Lethal Force Not Necessarily Necessary

A University of South Alabama campus police officer who fatally shot a naked student was carrying pepper spray and a baton at the time, the school said Friday.

University spokesman Keith Ayers said Officer Trevis Austin, a four-year employee in his first police job, was armed with all three weapons when he walked outside the police station with his gun drawn to confront Gil Collar. The 18-year-old college freshman was naked when he banged on police department windows in the pre-dawn hours last Saturday.

It's unclear why Austin went for his gun first, but the sheriff has said the decision was proper.

Authorities said Collar, a 5-foot-7, 140-pound high school wrestler in his first semester of college, was on LSD when he moved aggressively toward the officer in an athletic stance, prompting the shooting. But surveillance video shows the student never tried to grab the officer's weapon or got within 4 or 5 feet of Austin.

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.

"The university is withholding further comment at this time as the district attorney and sheriff's office have time to conduct a thorough external review," he said.

An attorney for Collar's family, former Alabama Lt. Gov. Jere Beasley, said the university's policy "totally gives support to our position" that the shooting wasn't justified.

"There is no question the required force here was much less than shooting somebody," he said. "He could not say his life was in jeopardy or he was in fear of bodily harm."

The full article expands more on the circumstances.  A few things bother me, and this excerpt catches it.  First, the sheriff calls it a proper shooting when the facts aren't all in yet.  That tells me he is biased and determined to either sweep this under the rug, protect his officer or both.

The policy says his actions should match the level of resistance.  Is an aggressive stance asking to be shot?  I don't think so.  The kid may have been nuts, he may have needed help, we'll never know.  He was killed before getting a chance to be checked out.

The victim was small.  Small enough that most law enforcement officers could have physically restrained him if necessary.  This was not a hulk looking for something to smash.  140 pounds is not generally a big enough person to maim or kill, the level of threat that would seem logical for a lethal response.

PCP is scary stuff.  The cop didn't know that at the time.  He stepped out and shot a young man based on his banging on windows and looking aggressive.  That doesn't cut it for me, and I doubt his family is impressed either.

He was right to go investigate.  He should have had someone accompany him, it's the best way to control a situation without killing someone.  He should have used a nonlethal measure before resorting to killing someone.  Nothing else makes sense, at least to me.