZakRoo in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 28-Dec-2011, 08:13
  4. hello from georgia!
    By soggypampers in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 14-Apr-2010, 23:59
  5. ABDL and LGBTQ
    By ManicMunchkin in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-Apr-2010, 20:05

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.