Getting my second Pfizer shot Thursday… it feels like the light at the end of the tunnel is visible.
Here's to hoping your side effects are minimal! Congrats.
Throughout this month, we will be testing new features (like search) so you may experience some hiccups from time to time. We'll try to not be too disruptive...
Getting my second Pfizer shot Thursday… it feels like the light at the end of the tunnel is visible.
Here's to hoping your side effects are minimal! Congrats.
Wasn't Twitch being far more restrictive than Youtube by banning you for saying words like Simp?
Yes and no. As a Twitch streamer myself, people in my chat say it all of the time. I also use it occasionally.
However, the use of the word itself is not banned. You just cannot use it in a derogatory context. Same goes for incel and virgin. I've got a pretty nice little community and ever since (and before) it was soft-banned back in January, we haven't had an issues with people trying to make others feel bad with it. It's kind of like the N word. You can say the N word and use it in chats without the hard R (hard R is banned period, no matter the context), but if you say it with intent to hurt someone it becomes an issue.
One Piece WCF Wanokuni Kaisouhen Vol. 3 :wub::wub::wub:
These looks wonderful!! Except Jozu, he was much cuter in the manga as a kid. xD
Hello guys, Im 28 and i love it )))
I'm jealous! 28 was such a fun age.
I'll be 32 in July.
Can't wait to get this second shot so I can start returning to normalcy!
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.
I was being polite… and I'm sure other forum members who have agree that I am. I never pretended to do anything...
I knew libertarians and they never acted how Louis was to me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Good luck with selling your anime figurines, weirdo.
What's weird about a business selling a product? :wassat:
London strategic plan to fight knife crimes
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 ---
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.
Hmm, because I saw a few posts on the page before I posted. No need to be a dick about it. I'm just being polite and you acting like I attacked you or something.
You were not being polite. You asked me a question and I answered you very clearly. You decide to then pretend that you didn't ask said question. You Say stupid things, get stupid replies. Very simple concept.
I did not see this in the body cam footage. It seems to be hard to find any. It didn't have any volume to it though. And from what you saying though, that isn't de-escalation to me at all. De-escalation would be more like trying to talk to everyone and ask what is going on. Telling someone to calm down won't do anything most of the time.
You do understand that this all happened within seconds of his arriving, do you not? Are you suggesting to me, that while this girl is attacking people with knives, the cop tries to "talk to everyone" to see what's going on?
The thread is very long, and I was talking in general about solutions with nothing specific in mind. I should have clarified though.
Yes, you should have.
And with this it shows that tasing is effective.
So you're okay with a median success rate of 60% assuming the ONE shot you get with it hits? These are "good enough" odds for you when it comes to whether or not a girl may end up permanently maimed or dead from a knife attack?
And I'm sure a trained police officer won't miss, it is the same as trying to dodge a bullet.
Except they miss plenty.
"The same as trying to dodge a bullet"? Tasers are far slower and less accurate than bullets.
But a year-long investigation by APM Reports shows that police rate Tasers as considerably less effective. Data from some of the largest police departments in the nation reveals that officers rate their Tasers as effective as little as 55 percent of the time, or just a little better than a coin flip. When Tasers fail to subdue someone, the results can be life-threatening — for police, and especially for the public.
You really read that and think to yourself. "Good enough for me!"?
You basically just said you're okay with flipping a coin between who should die. The victim or the assailant. That's not good enough for me.
“So many shootings involve an inefficient Taser first,” said Peter Moskos, a former Baltimore police officer and professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “They often don’t work, and then what?”
From a practical perspective, police officers need to be within a relative mid-range, as far as 15 and 25 feet, in order to use a Taser. But if a subject is too close, then a Taser wouldn’t be effective either.
And it does strengthen my argument. It shows that it works most of the time, and especially with this scenario it would or would have not worked.
You being okay with there being a 40% chance of it not working and being okay with the victim dying as a result is unsettling.
You say this, but the girl with the knife is a victim as well. Her life is being gambled too, so it counts just as much as the other girl.
When you ignore peaceful de-escalation attempts and attack someone with lethal force, your life is no longer the priority. The innocent is.
How are you so sure?
I'm not. You ARE sure though. You're CERTAIN the girl would stop when the shots are fired. Your words, not mine. I'm asking you what if she doesn't stop and continues her assault?
Um…. you are kidding right? Were you in a type of situation where you were shooting someone with a gun or vice versa? And did you or them ignore it?
What makes you think a warning shot is going to stop someone in their tracks? The movies?
