American Politics: A Brand New Day

[Satsuki]

@Louis-1988:

You’re assuming the officer is racist. If it was a white girl, he still would have done what he’s trained to do in these situations.

Would he though? That is the big question that's being asked here. Would he have immediately gone for his gun if the girl was white?

@Louis-1988:

Thoughts on Caitlyn Jenner running for Governor of California? I'm kind of over celebrity politicians. Ventura, Arnold, Trump etc. Idk much (anything) about her politics.

It's stupid. She has no reason to do it, nor any background. Arnold did okay (if I recall), but that may have been because he was married to a Kennedy. None of the Jenners or Kardashians have any law or political background/education. She didn't even fucking vote in 2016.
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/23/990230017/caitlyn-jenner-announces-run-for-california-governor

[Louis-1988]

@Mr.:

Dunno. But I'm not really keen on digging for reasons to justify using lethal force, either. This situation does not seem like one of them.

Using disarming and de-escalation tactics that don't involve a gun would've been a great alternative, but unfortunately it looks like the cop here thinks the gun was the solution too quickly. And justified it with "well another life may have been taken".

Is that what you’d tell the victims family if you were the cop? “I dunno, I just didn’t want to shoot”

Disarm them HOW?? They are 8 feet away and mid knife swing. Waiting any longer can result in a knife lodged in the victims throat.

De-escalate HOW? They are already attacking and have twice ignored the polices commands to stop.

Seriously, listen to yourself.

[Monquito]

@Mr.:

"well another life may have been taken".

That's a fact in this particular case.

And is probably the reason why the video have been released so early, so that we all would see the knive approaching the girl in pink before jumping to conclusions.

[Louis-1988]

@Satsuki:

Would he though? That is the big question that's being asked here. Would he have immediately gone for his gun if the girl was white?

See? You’re assuming racism. You know nothing about this man apart from that he acted in accordance with what the law allows for and what he’s trained to do.

You’re making this about race when it’s about standard procedure. White people are killed plenty by police. More than 400 were shot dead last year.

[Mr. Zoro]

@Louis-1988:

Is that what you’d tell the victims family if you were the cop? “I dunno, I just didn’t want to shoot”

Like others pointed out, that's assuming she would have killed her with the knife, which you don't know.

Disarm them HOW?? They are 8 feet away and mid knife swing. Waiting any longer can result in a knife lodged in the victims throat.

De-escalate HOW? They are already attacking and have twice ignored the polices commands to stop.

Seriously, listen to yourself.

With better training and things that don't involve guns being the immediate solution. I'm no cop nor am I an expert trying to provide solid alternatives (not my expertise), but I don't need to be one to know that certain measures are too extreme and that officers should have more tools at their disposal than just guns.

[Satsuki]

Tasers can fire probes up to 15 feet. That isn't an option?

[Dorob333Neko]

Tasers are petty awful on the body but yes, in this case, that should have been more of a goto than just killing with a gun.

[Louis-1988]

@Mr.:

Like others pointed out, that's assuming she would have killed her with the knife, which you don't know.

With better training and things that don't involve guns being the immediate solution. I'm no cop nor am I an expert trying to provide solid alternatives (not my expertise), but I don't need to be one to know that certain measures are too extreme and that officers should have more tools at their disposal than just guns.

A knife is a deadly weapon and it is very easy to stab someone in a vital area with one. By not immediately neutralizing the threat, the officer is gambling with the victims life. That’s okay with you? If the victim dies and the assailant is taken alive into custody, that’s satisfactory to you?

What other tools could have been used in this situation that would GUARANTEE the victims safety in the quickest amount of time?

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Satsuki:

Tasers can fire probes up to 15 feet. That isn't an option?

1. Tasers are unreliable.
2. Tasers are even more unreliable from distance.
3. Clothing can keep prongs from penetrating.
4. It would contradict their training, and their responsible to the victim to not meet deadly force with deadly force.

Could it work? Sure. Is it guaranteed to neutralize the threat? No.

Again, this is gambling with the victims life which is not fair to the victim. They’re already under attack and could lose their life in a split second.

[Mr. Zoro]

@Louis-1988:

A knife is a deadly weapon and it is very easy to stab someone in a vital area with one. By not immediately neutralizing the threat, the officer is gambling with the victims life. That’s okay with you? If the victim dies and the assailant is taken alive into custody, that’s satisfactory to you?

Of course not, but what's also not satisfactory to me is the death of the person this cop shot. I keep saying it, there should have been better training to handle things like this or even intervene before it escalated to this point.

What other tools could have been used in this situation that would GUARANTEE the victims safety in the quickest amount of time?

I don't know, but that onus isn't on me to say what other methods would or should work. But even I can tell that immediately jumping to a gun as a solution is a pretty bad idea.

[Louis-1988]

@Mr.:

Of course not, but what's also not satisfactory to me is the death of the person this cop shot. I keep saying it, there should have been better training to handle things like this or even intervene before it escalated to this point.

I don't know, but that onus isn't on me to say what other methods would or should work. But even I can tell that immediately jumping to a gun as a solution is a pretty bad idea.

Intervene how? This happened within seconds of him arriving on scene and he did try to restore order without violence. Better training how? How do you train this exact scenario? Every situation is different, you cannot possibly train for all of them. What you’re saying is that he needs to learn how to Thanos snap the deadly weapon out of her hand. Because that is the only solution that would GUARANTEE (important keyword) that the victim is safe (this is priority #1, period) and that the assailant also stays alive.

The onus is absolutely on you to say what other methods would have been just as, or more effective at neutralizing the immediate threat to that woman’s life. You don’t just get to say “gun bad!” “Cop bad!” without offering a better alternative than the one he was specifically trained to respond with.

Give me a simple yes or no to these two questions. You are all avoiding it.

Should the cop gamble with the victims life with less reliable alternatives that may not neutralize the threat before she deals lethal damage?

Is that fair to the victim who is already under assault and may have only seconds to live if lethal action is not taken?

Is it tragic that this girl lost her life? Of course it is, but she forced the officers hand. Everyone should know that you probably shouldn’t try to kill someone in front of an armed police officer and expect to not be shot.

[Mr. Zoro]

You tend to selectively avoid valid questions that people raise and only respond to others that you have a few thoughts on; I don't think you have much room to criticize others for supposedly not answering questions.

@Louis-1988:

Intervene how? This happened within seconds of him arriving on scene and he did try to restore order without violence. Better training how? How do you train this exact scenario? Every situation is different, you cannot possibly train for all of them. What you’re saying is that he needs to learn how to Thanos snap the deadly weapon out of her hand. Because that is the only solution that would GUARANTEE (important keyword) that the victim is safe (this is priority #1, period) and that the assailant also stays alive.
The onus is absolutely on you to say what other methods would have been just as, or more effective at neutralizing the immediate threat to that woman’s life. You don’t just get to say “gun bad!” “Cop bad!” without offering a better alternative than the one he was specifically trained to respond with.

The onus isn't on me. I don't know enough about policing to know what a better alternative specifically looks like (Maybe tasers? Grappling? Just off the top of my head), but as civilians? We're perfectly entitled to criticize how they handle things, especially if they're suddenly playing the role of judge-jury-executioner in moments like this.

I'm not even going to pretend I know what it's like to be a cop in this situation, but more to the point we shouldn't have a job where people (cops) are in these situations and have to make a decision with a lethal weapon at the ready.

Should the cop gamble with the victims life with less reliable alternatives that may not neutralize the threat before she deals lethal damage?

Is that fair to the victim who is already under assault and may have only seconds to live if lethal action is not taken?

Is it tragic that this girl lost her life? Of course it is, but she forced the officers hand. Everyone should know that you probably shouldn’t try to kill someone in front of an armed police officer and expect to not be shot.

No, but these aren't just black and white (or "shoot" or "do nothing") situations, though. Critically shooting the assailant is still an extreme that happened way too quickly and shouldn't have been seen as the only option.

[TLC]

This post is deleted!

[Louis-1988]

@Mr.:

You tend to selectively avoid valid questions that people raise and only respond to others that you have a few thoughts on; I don't think you have much room to criticize others for supposedly not answering questions.

Except no. I don't.

@Mr.:

The onus isn't on me. I don't know enough about policing to know what a better alternative specifically looks like (Maybe tasers? Grappling? Just off the top of my head), but as civilians? We're perfectly entitled to criticize how they handle things, especially if they're suddenly playing the role of judge-jury-executioner in moments like this.

I'm not even going to pretend I know what it's like to be a cop in this situation, but more to the point we shouldn't have a job where people (cops) are in these situations and have to make a decision with a lethal weapon at the ready.

Criticism is fine, but a lot of you I'd wager haven't even seen the video and are suggesting alternatives that 1. The cop had already tried 2. Are simply unreliable.

