Policeman in Alabama Kills a Naked Student

~ Clarissa

Are police officers nowadays trained to do anything but just kill people?

A campus police officer at the University of South Alabama fatally shot a naked freshman who authorities said repeatedly rushed the officer in a threatening manner.

At 1: 23 a.m. Saturday, an officer responded to a banging noise on the window of the police station. “When an officer exited the station to investigate, he was confronted by a muscular, nude man who was acting erratically,” the university said in a statement. That student was identified as Gil Collar, 18, of Wetumpka, Ala. Authorities said Collar repeatedly charged at the officer, despite verbal commands to stop. Hoping to defuse the situation, the officer drew his weapon and retreated several times. Collar then knelt, according to police, before he got up and rushed the officer one final time. When Collar ignored commands to halt, the officer fired his weapon, hitting the 18-year-old in the chest, police said.

What was the policeman so afraid of? That the kid would shoot him with his penis? Why not simply go back into the station, close the door, and call an ambulance?

I hope the student’s parents sue this dirty cop out of his entire pension and everything he owns.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

16 thoughts on “Policeman in Alabama Kills a Naked Student”

  1. Nothing is going to happen to the police officer because Alabama has a “stand your ground” or castle doctrine law on the books which precludes any action by the parents against the officer. The relevant section of the law follows:

    Section 13A-3-23

    Use of force in defense of a person.

    (a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

    (1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

    (2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

    (3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

    (4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

    a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

    b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

    c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

    d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

    (b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

    (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

    (1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

    (2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

    (3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

    (d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

    (e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

    (Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §610; Acts 1979, No. 79-599, p. 1060, §1; Act 2006-303, p. 638, §1.)

    This is quite different from Canadian law that maintains an officer can use deadly force only if he/she has a reasonable expectation of imminent life threatening danger.

    Like

    Reply

  3. What I find funny is that this stuff happens just like all those stories of people being needlessly tased. This would have been a perfect situation to taze someone instead if killing them.

    Where were the tasers then?

    Like

    Reply

  4. ” Hoping to defuse the situation, the officer drew his weapon and retreated several times.”

    I’m not an expert, but it seems like drawing a gun is usally a terrible way to diffuse a situation.

    Like

    Reply

  5. I guess the officer should have just offered him a hug. Afterall, it wasnt like he was totally deranged or irrational, right? I wonder if the officer did decide to run back in and wait for the individual to calm down, said individual then goes out a accosts the nearest person on the street and fatally wounds them. What would the public be saying then?

    Like

    Reply

  9. You’re damn right that something is wrong with parts of American society. Charlie Fuqua, the current Republican candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives wrote in his 2012 book, God’s Law:

    “The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21”

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to bloggerclarissa Cancel reply