Hmm, because I saw a few posts on the page before I posted. No need to be a dick about it. I'm just being polite and you acting like I attacked you or something.
You were not being polite. You asked me a question and I answered you very clearly. You decide to then pretend that you didn't ask said question. You Say stupid things, get stupid replies. Very simple concept.
I did not see this in the body cam footage. It seems to be hard to find any. It didn't have any volume to it though. And from what you saying though, that isn't de-escalation to me at all. De-escalation would be more like trying to talk to everyone and ask what is going on. Telling someone to calm down won't do anything most of the time.
You do understand that this all happened within seconds of his arriving, do you not? Are you suggesting to me, that while this girl is attacking people with knives, the cop tries to "talk to everyone" to see what's going on?
The thread is very long, and I was talking in general about solutions with nothing specific in mind. I should have clarified though.
Yes, you should have.
And with this it shows that tasing is effective.
So you're okay with a median success rate of 60% assuming the ONE shot you get with it hits? These are "good enough" odds for you when it comes to whether or not a girl may end up permanently maimed or dead from a knife attack?
And I'm sure a trained police officer won't miss, it is the same as trying to dodge a bullet.
Except they miss plenty.
"The same as trying to dodge a bullet"? Tasers are far slower and less accurate than bullets.
But a year-long investigation by APM Reports shows that police rate Tasers as considerably less effective. Data from some of the largest police departments in the nation reveals that officers rate their Tasers as effective as little as 55 percent of the time, or just a little better than a coin flip. When Tasers fail to subdue someone, the results can be life-threatening — for police, and especially for the public.
You really read that and think to yourself. "Good enough for me!"?
You basically just said you're okay with flipping a coin between who should die. The victim or the assailant. That's not good enough for me.
“So many shootings involve an inefficient Taser first,” said Peter Moskos, a former Baltimore police officer and professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “They often don’t work, and then what?”
From a practical perspective, police officers need to be within a relative mid-range, as far as 15 and 25 feet, in order to use a Taser. But if a subject is too close, then a Taser wouldn’t be effective either.
And it does strengthen my argument. It shows that it works most of the time, and especially with this scenario it would or would have not worked.
You being okay with there being a 40% chance of it not working and being okay with the victim dying as a result is unsettling.
You say this, but the girl with the knife is a victim as well. Her life is being gambled too, so it counts just as much as the other girl.
When you ignore peaceful de-escalation attempts and attack someone with lethal force, your life is no longer the priority. The innocent is.
How are you so sure?
I'm not. You ARE sure though. You're CERTAIN the girl would stop when the shots are fired. Your words, not mine. I'm asking you what if she doesn't stop and continues her assault?
Um…. you are kidding right? Were you in a type of situation where you were shooting someone with a gun or vice versa? And did you or them ignore it?
What makes you think a warning shot is going to stop someone in their tracks? The movies?
You are misunderstanding me. When you shoot multiple shots, it is like in a video game, and there's huge monsters and stuff. In real life, it's not like this at all. Human beings are fragile creatures, some might enhance their muscles to gain more endurance like with the huge macho part. I was basically mentioning that, and not how they act their personality but their built.
So because she's not macho it should require less bullets to take her down you're saying? That argument would is just as stupid as me saying something like he had to shoot more because she's fat. Neither of these things are true. He shot until the threat was neutralized. Body type has nothing to do with it.
Why should the police officer always jump to deadly force? Deadly force is not the answer all the time. What is wrong with trying out new ways to protect even more people which includes the person who is acting irrationally?
They don't. Plenty of cases are resolved non-lethally. They just don't make the news.
"Hey sheriff, today if someone gets attacked with a lethal weapon, I'm gonna try out my taser that has a 60% success rate and tomorrow I might try out a couple of new grappling techniques I learned in jiujitsu class last week. We'll just shop around and tell the victims families "sorry, we're trying out new things" if any of them die as a result."
Great idea, Lily.
It is as valid as the police officer missing the gun shot. being sarcastic
You can't get around the fact that a gun is the most reliable way to guarantee a victims life in the face of a lethal threat.