Grappling? They were a good 8-10 feet away and the girl was in the middle of swinging the knife.

Bingo! Now you're starting to get it.

@Mr.:

No, but these aren't just black and white (or "shoot" or "do nothing") situations, though. Critically shooting the assailant is still an extreme that happened way too quickly and shouldn't have been seen as the only option.

1. It wasn't the only option. De-escalation was attempted twice and it was ignored both times. The other options you and others have suggested, are gambles that would not have guaranteed the victims safety in this situation that was escalating very quickly.

2. Know what else is extreme? Assaulting someone with a deadly weapon.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@TLC:

You know you keep spouting out lines about how the cop shouldn't gamble with the victim's life and how there was no other way but that cop could have just as easily missed his shot and shot the "victim" WHICH HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. The cops then just sue the guy they were trying to shoot for their shitty aim.

Did he miss though? He kept that girl alive and she's grateful for it that the officer took action.

@TLC:

Also jesus christ, show some fucking empathy, a girl died and you keep trying to emotionally detach yourself the situation with terms like "assailant" and "victim". She was the one being attacked, she was the one trying to defend herself and she was a fucking child. Any cop worth his salt should be able to assess the situation, see a scared girl who is afraid and needs help, and resort to a diplomatic situation and NOT resort to lethal assault. Shooting a child in the face was not the best resort, it should NEVER BE the best resort. An adult's job is to protect children not murder them even if they seem to be a danger to others, any basic human fucking being should be sick at the thought of harming let alone killing a child. But what we've been trying to drill into your fetid cheeseball you call a head is that the cops in the US have the humanity drilled out of them, they are trained to shoot center mass immediately no questions asked partly because of your wretched gun laws making everyone paranoid of every corner and partly because the force is full of white supremacists who jerk themselves off at the thought of killing minorities. If it were a cop from any other country, he would have deescalated the situation with words, reprimanded the shit bullies, reprimanded the poor girl to not use a knife next time, maybe recommended mental counselling and called it a day. But nah, she was unfortunate to be born in the US, a country where lives like hers are expendable.

Like I said, it is a tragedy that someone died. But you have to look at these situations rationally, not from an emotional position. Watch the video, the cops did try your "diplomatic situation". It didn't work. Her dad listened, the girl did not.

She was not the one being attacked. Have you seen the video even? She and her dad run outside assaulting another girl. Dad steps back when police arrive as he is told and the assailant switches to the pink, ignoring the police commands to stop. That is not self-defense at that point. Also, the police had JUST arrived on scene and had no chance to gather information before all of this went down. How was he supposed to know that she's a teenager? Not that that matters in this situation since again, he was forced to take action quickly. You cannot asses the situation he was put in in a mere 2.5 seconds.

What questions needed to be asked? A deadly assault was taking place right before his eyes and he acted as he is trained to do in such a situation and in accordance with the law. Every officer is trained to respond that way, regardless of the race of the officer or the race of the assailant.

Oh, they would have? With words you said, right? Tell me, what magical combination of words would have gotten that girl to stop swinging the knife at the victim? I'm genuinely curious and I'm sure every police station in every country on the planet would love to know, too. You can single-handedly save thousands of lives if you drop this nugget of wisdom on us.

@TLC:

And I'm sure you're going to come up with some stupid scripted bullshit on "what about the bullies' families and the cops' families and the cops aren't racist, you're racist and bla bla bla" Save it, this is the only time I'm even acknowledging your existence. Because let's be real for a second, I've seen you posting on this thread, I know your type, you don't give a shit about the girl who died and you don't give a shit about making the country a better place and you're arguing completely in bad faith. You're an ultra conservative, gun loving blue lives matter muh freedom is the most important thing fuck the socialist left nut job who constantly tries to posture at being fair and rational and never misses the opportunity to suck the dick of some ultra conservative or facist propaganda. Like my god, does your jaw never get tired? There is no sincerity to your words and there never will be because your only interest is defending your selfish beliefs and you have no capacity to actually empathize with people or look at a scenario from a different perspective, your only priority is that your ultra conservative, fascist ideals are the right way of life and fuck everyone else, they're the problem not you.

Oof… lot to unpack with this one.

Lets set aside the "bullies families" and "cops families" jargon. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with any of that. I guess just covering your bases and falsely assuming things I might say? A "pre-retort"? I guess? Anyway, moving on.

1. How do you know this cop is racist? All he did was act in accordance with his training and within the confines of the law.
2. When have I called anyone racist in this thread?

Clearly you don't know me.

Relax little fella. There's no reason to get so hostile. I haven't insulted anyone in the thread and I'd appreciate the same courtesy! I DO care that someone died tragically, but that doesn't mean I throw rationality out of the window. Just because it was tragic, that does not mean the cop made a bad decision. He saved someone's life who was being attacked with a deadly weapon.

"Gun loving, blue lives matter"??? I don't own any guns and have been in support of basically every piece of gun control legislation that has come down the pipe. And I've never said "blue lives matter" in any sort of debate setting or in an unironical tone.

Funny, most liberals have that same problem. You want this world of sunshine and rainbows where everything is fair and no problems or differences in opinions exist and that people only see things your way and if anyone dares to disagree, they need to be cancelled and shunned because they MUST be a cold-hearted facist, racist, sexist etc for having the audacity to think about something rationally instead as opposed to responding to everything emotionally because your way of thinking is the only correct way. Did I miss any of your favorite superlatives there?

"Ultra conservative"? You really don't know anything about me, haha. And when have I ever supported any "fascist ideals"? Name one. I'll wait.

@TLC:

Like I said, I won't be talking to you again, this post itself was a bad idea because there's no way I or anyone else is going to get through your thick skull, but I saw you treat this girl's life like garbage to defend your backwards views in the guise of giving a shit for days and it made me sick and I wanted to give your ego one good slap of a reality check. I suggest to everyone else to ignore the troll, he will never argue with you in good faith.

When do I treat her life like garbage? I'm supposed to ignore the context of why the officer did what he did because she passed away as a result? No, that's irrational. I never insulted, never said she deserved it and acknowledged that it was tragic. Dunno what else you expect.

You were unsuccessful. Slap was piss weak.

I'm not trolling anybody. My arguments are sincere. A lot of you guys don’t care about the context surrounding a lot of these situations and immediately want to paint someone a racist without caring to look at the facts of the situation. I’m gonna check people on that when I see it happening. The reason why you’re upset right now is because you are used to an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you. You’re not used to someone forcing you to look at something logically.

[starlalilymoon]

Question for Louis – So, you try to make these claims that using a gun is the only real option to deal with this type of situations, yet you're not a cop, so how would you know other solutions won't work? Also, if I remember correctly, in the UK, the police don't have guns, yet they are able to handle these types of situations without the use of deadly force. So, if they can do it, why can't this happen in the United States?

@Mr.:

With better training and things that don't involve guns being the immediate solution. I'm no cop nor am I an expert trying to provide solid alternatives (not my expertise), but I don't need to be one to know that certain measures are too extreme and that officers should have more tools at their disposal than just guns.

I do agree. Guns should be used at the very last resort. No one needs to die, not even the criminals. A criminal's worst fate is living and having to deal with the consequences of their actions.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Louis-1988:

2. Know what else is extreme? Assaulting someone with a deadly weapon.

A knife really can't kill you like a gun. And with watching the body cam footage, the cop could have shot at the car to startle the girl that had the knife. I believe even if the girl in pink got stabbed, she would have not died; yes, it is great her life was saved, but Ma'Khia should have not been shot four times, that's too much.

And yes, the officer did what he had to do, but was four shots really necessary to fix this situation? She's not a monster in a video game… One or two shots, or even avoid that altogether and shoot at the car to scare her and drop the knife. She didn't have to die and get shot so many times, that is way too much. You got to at least agree with the fact that it was too many shots?

[pariston_hill]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-across-u-s-respond-derek-chauvin-trial-our-american-n1264224

[starlalilymoon]

@pariston_hill:

https://64.media.tumblr.com/344f9017e3e269ac92404c20eca221cb/7d557d65f6c5f5f2-c4/s1280x1920/871d2a8b9c75f188e2790bdee1fa9679d989d07b.jpg
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-across-u-s-respond-derek-chauvin-trial-our-american-n1264224

That paranoia of oh people turned against police is bullshit, honestly it is just as bad as the people who are scared to date women because they think they be accused of rape. The trail was having a corrupted cop abusing his power be accountable for his actions, it is extremely clear cut and obvious that he looked down on everyone and seen himself as above everyone else.

Maybe the ones that are "scared" are probably the ones that actually shot people unfairly, hence why they feel like the country has turned against them. This may or may not be true about all of them thinking in this way, but can be one factor why they have this particular feeling.