You are misunderstanding me. When you shoot multiple shots, it is like in a video game, and there's huge monsters and stuff. In real life, it's not like this at all. Human beings are fragile creatures, some might enhance their muscles to gain more endurance like with the huge macho part. I was basically mentioning that, and not how they act their personality but their built.
So because she's not macho it should require less bullets to take her down you're saying? That argument would is just as stupid as me saying something like he had to shoot more because she's fat. Neither of these things are true. He shot until the threat was neutralized. Body type has nothing to do with it.
Why should the police officer always jump to deadly force? Deadly force is not the answer all the time. What is wrong with trying out new ways to protect even more people which includes the person who is acting irrationally?
They don't. Plenty of cases are resolved non-lethally. They just don't make the news.
"Hey sheriff, today if someone gets attacked with a lethal weapon, I'm gonna try out my taser that has a 60% success rate and tomorrow I might try out a couple of new grappling techniques I learned in jiujitsu class last week. We'll just shop around and tell the victims families "sorry, we're trying out new things" if any of them die as a result."
Great idea, Lily.
It is as valid as the police officer missing the gun shot. being sarcastic
You can't get around the fact that a gun is the most reliable way to guarantee a victims life in the face of a lethal threat.
How do you know this? Are you a cop?
Apart from it being common sense that there is a risk to everyone in the immediate vicinity when you fire a gun….
Cops agree as well.
2. Any bullet leaving a muzzle poses a threatOn the matter of a warning shot not posing “a substantial risk of injury or death,” in a dynamic, rapidly unfolding, high-stress, deadly-threat situation there is not time to survey the area and wonder, “What is in my immediate area that I can shoot (‘a defined target’ as stated by the consensus policy) which will not cause any injury?”
Recall that the second basic rule of firearms handling is “never point a gun at anything you are unwilling to lose forever” so that eliminates a whole host of environmental targets — actually, that takes away all of them.
So, that gives us the ground and the sky. A shot fired directly into the ground has a high probability of sending bullet fragments in all sorts of directions (including the cop’s ankles), and a bullet fired into the air will eventually return to earth, either at terminal velocity or with the refiling spin intact and at a much higher rate of speed.
Warning shots also fly in the face of another basic tenant: Officers are responsible for every round they shoot. This opens the door for the following: “I didn’t miss him, Sarge. Those were warning shots.”
The same can be said about any other weapon. Which includes a taser.
Also, there are many people who buy guns and use them carelessly – usually the ones that shoot up places or schools. I doubt they were trained.
What does this have to do with our debate? I'm talking about the police.
Well, if they are already shot in the arm and flailing then the other person can run to safety. Well, for this situation.
You can't reliably land a shot on an arm or leg as easily as you can on center mass.
Lets say the cop shoots at her arm right here. if he doesn't miraculously hit it while it's flailing around, guess whose getting shot?
Yes, that's what the headline said, but if you read the article it says that many police in the UK don't even have guns on them except the ones near Parliament. That's my evidence right there, since there is no reason for me to find a source if it already stated in the one presented. I say this because if the police don't have guns, that means they probably use some other methods to help in these type of situations.
You have asked for plenty of sources from me, which I obliged and provided zero of your own. I'm asking you for one thing. Now show me.
What other methods? Show me what method they use for this -exact- situation. I just showed you that they shot a man wielding a knife. That wasn't an accident. They did so because there was no other alternative. Now again, show me your source. Show me where they disarm someone attacking a civilian mid-knife swing without lethal force. Stop avoiding it. Show me.
I never said anything about the officer. I was just saying in general about her being a teenager and not being very bright with decision-making. Plus, I did my own what if against your what if.
Your "what ifs" are not rooted in logic though. I literally provided you a source earlier "what if a bullet ricochets and hits someone else?" I provided a source for it. Your what if is simply "Well what if the knife doesn't kill her?" That's not good enough. You say that as if the victims life isn't in the mortal danger that she is very much in.
I'm just saying in this type of situation a teenager would be more prone to listen compared to an adult.
No. You said you're SURE she would listen. Tell me how you know that without a shadow of a doubt.
This includes the girl he shot four times. Saving lives means even the criminal.
When you're trying to kill someone in front of a police officer. Your life in that moment is not the priority.
People who are older are way more fragile than a teenager.
Old or young, if a teenager jabs a knife into your neck as hard as they can, you have a pretty good chance of dying.
I'm saying providing me a source that says it is a suicide does not help the case in a homicide, as it is two different things.
You said people try their best to make suicide effective as possible. That's just not true. 90%-92% fail at it and even successful ones autopsy's show signs of hesitation.