How do you know this? Are you a cop?
Apart from it being common sense that there is a risk to everyone in the immediate vicinity when you fire a gun….
Cops agree as well.
2. Any bullet leaving a muzzle poses a threatOn the matter of a warning shot not posing “a substantial risk of injury or death,” in a dynamic, rapidly unfolding, high-stress, deadly-threat situation there is not time to survey the area and wonder, “What is in my immediate area that I can shoot (‘a defined target’ as stated by the consensus policy) which will not cause any injury?”
Recall that the second basic rule of firearms handling is “never point a gun at anything you are unwilling to lose forever” so that eliminates a whole host of environmental targets — actually, that takes away all of them.
So, that gives us the ground and the sky. A shot fired directly into the ground has a high probability of sending bullet fragments in all sorts of directions (including the cop’s ankles), and a bullet fired into the air will eventually return to earth, either at terminal velocity or with the refiling spin intact and at a much higher rate of speed.
Warning shots also fly in the face of another basic tenant: Officers are responsible for every round they shoot. This opens the door for the following: “I didn’t miss him, Sarge. Those were warning shots.”
The same can be said about any other weapon. Which includes a taser.
Also, there are many people who buy guns and use them carelessly – usually the ones that shoot up places or schools. I doubt they were trained.
What does this have to do with our debate? I'm talking about the police.
Well, if they are already shot in the arm and flailing then the other person can run to safety. Well, for this situation.
You can't reliably land a shot on an arm or leg as easily as you can on center mass.
Lets say the cop shoots at her arm right here. if he doesn't miraculously hit it while it's flailing around, guess whose getting shot?
Yes, that's what the headline said, but if you read the article it says that many police in the UK don't even have guns on them except the ones near Parliament. That's my evidence right there, since there is no reason for me to find a source if it already stated in the one presented. I say this because if the police don't have guns, that means they probably use some other methods to help in these type of situations.
You have asked for plenty of sources from me, which I obliged and provided zero of your own. I'm asking you for one thing. Now show me.
What other methods? Show me what method they use for this -exact- situation. I just showed you that they shot a man wielding a knife. That wasn't an accident. They did so because there was no other alternative. Now again, show me your source. Show me where they disarm someone attacking a civilian mid-knife swing without lethal force. Stop avoiding it. Show me.
I never said anything about the officer. I was just saying in general about her being a teenager and not being very bright with decision-making. Plus, I did my own what if against your what if.
Your "what ifs" are not rooted in logic though. I literally provided you a source earlier "what if a bullet ricochets and hits someone else?" I provided a source for it. Your what if is simply "Well what if the knife doesn't kill her?" That's not good enough. You say that as if the victims life isn't in the mortal danger that she is very much in.
I'm just saying in this type of situation a teenager would be more prone to listen compared to an adult.
No. You said you're SURE she would listen. Tell me how you know that without a shadow of a doubt.
This includes the girl he shot four times. Saving lives means even the criminal.
When you're trying to kill someone in front of a police officer. Your life in that moment is not the priority.
People who are older are way more fragile than a teenager.
Old or young, if a teenager jabs a knife into your neck as hard as they can, you have a pretty good chance of dying.
I'm saying providing me a source that says it is a suicide does not help the case in a homicide, as it is two different things.
You said people try their best to make suicide effective as possible. That's just not true. 90%-92% fail at it and even successful ones autopsy's show signs of hesitation.
Okay, but it's harder to kill someone that is fighting back. That was the point I was trying to give.
Irrelevant. It still only takes one good jab. When you're assaulting someone with a deadly weapon in front of a police officer, your life is not the priority in that moment. "Well the victim is fighting back sooo…" Is not, and should never be a part of an officers thought process when he should be taking decisive action to save the victim. It's not the victims job to save herself, it's the officers.
You provided me three links to three different studies, I think they are studies anyway because they are essay papers about the topic. I want to read the whole thing, but I only have access to the abstract. I just want to read the studies so I understand.