[RoboBlue]

@Satsuki:

Would he though? That is the big question that's being asked here. Would he have immediately gone for his gun if the girl was white?

@Louis-1988:

You’re making this about race when it’s about standard procedure. White people are killed plenty by police. More than 400 were shot dead last year.

I'd say yeah, the cop most likely would have killed her if she was white in this situation.

Cops are generally a bit nicer to white people, women and the elderly, but they're primarily trained to attack and kill without hesitation if there's an excuse for it.

Whether the killing was justified is another matter.
I think he used what he was given and did what he considered to be his job, but there's a lot of room for questions about whether he could have been given better tools (a less lethal weapon and better training) and how the system that gave him those tools could be reformed.

[Huschel]

@Louis-1988:

Except no. I don't.

I mean, okay. I mentioned it before: do you think it's the best course of action to train the police to go for the kill? It seems incredibly unfair to me to put people into that sort of situation. Anybody who doesn't walk away from that damaged in some way, already was. Is it fair to expect people who - with good intention - sign up to the a part of the police force to make these decisions kill somebody when there are alternatives (as can be seen in other parts of the world)?

My personal echo chamber seems to be Europe, more specifically Germany. Apparently, 19 people were shot here by police in 2019. Taking population differences into account, it should have been about 80 in the US. It was almost 1000. I realize that this is partly another issue that has been discussed ad nauseam (gun control). But still, it's just so excessive.

[Louis-1988]

@starlalilymoon:

Question for Louis – So, you try to make these claims that using a gun is the only real option to deal with this type of situations, yet you're not a cop, so how would you know other solutions won't work? Also, if I remember correctly, in the UK, the police don't have guns, yet they are able to handle these types of situations without the use of deadly force. So, if they can do it, why can't this happen in the United States?

I never said they wouldn't work. I said a gun aimed at the assailants center mass had the highest probability of resolving issue without death or serious injury to the victim who was being attacked. Lets review the other options, shall we?

1. De-escalate verbally: He tried that. Twice. Twice he was ignored.

2. Tackle her/Grapple her: She is 10 feet away and in the middle of swinging a knife towards the victim. It would take a least 2-3 seconds for the officer to get over there. That may not sound like a whole lot of time, but you can do a lot of damage to someone, and even end their life within 2 seconds. The officer also risks serious injury or death to himself by getting close. Why should opt for this option he if he can neutralize the threat to the victim from afar faster and also not endanger his own well being?

3. Taze her: You get one shot with a taser. They are easy to miss with and clothes often impede prongs from working effectively. If it doesn't work, that's a lot of free time to do a lot of irreversible damage with a knife while the officer switches to Plan B.

4. Fire a shot into the car: What happens if it ricochets off the car and kills the victim or an innocent bystander? What if the assailant ignores the warning shot and keeps attacking?

5. Shoot her arms/legs with pinpoint accuracy while they are flailing all over the place and relatively thin targets while she is also in close proximity to the victim who could accidentally eat a bullet not intended for her: Lol. Just no.

I answered your question, now you answer mine. Can you find me a situation similar to this one in the UK where their police disarm someone who is actively stabbing a third-party victim? Just one example will do. If you can't find me an example, then how do you know they "handle these types of situations" without deadly force? Also…. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/uk-police-shoot-knife-wielding-man-dead-london-69479788

@starlalilymoon:

A knife really can't kill you like a gun. And with watching the body cam footage, the cop could have shot at the car to startle the girl that had the knife. I believe even if the girl in pink got stabbed, she would have not died; yes, it is great her life was saved, but Ma'Khia should have not been shot four times, that's too much.

Oh yes it can. All it takes is one good stab.

Again, what if she doesn't stop or the bullet ricochets and hurts the victim or some innocent bystander?

You can be sure of that, how exactly??? All it takes is one good stab.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1460795/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2764674/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29713941/

Science and the way human physiology responds to being stabbed > your beliefs.

@starlalilymoon:

And yes, the officer did what he had to do, but was four shots really necessary to fix this situation? She's not a monster in a video game… One or two shots, or even avoid that altogether and shoot at the car to scare her and drop the knife. She didn't have to die and get shot so many times, that is way too much. You got to at least agree with the fact that it was too many shots?

No, I can't agree that it was too much. There's no guarantee that one shot puts the person down. He shot until the threat was neutralized. No more, no less. They then began resuscitation procedures.

And we've already been over why shooting the car is a terrible idea.

[RoboBlue]

Something I haven't seen people bring up that's worth keeping in mind is we can't fully trust that the information they've given us (the video) is 100% representative of the situation.

The footage appears pretty convincing but after all the highly publicized lies surrounding George Floyd's murder and other black victims around the same time we basically have no reason not to be highly skeptical of everything the cops give us.

[Louis-1988]

@RoboBlue:

Something I haven't seen people bring up that's worth keeping in mind is we can't fully trust that the information they've given us (the video) is 100% representative of the situation.

The footage appears pretty convincing but after all the highly publicized lies surrounding George Floyd's murder and other black victims around the same time we basically have no reason not to be highly skeptical of everything the cops give us.

Sure, that's fair.

[wolfwood]

The whole terminology american police use to spruce up and reframe their actions is always a treat. Always dehumanizing who ever was at the receiving end, and heavy on the neutral euphemisms. What an outsider might describe as someone resorting to lethal options against a subject who is under control would come out on the cop end as something like took decisive action to ensure the public safety or something as sweet sounding. But the way things are going they aren't going to have as much success with that type of spin doctoring, harder to get traction on a positive spin when you are stuck with the kind of rep they are currently dragging

[Monquito]

@RoboBlue:

and how the system that gave him those tools could be reformed.

This would inevitable require stronger gun control laws as well, so that the cops don't have to fear every civilian potentially using a gun against them.

[Green_vs_Red]

@Monquito:

This would inevitable require stronger gun control laws as well, so that the cops don't have to fear every civilian potentially using a gun against them.

They do?

I thought they feared unarmed protestors, protesting over them shooting or brutalizing unarmed civilians and either not being charged or being acquitted.

As the Kyle Rittenhouse fiasco showed and other examples have shown they seem to be mostly fine with armed civilians especially if they’re not turning their guns on them.

[RoboBlue]

@Monquito:

This would inevitable require stronger gun control laws as well, so that the cops don't have to fear every civilian potentially using a gun against them.

We'd better implement knife, stick and rock control laws too.

[Lord Gaimon]

https://www.nj.com/news/2021/01/newark-cops-with-reform-didnt-fire-a-single-shot-in-2020-moran.html

relevant to the conversation

[DoctorPhil]

In the long run a society with gun restrictions would be better. But there are so many guns in circulation in the USA (more than there are people even, IIRC) that it's impossible at the moment.

[starlalilymoon]

@Louis-1988:

I never said they wouldn't work. I said a gun aimed at the assailants center mass had the highest probability of resolving issue without death or serious injury to the victim who was being attacked.

I just got to the chat, so how would I know what you said or didn't?

1. De-escalate verbally: He tried that. Twice. Twice he was ignored.

Can you please explain this? I watched the body cam footage and never saw any type of de-escalation.

2. Tackle her/Grapple her: She is 10 feet away and in the middle of swinging a knife towards the victim.

Except…. I don't think tackling or trying to grapple her is a good idea for this type of situation. I never even suggested that.

3. Taze her: You get one shot with a taser. They are easy to miss with and clothes often impede prongs from working effectively. If it doesn't work, that's a lot of free time to do a lot of irreversible damage with a knife while the officer switches to Plan B.

So, the question is, did you ever use a taser on someone? How do you know they won't work effectively? Do you have any sources supporting your claims?

4. Fire a shot into the car: What happens if it ricochets off the car and kills the victim or an innocent bystander? What if the assailant ignores the warning shot and keeps attacking?

You're putting a lot of what ifs. We wouldn't know if we didn't try. There's also shooting at the windows. I sure as hell as would be alerted if the car got shot instead of me, I'm sure the girl would too. It's not like she is some huge macho tough guy.

5. Shoot her arms/legs with pinpoint accuracy while they are flailing all over the place and relatively thin targets while she is also in close proximity to the victim who could accidentally eat a bullet not intended for her

Can you explain more with this? What do you mean by flailing?

I answered your question, now you answer mine. Can you find me a situation similar to this one in the UK where their police disarm someone who is actively stabbing a third-party victim? Just one example will do. If you can't find me an example, then how do you know they "handle these types of situations" without deadly force? Also…. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/uk-police-shoot-knife-wielding-man-dead-london-69479788

The article is very vague, also this was the article you linked me:

Most British police don't carry firearms, but the area around Parliament is often patrolled by armed officers.
As you can see, most British police don't carry firearms, unless it's around Parliament. This is from the article you just linked me. So, obviously outside of Parliament they have to do other ways to fight off people with knives.