Okay, but it's harder to kill someone that is fighting back. That was the point I was trying to give.
Irrelevant. It still only takes one good jab. When you're assaulting someone with a deadly weapon in front of a police officer, your life is not the priority in that moment. "Well the victim is fighting back sooo…" Is not, and should never be a part of an officers thought process when he should be taking decisive action to save the victim. It's not the victims job to save herself, it's the officers.
You provided me three links to three different studies, I think they are studies anyway because they are essay papers about the topic. I want to read the whole thing, but I only have access to the abstract. I just want to read the studies so I understand.
I want you to provide sources instead of feelings. Can't always get what we want though, so these will have to do for you.
I do have a question for you though. Do you only care about what your side thinks or do you look at both sides to see the big picture? What is wrong with changing how things wrong if other places have done that like the UK?
If I didn't care what you thought, do you think I'd be debating you?
If I didn't care what you thought, do you think I'd be asking you for just ONE source from the UK of them resolving this exact type of situation with no one dying? I want to be proven wrong. Show me ONE example. ONE source.
As I said above, she is a human being, human beings are fragile, depending on the age more fragile then others. In a video game, you try to kill monsters that can take a lot of hits. In real life this is never the case, unless the person is wearing a bullet-vest to protect themselves. And a few shots to me is one or two, not four.
Doesn't matter if humans are fragile. When pumped up with a half dozen different emotions and adrenaline, you don't always go down with one shot. Plenty of cases where the police shoot someone once or twice and they don't stop. Do you need sources for that too?
A "few" means "not many, but more than one". It can be as low as two, but most people think three or more. When you have 2 M&M's in the palm of your hand, do you say a few or a couple? Most say couple. If I have 3 or 4, I say "I have a few M&M's in my hand.
This is talking about if a shooting was justified in the article. Four shots in not reasonable. The officer in question did make a reasonable decision to get his gun, but it was not reasonable to shoot the girl four times. This actually helps me case and not yours.
Nope. It doesn't help you case at all.
My article literally says this:
Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.
If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
The article agrees with me that 4 shots is reasonable. Not you.
I read this section, it does make sense, but it feels very violent and needs to be revised. At least there is an explanation on why this is done. But if other options are explored things can be even better, and cops can protect even the bad person with a knife. Again, as you seen, cops don't use guns in the UK unless it's by Parliament. If they learned ways to deal without using deadly force like against a knife, then we can do the same.
Slow down. You haven't provided a source for that yet. I'm still waiting.
This was not done in our current situation. The situation was not being de-escalated, and if what you said was true about saying to calm down, that really is not de-escalation or actually trying to calm everyone down. Telling someone to calm down won't calm them down. It's like the cop didn't know how to properly de-escalate.
It was attempted.
They tried with what little time the assailant gave them before pulling a knife and trying to kill people with it.
And it's like you didn't watch the video and see that this all unfolded in like 10 seconds or less.
You're talking to me specifically, not the others.
You're saying the same things they are. I'm talking to all of you.
The way you said it sounded like those methods won't work. You tried to debunk them and you won't even give them a chance.
I never said they won't work. I said they aren't as reliable as a gun. If this were a fist fight, I'd be right there with you on grappling, tasing, pepper spray, etc. It wasn't though. Someone was trying to kill someone else in front of a police officer. When an innocents life is at stake, you don't gamble on it with less reliable methods.
This includes all parties.
Nope. Your life is not the priority when you are trying to kill someone else.
But it is also risky to use a gun too. A gun is also used how the assailant would behave. Assuming someone with a knife is gonna kill you is "based on faith that they gonna kill you."
I never said it wasn't risky.
Why the fuck else would you attack someone with a knife if you aren't trying to kill them??? There's nothing "faith based" about that. EVERYONE knows knives can kill people, HAVE killed people and WILL kill more people in the future.
But a person did lose their life. So, the cop gambled wrong.
The assailant was neutralized and no one else was hurt. Cop gambled correctly. If he uses a less reliable alternative, there's a good chance that girl gets a knife to her neck.
I do have a question. How would you feel if the person that got shot many times was your friend? Your family member? Would you still be saying the same things?
Emotionally? I'd be devastated about losing a loved one regardless of what they did.
Rationally? I'd feel the exact same way I do now and think the exact same thing.
How about you? Would you be cool with an officer calmly telling you that the reason your friend or family member is dead on the floor is because he just "felt like trying something different and it didn't work out because it's less effective and that the guy who killed them life is just as important to save"? You could accept that explanation and feel no ill-will towards the officer?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm confused by this. It feels like it is a copy paste….
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.