I want you to provide sources instead of feelings. Can't always get what we want though, so these will have to do for you.
I do have a question for you though. Do you only care about what your side thinks or do you look at both sides to see the big picture? What is wrong with changing how things wrong if other places have done that like the UK?
If I didn't care what you thought, do you think I'd be debating you?
If I didn't care what you thought, do you think I'd be asking you for just ONE source from the UK of them resolving this exact type of situation with no one dying? I want to be proven wrong. Show me ONE example. ONE source.
As I said above, she is a human being, human beings are fragile, depending on the age more fragile then others. In a video game, you try to kill monsters that can take a lot of hits. In real life this is never the case, unless the person is wearing a bullet-vest to protect themselves. And a few shots to me is one or two, not four.
Doesn't matter if humans are fragile. When pumped up with a half dozen different emotions and adrenaline, you don't always go down with one shot. Plenty of cases where the police shoot someone once or twice and they don't stop. Do you need sources for that too?
A "few" means "not many, but more than one". It can be as low as two, but most people think three or more. When you have 2 M&M's in the palm of your hand, do you say a few or a couple? Most say couple. If I have 3 or 4, I say "I have a few M&M's in my hand.
This is talking about if a shooting was justified in the article. Four shots in not reasonable. The officer in question did make a reasonable decision to get his gun, but it was not reasonable to shoot the girl four times. This actually helps me case and not yours.
Nope. It doesn't help you case at all.
My article literally says this:
Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.
If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
The article agrees with me that 4 shots is reasonable. Not you.
I read this section, it does make sense, but it feels very violent and needs to be revised. At least there is an explanation on why this is done. But if other options are explored things can be even better, and cops can protect even the bad person with a knife. Again, as you seen, cops don't use guns in the UK unless it's by Parliament. If they learned ways to deal without using deadly force like against a knife, then we can do the same.
Slow down. You haven't provided a source for that yet. I'm still waiting.
This was not done in our current situation. The situation was not being de-escalated, and if what you said was true about saying to calm down, that really is not de-escalation or actually trying to calm everyone down. Telling someone to calm down won't calm them down. It's like the cop didn't know how to properly de-escalate.
It was attempted.
They tried with what little time the assailant gave them before pulling a knife and trying to kill people with it.
And it's like you didn't watch the video and see that this all unfolded in like 10 seconds or less.
You're talking to me specifically, not the others.
You're saying the same things they are. I'm talking to all of you.
The way you said it sounded like those methods won't work. You tried to debunk them and you won't even give them a chance.
I never said they won't work. I said they aren't as reliable as a gun. If this were a fist fight, I'd be right there with you on grappling, tasing, pepper spray, etc. It wasn't though. Someone was trying to kill someone else in front of a police officer. When an innocents life is at stake, you don't gamble on it with less reliable methods.
This includes all parties.
Nope. Your life is not the priority when you are trying to kill someone else.
But it is also risky to use a gun too. A gun is also used how the assailant would behave. Assuming someone with a knife is gonna kill you is "based on faith that they gonna kill you."
I never said it wasn't risky.
Why the fuck else would you attack someone with a knife if you aren't trying to kill them??? There's nothing "faith based" about that. EVERYONE knows knives can kill people, HAVE killed people and WILL kill more people in the future.
But a person did lose their life. So, the cop gambled wrong.
The assailant was neutralized and no one else was hurt. Cop gambled correctly. If he uses a less reliable alternative, there's a good chance that girl gets a knife to her neck.
I do have a question. How would you feel if the person that got shot many times was your friend? Your family member? Would you still be saying the same things?
Emotionally? I'd be devastated about losing a loved one regardless of what they did.
Rationally? I'd feel the exact same way I do now and think the exact same thing.
How about you? Would you be cool with an officer calmly telling you that the reason your friend or family member is dead on the floor is because he just "felt like trying something different and it didn't work out because it's less effective and that the guy who killed them life is just as important to save"? You could accept that explanation and feel no ill-will towards the officer?