Police shootings are relatively rare in the U.K. In 2019, British police fired guns 13 times.

Also, this was stated in this same article. This points to me that they rarely had to use any type of lethal force unless absolutely necessary.

Again, what if she doesn't stop or the bullet ricochets and hurts the victim or some innocent bystander?

But what if she did stop? She is 16. Teenagers are not very bright with brain development, I'm very sure she would have. If she was an adult, it might have been something different.

You can be sure of that, how exactly???

I'm confused by this. It feels like it is a copy paste….

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1460795/

This was… a 73 year old lady. In this situation it was a what I assume another teenager.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2764674/

This is a suicide. If you trying to kill yourself, you will try your best to make it as effective as possible.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29713941/
This link won't let me see the rest of the study done except the abstract, it doesn't help me at all.

Though this was found in the abstract:

The knife was found in situ in 9 of the 11 cases of suicide involving a chest injury, but was not seen in any of the cases of homicide.

Which shows me that knives are way more effective when it's a suicide and not a homicide. In a homicide you have another target that is moving, in a suicide it's just you, so no one to fight back against a knife.

Science and the way human physiology responds to being stabbed > your beliefs.

Except I can't access the studies to read the entire thing except the abstract. It doesn't help me at all. What it does it proving that a single stab wound is effective on a person who is commiting suicide versus a homicide where there is another moving target. What your articles did is not prove your case at all, but just made mine even stronger…

No, I can't agree that it was too much. There's no guarantee that one shot puts the person down. He shot until the threat was neutralized. No more, no less.

Why are you treating her like she's some big buff monster or the Hulk. She's a human being, and most human beings feel pain and stop after a few shots. Can you provide some sources to back from your claims? How do you know one or two shots won't work?

And we've already been over why shooting the car is a terrible idea.

Not really. It's one idea, and can have a bad effect. I mean there can be a million what-if scenarios. Like for example, what if the officer missed shooting the girl? And hit the other girl by accident? I can do what-if situations all day, but it doesn't mean it happen. You have to look at the mostly likely scenario and not some bizarre very extremely low chance of happening situation. If a taser is effective most of the time, sure there's a situation where it might not work, but if you look at it logically, it should work, if it doesn't you go to the next step. Even with a gun, there can be situations that happen like the officer misses the target for example. The body cam footage shows it was not point blank range. It was a good distance, and since she is a moving target she can be missed. There is a chance too.

Why focus on a very slim chance that it won't work when the majority does work? It can happen with any situation even with a gun. If the majority works then that is used.

[wolfwood]

Well i mean that sort of i did what i had to mindset requires the person getting killed to be thought of as an unstoppable force that could not be subdued with any less than total violence. I wouldn't be suprised if US police training involves envisioning elaborate scenarios on how people will kill them and calling it "awareness training" or something.

[starlalilymoon]

@wolfwood:

Well i mean that sort of i did what i had to mindset requires the person getting killed to be thought of as an unstoppable force that could not be subdued with any less than total violence. I wouldn't be suprised if US police training involves envisioning elaborate scenarios on how people will kill them and calling it "awareness training" or something.

Yeah… maybe. I'm not sure what kind of training there is for police here, but if that type of "awareness training" exists, it should stop. Bleh, the police really needed to be revamped in the United States. I feel like the best thing to do right now, is to lay off all current officers and then rehire through a new process, new training, etc., basically destroying and building back up again to a more positive force. I think it happened in one city in the state of Vermont, but I'm not sure as I'm going by memory. I really don't know what else can be done to fix this problem of corruption and police looking down on others.

[Satsuki]

To be honest, the few police officers that are in my town seem really nice and never aggressive. But this is also a very quiet and peaceful town that's like 90% white. But to my knowledge none of the minorities here make any trouble either. The only people I know of who own guns are hunters with rifles.

@Lord:

https://www.nj.com/news/2021/01/newark-cops-with-reform-didnt-fire-a-single-shot-in-2020-moran.html

relevant to the conversation

Wow, you go Newark!

Let it also be known that Japan has very strict guns laws, and thus the police usually only carry batons and the occasional taser. You almost never hear about shootings happening there. The only gun violence you hear about come from criminals who obtain guns illegally. Often from us.

@starlalilymoon:

I really don't know what else can be done to fix this problem of corruption and police looking down on others.

Nobody's entirely sure. That's why discussions need to be opened among different levels of government and society so we CAN figure out how to fix the problem.

[Louis-1988]

@starlalilymoon:

I just got to the chat, so how would I know what you said or didn't?

Uhm… you literally asked me "how would you be sure what does and doesn't work?" Why would you ask the question if you were going to give me this ridiculous reply when I answered? Maybe educate yourself a little bit by brushing up on what's being discussed before trying to pick a debate.

@starlalilymoon:

Can you please explain this? I watched the body cam footage and never saw any type of de-escalation.

He called twice for everyone to calm down. The father listened, the girl escalated the severity of her attack.

@starlalilymoon:

Except…. I don't think tackling or trying to grapple her is a good idea for this type of situation. I never even suggested that.

Okay? Plenty of other people in this thread have though, and you came in very vague. You wanted to talk about "other solutions" without offering any yourself, so I took the liberty of going through what has been discussed already for you, since, you know, you can't be bothered to read the thread.

@starlalilymoon:

So, the question is, did you ever use a taser on someone? How do you know they won't work effectively? Do you have any sources supporting your claims?

Yes, I have tased people and been tased before myself. Not that that has anything to do with this thread at all and is entirely irrelevant.

How do I know? You get ONE SHOT. And on top of that, even if it does hit, here is your rate of effectiveness.

Yep. Here's your source. https://apps.npr.org/dailygraphics/graphics/tasers-departments-20190618/ Knowing you though, you probably think this stregthens your argument and that 54%-77% effectiveness (if your ONE SHOT even hits) are good enough odds to gamble a victims life on.

@starlalilymoon:

You're putting a lot of what ifs. We wouldn't know if we didn't try. There's also shooting at the windows. I sure as hell as would be alerted if the car got shot instead of me, I'm sure the girl would too. It's not like she is some huge macho tough guy.

Oh, you're sure huh? How do you know? People ignore and don't hear gunshots all of the time. Her not being a "huge macho tough guy" doesn't mean anything. "huge macho tough guy" is not a mentality. There are hulk looking mfers out there who are total pussies and scrawny people with balls of steel all over this place. This is a ridiculous argument. You are basically saying the cop should have thought to himself "well, she doesn't look like a huge macho tough dude, so firing a warning shot will do the trick!". Really? That's the training you want police to receive? That's the litmus test on whether or not it's okay to use deadly force on someone trying to kill someone else?

They are valid what ifs. Every time a bullet leaves the chamber, it poses a limited risk to everyone in the immediate vicinity even if they are not the intended target. You don't draw and fire a gun carelessly. It has to be done with decisiveness and with minimal risk to innocents.

@starlalilymoon:

Can you explain more with this? What do you mean by flailing?

Moving quickly and unpredictably that makes shooting at them extremely dangerous and unreliable.

@starlalilymoon:

The article is very vague, also this was the article you linked me:

As you can see, most British police don't carry firearms, unless it's around Parliament. This is from the article you just linked me. So, obviously outside of Parliament they have to do other ways to fight off people with knives.

Also, this was stated in this same article. This points to me that they rarely had to use any type of lethal force unless absolutely necessary.
The headline of the article I linked you literally says "police shoot knife wielding man dead in London".

I've provided sources for everything you've asked for. Now provide me ONE example of UK police disarming something with a knife who is actively trying to stab a third party. Just show me ONE.

@starlalilymoon:

But what if she did stop? She is 16. Teenagers are not very bright with brain development, I'm very sure she would have. If she was an adult, it might have been something different.

How is the officer supposed to know she was 16? Is he supposed to ask her how old she is while in the middle of attacking two people with a knife?

Because teenagers listen to adults all the time, right? Because teenagers don't ignore danger all the time, right? You yourself just said "teens aren't very bright!" Not that any of this matters though. The officer had to take decisive action to save a life.

@starlalilymoon:

I'm confused by this. It feels like it is a copy paste….

Huh?

@starlalilymoon:

This was… a 73 year old lady. In this situation it was a what I assume another teenager.

Is a teenagers carotid artery any less easy to sever? I'm confused.

@starlalilymoon:

This is a suicide. If you trying to kill yourself, you will try your best to make it as effective as possible.

Is that why people fail all the time? According to the The American Association of Suicidology, for every completed suicide, 25 people failed. This means that it has a 90-92% rate of failure. Super effective if you ask me!

@starlalilymoon:

Which shows me that knives are way more effective when it's a suicide and not a homicide. In a homicide you have another target that is moving, in a suicide it's just you, so no one to fight back against a knife.

Except your own hesitatation. When you are trying to kill someone, you are taking decisive action.

@starlalilymoon:

Except I can't access the studies to read the entire thing except the abstract. It doesn't help me at all. What it does it proving that a single stab wound is effective on a person who is commiting suicide versus a homicide where there is another moving target. What your articles did is not prove your case at all, but just made mine even stronger…

How do studies showing that a person can die from a single knife wound help your argument? You said, "i'm sure the girl in pink would have died". How can you be sure of that when I've shown you examples of someone dying to one stab wound? You don't make any sense.

@starlalilymoon:

Why are you treating her like she's some big buff monster or the Hulk. She's a human being, and most human beings feel pain and stop after a few shots. Can you provide some sources to back from your claims? How do you know one or two shots won't work?

Why does it matter how muscular she is?

Bullets hurt people with muscles too. Also, "a few shots" is at least 3, you understand that, right?

Sure, i'll let an FBI agent answer explain it thoroughly to you. Though, I doubt you'll read it all and come back and ask the same questions: https://www.nola.com/news/crime_police/article_ae82835c-0212-5e50-a175-85601a1ed8bb.html

@starlalilymoon:

Not really. It's one idea, and can have a bad effect. I mean there can be a million what-if scenarios. Like for example, what if the officer missed shooting the girl? And hit the other girl by accident? I can do what-if situations all day, but it doesn't mean it happen. You have to look at the mostly likely scenario and not some bizarre very extremely low chance of happening situation. If a taser is effective most of the time, sure there's a situation where it might not work, but if you look at it logically, it should work, if it doesn't you go to the next step. Even with a gun, there can be situations that happen like the officer misses the target for example. The body cam footage shows it was not point blank range. It was a good distance, and since she is a moving target she can be missed. There is a chance too.

Why focus on a very slim chance that it won't work when the majority does work? It can happen with any situation even with a gun. If the majority works then that is used.

I keep saying this. but it's like you guys don't listen. I never said other methods wouldn't work. I'm saying the fastest and most reliable way to ensure the victims safety (this is priority #1, nothing else) in this case was lethal force. Is it without its own set of risks? Of course not, but those risks are minimal compared to your not nearly as reliable alternatives. A lot of your alternatives are based on faith and how you think the assailant will behave. Expectations =/= reality. If you gamble wrong, an innocent could lose their life. Not worth the risk.

[pariston_hill]

We reached Minority Report territory, just shot to kill anyone before they commit a crime.

[starlalilymoon]

@Satsuki:

Nobody's entirely sure. That's why discussions need to be opened among different levels of government and society so we CAN figure out how to fix the problem.

Yes, I agree. We need to have different discussions open about this problem. Other countries like the UK have figured out how not to have so many killings, and we can do the same. I really hope things get fixed. I probably should write a letter to Biden, my local mayor, as well as the state. I think all of us should pitch in together and get our different levels of government to try to fix this and make the United States a better place to live in where people don't have to fear cops. We should be friends with cops, but that can't happen with the current situation. Like, I'm scared of the police, even if I walk by one, I get tensed up. That should not be happening, I should not fear the police officers, hence why this gots to change.

@Satsuki:

Let it also be known that Japan has very strict guns laws, and thus the police usually only carry batons and the occasional taser. You almost never hear about shootings happening there. The only gun violence you hear about come from criminals who obtain guns illegally. Often from us.

So, like the UK. And Japan has a very low crime rate too. This just gives me more evidence that things need to change in the United States. Thank you for pointing this out. :happy:

@Louis-1988:

Uhm… you literally asked me "how would you be sure what does and doesn't work?" Why would you ask the question if you were going to give me this ridiculous reply when I answered? Maybe educate yourself a little bit by brushing up on what's being discussed before trying to pick a debate.

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.

He called twice for everyone to calm down. The father listened, the girl escalated the severity of her attack.

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.

Okay? Plenty of other people in this thread have though, and you came in very vague. You wanted to talk about "other solutions" without offering any yourself, so I took the liberty of going through what has been discussed already for you, since, you know, you can't be bothered to read the thread.

The thread is very long, and I was talking in general about solutions with nothing specific in mind. I should have clarified though.

Yes, I have tased people and been tased before myself. Not that that has anything to do with this thread at all and is entirely irrelevant.

And with this it shows that tasing is effective.

How do I know? You get ONE SHOT.

And I'm sure a trained police officer won't miss, it is the same as trying to dodge a bullet.

And on top of that, even if it does hit, here is your rate of effectiveness.

Yep. Here's your source. https://apps.npr.org/dailygraphics/graphics/tasers-departments-20190618/ Knowing you though, you probably think this stregthens your argument and that 54%-77% effectiveness (if your ONE SHOT even hits) are good enough odds to gamble a victims life on.

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.

are good enough odds to gamble a victims life on.

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.

Oh, you're sure huh? How do you know?

How are you so sure?

People ignore and don't hear gunshots all of the time.

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?

Her not being a "huge macho tough guy" doesn't mean anything. "huge macho tough guy" is not a mentality. There are hulk looking mfers out there who are total pussies and scrawny people with balls of steel all over this place. This is a ridiculous argument. You are basically saying the cop should have thought to himself "well, she doesn't look like a huge macho tough dude, so firing a warning shot will do the trick!".

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.

Really? That's the training you want police to receive? That's the litmus test on whether or not it's okay to use deadly force on someone trying to kill someone else?

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 are valid what ifs.

It is as valid as the police officer missing the gun shot. being sarcastic

Every time a bullet leaves the chamber, it poses a limited risk to everyone in the immediate vicinity even if they are not the intended target.

How do you know this? Are you a cop?

You don't draw and fire a gun carelessly. It has to be done with decisiveness and with minimal risk to innocents.

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.

Moving quickly and unpredictably that makes shooting at them extremely dangerous and unreliable.

Well, if they are already shot in the arm and flailing then the other person can run to safety. Well, for this situation.

The headline of the article I linked you literally says "police shoot knife wielding man dead in London".

I've provided sources for everything you've asked for. Now provide me ONE example of UK police disarming something with a knife who is actively trying to stab a third party. Just show me ONE.

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.

How is the officer supposed to know she was 16? Is he supposed to ask her how old she is while in the middle of attacking two people with a knife?

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.

Because teenagers listen to adults all the time, right? Because teenagers don't ignore danger all the time, right? You yourself just said "teens aren't very bright!" Not that any of this matters though.

I'm just saying in this type of situation a teenager would be more prone to listen compared to an adult.

The officer had to take decisive action to save a life.

This includes the girl he shot four times. Saving lives means even the criminal.

Huh?

Nevermind, I just got confused, as I felt it wasn't for me.

Is a teenagers carotid artery any less easy to sever? I'm confused.

People who are older are way more fragile than a teenager.

Is that why people fail all the time? According to the The American Association of Suicidology, for every completed suicide, 25 people failed. This means that it has a 90-92% rate of failure. Super effective if you ask me!

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.

Except your own hesitatation. When you are trying to kill someone, you are taking decisive action.

Okay, but it's harder to kill someone that is fighting back. That was the point I was trying to give.

How do studies showing that a person can die from a single knife wound help your argument? You said, "i'm sure the girl in pink would have died". How can you be sure of that when I've shown you examples of someone dying to one stab wound? You don't make any sense.

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 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?

Why does it matter how muscular she is?

Bullets hurt people with muscles too. Also, "a few shots" is at least 3, you understand that, right?

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.

Sure, i'll let an FBI agent answer explain it thoroughly to you. Though, I doubt you'll read it all and come back and ask the same questions: https://www.nola.com/news/crime_police/article_ae82835c-0212-5e50-a175-85601a1ed8bb.html

Reading the article:

and firing is necessary for self-defense.

This was stated in the article. In the situation we are talking about the cop shot a girl that was not even attacking him.

The ruling found that to determine if a shooting is justified, courts must consider the circumstances of the scenario to determine if the officer acted reasonably, given the situation, including a decision-making process that often takes place in a split second.

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.

Why don't police just shoot the gun out of a suspect's hand?

This part makes sense. It was a nice explanation why it works differently from the movies.

Why do police shoot so many times?

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.

Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."

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.

I keep saying this. but it's like you guys don't listen.

You're talking to me specifically, not the others.

I never said other methods wouldn't work.

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'm saying the fastest and most reliable way to ensure the victims safety (this is priority #1, nothing else) in this case was lethal force.

This includes all parties.

Is it without its own set of risks? Of course not, but those risks are minimal compared to your not nearly as reliable alternatives. A lot of your alternatives are based on faith and how you think the assailant will behave. Expectations =/= reality.

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."

If you gamble wrong, an innocent could lose their life. Not worth the risk.

But a person did lose their life. So, the cop gambled wrong.

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?

[Satsuki]

For those who think that the Chauvin trial will go to the Supreme Court:

[starlalilymoon]

@Satsuki:

For those who think that the Chauvin trial will go to the Supreme Court:

I'm glad. I saw the trial as pretty cut and dry, he clearly murdered the guy, no doubts about it. Like there's no point in even doing an appeal even, I sure hope he doesn't try to do that… crosses fingers

[The Franky Tank]

When it comes to policing, there's one simple thing that we should start with that would hopefully go a long way, and that's holding police acountable for their actions.

Every time a police officer kills a minority, the same cycle always comes up. There's the initial outcry and it seems like people are behind the victim, but within a short time frame the narrative is quickly shifted. The victim was no angel, there was something going on that put the officer in potential danger, if the victim didn't want to die they should've listened and/or not do the activity that caused them to get killed. The onus for the death is put on the victim, and the officer is pretty much cleared of any guilt. People love to spout the innocent until proven guilty on the part of the officer, but the victim is automatically assumed guilty and/or at fault because the officer had to be in the right.

Not every officer that kills someone needs to be charged with manslaughter or murder, as the circumstances can make it where in the heat of the moment it was understandable. However, when it comes to most of the high profile cases that get latched on to, shooting the person and killing them was far beyond anything they needed to do. There was the 13 year old kid that got shot, who had tossed the gun he had and posed no visible threat, yet was still shot and killed. It shouldn't take long investigations and a law suit for some sort of action against the officer to be take, the department the officer is part of should take swift action. Outside of Chauvin for an extreme case where the victim was chocked to death, officers get off and nothing really happens. Put in the fact that officers are known to back each other up and defend each other, and prosecutors work closely with the police, true accountability is practically impossible until huge changes are made, which elected officials with the time and resources to make that a reality need to get that done.

On a final note, I see so many times the idea that the victim didn't listen and if they did they would be alive. That's a pretty shitty thing to say that because they didn't listen they deserved to get shot. People may not say that directly, but it's pretty much implied by that. There are so many things going on that blaming the victim for no listening is such a stupid thing to be saying. In any situation with the police you are going to be on edge, and other factors may be stopping you from thinking clearly. Using the girl with the knife, she was bullied and if she had a knife in her hand she was clearly not going to be thinking completely logical, which even at people's best we don't think 100% logically. There's also the fact that police officers get heated and they themselves either don't give the clearest instructions, and at times give conflicting instructions. There was someone who was killed who was already on the ground because the instructions given conflicted, and a small movement of their arm was somehow enough to make the officer feel threatened and shot the victim, killing them. So yeah, screw the idea that the victim not listening makes it their fault.

[wolfwood]

Sometimes it feels like the conflicting instructions are intentional to give themselves openings

[Green_vs_Red]

@The:

On a final note, I see so many times the idea that the victim didn't listen and if they did they would be alive. That's a pretty shitty thing to say that because they didn't listen they deserved to get shot. People may not say that directly, but it's pretty much implied by that. There are so many things going on that blaming the victim for no listening is such a stupid thing to be saying. In any situation with the police you are going to be on edge, and other factors may be stopping you from thinking clearly. Using the girl with the knife, she was bullied and if she had a knife in her hand she was clearly not going to be thinking completely logical, which even at people's best we don't think 100% logically. There's also the fact that police officers get heated and they themselves either don't give the clearest instructions, and at times give conflicting instructions.

Or decide even if an individual is complying with their orders shoot them cause “they don’t know.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Charles_Kinsey

[Louis-1988]

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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?

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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?

@starlalilymoon:

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.

https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/05/09/when-tasers-fail
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/taser-vs-gun-why-police-choose-deadly-force-despite-non-n656461

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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?

@starlalilymoon:

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?

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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….
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/warning-shot-ricochets-hits-12-year-old-boy-st-louis-crime/63-6b3d7dcc-4490-4938-bb15-3d2403fab1f4

Cops agree as well.
https://www.police1.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/why-warning-shots-are-a-terrible-idea-Hh7RijmSYS9lCrow/

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.”

@starlalilymoon:

The same can be said about any other weapon. Which includes a taser.

Nope.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

https://media.tegna-media.com/assets/WBNS/images/e5e48bff-a63b-423a-9fae-4cb231d2907d/e5e48bff-a63b-423a-9fae-4cb231d2907d_1920x1080.jpg

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?

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

You're talking to me specifically, not the others.

You're saying the same things they are. I'm talking to all of you.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

This includes all parties.

Nope. Your life is not the priority when you are trying to kill someone else.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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.

@starlalilymoon:

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?

[Medical Orbit]

This is probably a question in the same tier as "Why can't we just print more money?", and it comes from not knowing anything about the details of the immigration process, but why does it take years with neverending piles of paperwork? I don't really understand why you're not allowed to just pack your bags, go to another country, and buy a house there if that's what you want to do.

[pariston_hill]

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089

London strategic plan to fight knife crimes
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mopac_knife_crime_strategy_june_2017.pdf

Adult man with a chef's knife put down with pepper spray and batons.

Teased and arrest, a person that actually commented assault with a knife.

And another one of a machete man being disarmed by a wall of shields.

You don't draw and fire a gun carelessly. It has to be done with decisiveness and with minimal risk to innocents.

This is a complete mockery and travesty of how the institution of police force in the whole America continent was built, whom it protects, whom it targets with the LAW, whom it target with extreme prejudice, and how unprepared and untrained they are.
Of the top 10 countries with the highest police killing civilians we have 4 in Americas (Brazil with 5660 (2020), Venezuela 5287 (2018), USA 1146 (2019) and El Salvador 1087 (2017) ) The only other countries with a 1k+ death toll are Philippines under Duterte rule, Syria and India.

But since I think arguing further with you is like "punching a knife's pint", I cease.
Have a good day sir, and with that I really don't mean it.

[Kirbycide]

I don’t know for sure, since Louis seems to try his best to make his political identity hard to pin down. But here’s what I see: Louis isn’t a far right ideologist, he’s worse. He’s a libertarian.

Don’t bother arguing with him, because for all he tries to make himself out to be a rational thinker, he has a ridiculous amount of tunnel vision. He willfully and blatantly ignores others when they poke at the holes in his arguments, instead focusing on semantic debates with those who don’t use as clear language as him. He only picks fights he thinks he can win and, unlike a truly rational person, will never change his mind when presented with solid counter arguments and/or evidence.

[Louis-1988]

@pariston_hill:

[qimg]https://static.prisonpolicy.org/images/policekillings_total.webp[/qimg]
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/

[qimg]https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1632/idt2/idt2/4c9eb466-4a74-4e24-8d09-f0cbb182bb5a/image/816[/qimg]
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089

London strategic plan to fight knife crimes
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mopac_knife_crime_strategy_june_2017.pdf

Adult man with a chef's knife put down with pepper spray and batons.

Teased and arrest, a person that actually commented assault with a knife.

And another one of a machete man being disarmed by a wall of shields.

This is a complete mockery and travesty of how the institution of police force in the whole America continent was built, whom it protects, whom it targets with the LAW, whom it target with extreme prejudice, and how unprepared and untrained they are.
Of the top 10 countries with the highest police killing civilians we have 4 in Americas (Brazil with 5660 (2020), Venezuela 5287 (2018), USA 1146 (2019) and El Salvador 1087 (2017) ) The only other countries with a 1k+ death toll are Philippines under Duterte rule, Syria and India.

But since I think arguing further with you is like "punching a knife's pint", I cease.
Have a good day sir, and with that I really don't mean it.

Your chart is absurd. How do they differentiate attempted murder and assault when it comes to knives? Any of you critical thinkers care to explain to me why someone would attack someone else with a knife if they aren’t trying to kill them? Why not just use your fists?

I have seen all of these videos. None of them show any UK police officers taking down someone taking down a knife wielding suspect who is in the middle of assaulting a third-party. That’s the video or article I need you to find.

I’m having a fantastic day, actually! Just bulk sold some anime figures for about $3600 and my dog is looking dapper after his grooming! Gonna hop on Twitch a bit later, stream to about 40 people and make even more money playing video games. Thank you for the well wishes and I hope your day goes amazing as well.

And with that. I accept your concession.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Kirbycide:

I don’t know for sure, since Louis seems to try his best to make his political identity hard to pin down. But here’s what I see: Louis isn’t a far right ideologist, he’s worse. He’s a libertarian.

Don’t bother arguing with him, because for all he tries to make himself out to be a rational thinker, he has a ridiculous amount of tunnel vision. He willfully and blatantly ignores others when they poke at the holes in his arguments, instead focusing on semantic debates with those who don’t use as clear language as him. He only picks fights he thinks he can win and, unlike a truly rational person, will never change his mind when presented with solid counter arguments and/or evidence.

Hey little fella! It’s been a while. Hope you’ve been well!

There’s nothing hard to pin down on my politics. I will clearly and concisely tell you where I stand on any issue.

You can’t pull that nonsense here. Who have I ignored in this thread? I’ve responded to all of you specifically because you accuse me of not doing doing so in the past. The reason I used to respond to only a 1-2 of you before is because this place is an echo chamber. Most of you are likeminded and don’t really disagree on anything so I figured debating just a couple of you would suffice. It’s far more tedious to talk to a bunch of people, but that’s exactly what I’ve done here. I have not missed a single one of your posts. Everything about what you’ve written here is quite simply false.

I literally want you to change my mind. I have asked repeatedly for one of you to bring me a video of UK police taking down an assailant mid knife swing on a civilian non-lethally. My mind is open. Please prove me wrong.

[Kirbycide]

First, I'd like to say that it's frankly astonishing that you continue to feign offence when other people are "rude" to you, while also incessantly trolling and insulting others. Double standards, much?

Louis, no one here is able to effectively argue against you, because your argument is too specific, too restrictive. You say that the police must first and foremost defend the innocent, even at the risk of killing others, and that it is not only in their training, but well within their legal rights. Fine.

But that's not what other people are arguing against. What other people have repeatedly been saying is that the US police force has a huge problem with overuse of deadly force, in an extremely wide variety of situations. Not just when subduing would be knife wielding attackers, though further investigation may reveal that this particular situation is also an example of said overuse. You have constructed a very specific instance where deadly force might be worthwhile, and are using it to say that its use is necessary and must not be criticized, analyzed, or possibly corrected.

Yes, the police are here to protect and serve the communities that they work for, but they are not everyone's personal bodyguards. Their priorities are to enforce the law, to identify and apprehend criminals, and to collect and record evidence of wrongdoing. If they can, they should also try to prevent laws from being broken, but at what cost? Is it right that they can act as judge, jury, and executioner without being held accountable when they go too far? Isn't it the slightest bit disturbing to you that civilians are gunned down by police in the US at such an incredibly high rate? Doesn't it bother you that so many of the police who do so are repeat offenders who have consistently avoided prosecution or punishment for their misuse of deadly force? Is it right that police frequently kill people on the spot rather than apprehend them so that they can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? Is it reasonable?

You also keep saying that everyone else is wrong to "assume" that racism plays a role in this specific instance. But that's just asinine. Racism is and has been a huge part of American culture since its inception, and for that reason it is incredibly important that we ask meaningful questions about how racial bias is reflected in the (over)use of deadly force by police in America. No one assumes that the officer is racist when they ask entirely legitimate questions about whether race played a role here. Rather, they are acknowledging the uncomfortable truth that racial bias exists in every person, whether they are aware of it or not, and that in America this statistically shows up in the rate at which police feel threatened and, thus, justified in their (over)use of deadly force.

Anyway, I don't personally have much stake in this debate, and I definitely have no desire to continue to address your arguments, since, as I see it, they are always made in bad faith.

Good luck with selling your anime figurines, weirdo.

[Louis-1988]

@Kirbycide:

First, I'd like to say that it's frankly astonishing that you continue to feign offence when other people are "rude" to you, while also incessantly trolling and insulting others. Double standards, much?

If you pay attention, you'll notice that I never cast the first stone. I don't insult anyone unless you come at me first. I reciprocate the energy I receive. How is that a double standard? If you don't want to get it thrown back in your face, just focus on discussing the issue I came to discuss. I'm not offended by anything you say, by the way.

@Kirbycide:

Louis, no one here is able to effectively argue against you, because your argument is too specific, too restrictive. You say that the police must first and foremost defend the innocent, even at the risk of killing others, and that it is not only in their training, but well within their legal rights. Fine.

I know.

Yes.

Again yes.

That being said, obviously I prefer literally every other option under the sun, within reason given the specific context of every individual situation to be attempted before a gun a drawn and fired. This situation all unfolded very, very quickly. The officer attempted to de-escalate, but the issue escalated at such a speed that he immediately had to resort to the lethal option.

@Kirbycide:

But that's not what other people are arguing against. What other people have repeatedly been saying is that the US police force has a huge problem with overuse of deadly force, in an extremely wide variety of situations. Not just when subduing would be knife wielding attackers, though further investigation may reveal that this particular situation is also an example of said overuse. You have constructed a very specific instance where deadly force might be worthwhile, and are using it to say that its use is necessary and must not be criticized, analyzed, or possibly corrected.

I'm debating this specific issue.

No. My opponents in this thread are all arguing with me that the assailant did not need to be taken down with a gun.

If you want to talk about overuse of force and criticizing how often police resort to a gun when they could instead use a taser, we can. In fact, I'd probably be right there with you. In the videos pariston linked above, I disagree wholeheartedly with how those officers took down those men with knives. That's not the debate here though.

@Kirbycide:

Yes, the police are here to protect and serve the communities that they work for, but they are not everyone's personal bodyguards. Their priorities are to enforce the law, to identify and apprehend criminals, and to collect and record evidence of wrongdoing. If they can, they should also try to prevent laws from being broken, but at what cost? Is it right that they can act as judge, jury, and executioner without being held accountable when they go too far? Isn't it the slightest bit disturbing to you that civilians are gunned down by police in the US at such an incredibly high rate? Doesn't it bother you that so many of the police who do so are repeat offenders who have consistently avoided prosecution or punishment for their misuse of deadly force? Is it right that police frequently kill people on the spot rather than apprehend them so that they can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? Is it reasonable?

I don't think he went too far here. His hand was forced.

Sure. I don't disagree.

It depends on the situation. Often times it is reasonable. Sometimes it isn't. Everything is case by case.

@Kirbycide:

You also keep saying that everyone else is wrong to "assume" that racism plays a role in this specific instance. But that's just asinine. Racism is and has been a huge part of American culture since its inception, and for that reason it is incredibly important that we ask meaningful questions about how racial bias is reflected in the (over)use of deadly force by police in America. No one assumes that the officer is racist when they ask entirely legitimate questions about whether race played a role here. Rather, they are acknowledging the uncomfortable truth that racial bias exists in every person, whether they are aware of it or not, and that in America this statistically shows up in the rate at which police feel threatened and, thus, justified in their (over)use of deadly force.

What do you know about this man, specifically this man, that leads you to believe he is a racist and shot her because she was black? Because that's what some of you were suggesting earlier in this thread. He shot her in accordance with what the law allows, and how all officers, regardless of their race or the races of the suspects they are taking down are trained to do.

The onus is on you to prove that.

Of course it does. For example: I am black, I enjoying black and would not want to be anything other than what I am. Doesn't mean that just because I like being black that I'm going to treat others differently. Generally, I value all human life the same. Are some cops racist? Of course, but all we're seeing here is standard procedure. You can't possibly deduce from standard procedure that the cop is racist without knowing anything about him. I'm 99% sure that he would have taken down a white assailant just the same.

@Kirbycide:

Anyway, I don't personally have much stake in this debate, and I definitely have no desire to continue to address your arguments, since, as I see it, they are always made in bad faith.

You're wrong about that, but good talk!

@Kirbycide:

Good luck with selling your anime figurines, weirdo.

What's weird about a business selling a product? :wassat:

[Johnny B. Decent]

Gentlemen, there is only one way for a debate like this to end with honor.

THE THUNDERDOME!

[starlalilymoon]

@Louis-1988:

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 was being polite… and I'm sure other forum members who have agree that I am. I never pretended to do anything...

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?

I didn't mean literally everyone though. I meant like like having a talk to the people as a whole and not individually.

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?

Well, you can have many cops with many taser guns, so if one misses, the other one can recharge, while the other cops use their tasers. Does not have to be one cop doing all the work. So, this reduces the need to shoot, especially if you have a crowd of cops trying to use their tasers, I doubt all of them will miss. And yes with multiple cops the odds go up even higher making things easier.

https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/05/09/when-tasers-fail
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/taser-vs-gun-why-police-choose-deadly-force-despite-non-n656461

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.

Well, as I stated above = more cops means better chance of dealing with this without using a gun. Also, in the apm reports link, it said it is never actually investigated why it is not as effective as hoped. And from what I got from that article it goes from what the police officers are saying, and they may or may not be inflating their responses because they feel like using guns is better. It can explain why the % is different across different cities in the United States for effectiveness. If it is investigated further, we can make change and save even more lives.

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 keep lowering the % of effectiveness. As I stated above it can be more than one cop at the scene. More cops = more tasers = very less chance of anyone dying by the hands of a cop.

When you ignore peaceful de-escalation attempts and attack someone with lethal force, your life is no longer the priority. The innocent is.

There was no peaceful de-escalation attempts. The cop literally pulled out his gun instead of anything else. He never even thought to de-escalate. Telling someone to just calm down is not de-escalation, that can actually make things worse. There are better ways to de-escalate the situation.

What makes you think a warning shot is going to stop someone in their tracks? The movies?

It would stop me and most rational people. So, a very high percentage.

Movies on the other hand have your way of thinking way more often, which is to shoot the target till it's down.

"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."

Yet in other countries these situations are solved without the use of a gun. Also, the effectiveness of a taser increases with more cops on the scene.

Great idea, Lily.

Thank you! It is a great idea indeed, and more lives can be saved. :happy:

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.

Not what other countries have shown (Thanks to pariston_hill for providing with this.):

!

What does this have to do with our debate? I'm talking about the police.

I mentioned this because it was a response to what you said:

You don't draw and fire a gun carelessly. It has to be done with decisiveness and with minimal risk to innocents.

And I countered and point out examples where this is rarely ever done. Most people don't know how to use a gun properly.

You can't reliably land a shot on an arm or leg as easily as you can on center mass.

https://media.tegna-media.com/assets/WBNS/images/e5e48bff-a63b-423a-9fae-4cb231d2907d/e5e48bff-a63b-423a-9fae-4cb231d2907d_1920x1080.jpg

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?

But I'm talking about if she was already shot. You misunderstood me there, I was not talking about the effectiveness of shooting an arm or a leg.

I said and I quote: "Well, if they are already shot in the arm and flailing then the other person can run to safety. Well, for this situation."

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.

But I already said – Cops don't have guns in the UK expect near Parliament. Does this not prove to you that the situations are solved without the use of lethal force?

If you really want a source look at the videos that pariston_hill posted. That should be more than enough. Like I don't understand why you need an example when police in the UK and Japan for that matter don't have guns on them in 99% of the country. Why does this not show you that "Hey, these cops are doing stuff that cops here don't, but it's better and more effective than the U.S. way of handling these situations."

When you're trying to kill someone in front of a police officer. Your life in that moment is not the priority.

Actually, the priority is to keep everyone alive no matter what, even if one is trying to kill another, their life is just as important.

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.

Except in our situation, the teenager was not aiming for the neck, but the arm.

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.

…. huh? This has nothing to do with my feelings. I was talking about the three sources you showed me of examples of how a knife can kill you. I can't read them fully because they seem to be essay papers/studies, and I only have an abstract that just gives a summary. I mean it's pretty clear cut what I was talking about.

If I didn't care what you thought, do you think I'd be debating you?

You don't seem to care about my side though. You just brush it off and think I'm just wrong. I'm here listening to you and being polite, but you verbally attacking me like I harmed you. I understand your points, but I don't think people need to die even if it is the "most effective way."

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.

Again… why should I provide a source -- when police in the UK don't carry guns except for Parliament. Does this not show you that hey the situations there are handled differently than the United States?

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.

I say I have a few if it's two. I don't really say couple as it feels bigger to me.

Nope. It doesn't help you case at all.

It does, but okay.

The article agrees with me that 4 shots is reasonable. Not you.

It never said it was reasonable, it said it was the norm. This is two different things.

Slow down. You haven't provided a source for that yet. I'm still waiting.

Again – cops don't use guns in the UK except for Parliament. If they don't use guns, they do other methods. This is very simple to understand.

It was attempted.

They tried with what little time the assailant gave them before pulling a knife and trying to kill people with it.

Then it was attempted extremely poorly and was not very effective because he didn't even try.

And it's like you didn't watch the video and see that this all unfolded in like 10 seconds or less.

This did unfold in a few seconds. From the moment the cop came, pulled out his gun, and shot the girl.

You're saying the same things they are. I'm talking to all of you.

Except I'm not them, and I don't want to be treated as such. I am my own person.

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.

Except they can be reliable, and I mentioned examples of multiple cops using tasers to subdue someone. And if you watch the videos pariston_hill posted, you can see cops subduing people with knives without the use of a firearm. So, this disproves that it is reliable since there is actual footage of it being handled. Even though I don't need to share footage because the UK cops don't have guns except for Parliament so it shows me that they do other ways, and I don't need to see footage of how it's done to believe it.

Nope. Your life is not the priority when you are trying to kill someone else.

Wrong. The priority is to keep everyone alive.

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.

Again, you misunderstand what I was talking about. I was using what you were saying to debunk the idea:

A lot of your alternatives are based on faith and how you think the assailant will behave. Expectations =/= reality.

If he uses a less reliable alternative, there's a good chance that girl gets a knife to her neck.

But she was not aiming for the neck, but the shoulder/arm. I seen the footage and I even rewatched to make this point.

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.

I see. :sad:

How about you?

Hmm, actually I would be cool if the officer did their job properly and tried their best to actually fix the situation instead of jumping to kill another human being. I know for me personally, I would be traumatized that a cop killed someone to save my life, and I'm sure my loved ones would have been too.

Anyways, this conversation was fun, but let's just agree to disagree and compromise. Thanks for chatting to me about this topic, and it made me learn more about your thoughts on this situation, and why you think the way you do, even if I disagree 100% with most of your ideas on how things should be handled. I have proof that other countries didn't have to kill someone to subdue them and I know it be the same here once we get some changes done. Be writing a lot of letters to Biden, my senators, my local officials, etc. to fix this situation. I know they will at least listen and give things a try. Have a nice day Mr. Louis! :happy:

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Kirbycide:

I don’t know for sure, since Louis seems to try his best to make his political identity hard to pin down. But here’s what I see: Louis isn’t a far right ideologist, he’s worse. He’s a libertarian.

Um…. I think it's a bad idea to give people labels without asking them first. Nothing wrong with an libertarian though. I knew libertarians and they never acted how Louis was to me.

@Kirbycide:

First, I'd like to say that it's frankly astonishing that you continue to feign offence when other people are "rude" to you, while also incessantly trolling and insulting others. Double standards, much?

I know the feeling. I was just being polite and it feels like he's being super aggressive to me like I did something wrong…

Yes, the police are here to protect and serve the communities that they work for, but they are not everyone's personal bodyguards. Their priorities are to enforce the law, to identify and apprehend criminals, and to collect and record evidence of wrongdoing. If they can, they should also try to prevent laws from being broken, but at what cost? Is it right that they can act as judge, jury, and executioner without being held accountable when they go too far? Isn't it the slightest bit disturbing to you that civilians are gunned down by police in the US at such an incredibly high rate? Doesn't it bother you that so many of the police who do so are repeat offenders who have consistently avoided prosecution or punishment for their misuse of deadly force? Is it right that police frequently kill people on the spot rather than apprehend them so that they can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? Is it reasonable?

I agree with all of this. The police are not our personal bodyguards. They are here to uphold the law, and that means it includes them too. There is no reason for them to even try to kill people or use deathly force all the time. Other countries have done this – not use lethal force all the time, and it's time for the United States to do the same. Change how the police are in this country, etc. I really hope things change... more lives can be saved honestly. I really need to start writing letters to the government folks on all levels, I probably start working on it after I move. Maybe even protest but I'm too scared to do that because of my social anxiety... I just wish I could do more to help.. :sad:

--- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Louis-1988:

If you pay attention, you'll notice that I never cast the first stone. I don't insult anyone unless you come at me first. I reciprocate the energy I receive. How is that a double standard? If you don't want to get it thrown back in your face, just focus on discussing the issue I came to discuss. I'm not offended by anything you say, by the way.

I never once insulted or called you names, yet you came at me extremely aggressive like I did… in some of the things we were talking about.

[Louis-1988]

@starlalilymoon:

I never once insulted or called you names, yet you came at me extremely aggressive like I did… in some of the things we were talking about.

@starlalilymoon:

I was being polite… and I'm sure other forum members who have agree that I am. I never pretended to do anything...

@starlalilymoon:

I knew libertarians and they never acted how Louis was to me.

@starlalilymoon:

I know the feeling. I was just being polite and it feels like he's being super aggressive to me like I did something wrong…

You keep pressing this victim issue. I will DM you about it. The rest I will reply to later. I have to start streaming soon.

[starlalilymoon]

@Louis-1988:

You keep pressing this victim issue. I will DM you about it. The rest I will reply to later. I have to start streaming soon.

Well, I'm just seeing how you are treating me. I'm not doing a victim issue at all. I'm just being polite and your way of communication was pretty aggressive towards me. I'm just being honest in how I feel, that's all.

Good luck with your stream though! :happy: