Posts made by Louis-1988

@Demon:

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.

@KageKageKing:

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.

@redon:

One Piece WCF Wanokuni Kaisouhen Vol. 3 :wub::wub::wub:

https://images2.imgbox.com/4c/b0/TapznP0A_o.jpg
https://images2.imgbox.com/05/54/ZHRwcye5_o.jpg
https://images2.imgbox.com/90/04/sskR7YpO_o.jpg

These looks wonderful!! Except Jozu, he was much cuter in the manga as a kid. xD

@SarahNolan:

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!

@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.

@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:

@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.

@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?

@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.

@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.

@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.

@pariston_hill:

You seen, TTM bones are dust but his tank top suffered not injuries, so is no reason to asume he won't live.

The Tanktop is… invincible!

@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.

@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.:

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.

@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.:

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.

@Mr.:

And it still ended in death. That's the issue, training that normalizes this use of force.

I've no clue what kind of training this officer got, but when you see some of the stuff that's taught like that of Dave Grossman, it… paints a really concerning picture. Enforcing the idea that police should be militarized and trained like Green Berets is counterintuitive to the "Protect and Serve" ideal.

Modern day police needs some serious revamping or abolishing.

When is lethal force appropriate then if not to stop someone else from using lethal force on a third party?

The officers hand was quite literally forced in this situation. She was ignoring their calls for calm and order and actively assaulting an unarmed individual with a weapon that is capable of killing her with one good swing.

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.

@MDL:

My solution is… they should switch to rubber bullets.

Focus should always be on subduing suspects alive, yes?
Why do they need to shoot real bullets at them,
which are gonna rip through their bodies and leave often fatal injuries?

Rubber bullets will still go through glass,
they render enough shock/pain to deter an action or drop someone,
and they're not dangerous unless it hits someone's eye.
Even then, aiming at centre mass like they always do removes 99% of that issue.

I've seen the footage of people who were hit by rubber bullets during the protests/riots in the immediate aftermath of the George Floyd incident.
They were in quite some distress and pain as they sat and recovered, some of them bleeding.
Getting struck was very effective in subduing them and making them shrink. It's enough!

If that officer had rubbers, it would have resulted in a non lethal dropping of this girl.

Yeah, no they would not have.

It took a rubber buck shot to drop this man who was in a completely calm state and not fueled by emotions and adrenaline. I don’t know how much you know about guns, but police carry around 9mm’s. A 9mm is significantly less powerful than a buckshot. A few 9mm rubbers is not a reliable way to ensure a victims safety when they are being assaulted with a deadly weapon.

Deadly force is to be met with deadly force. If you’re an officer, you can’t play around and gamble with a victims life, and you don’t always have time to weigh your options as shit happens FAST. You have to be decisive to ensure that victims safety. The assailants safety is not the priority.

The reason why we use rubber bullets on rioters and protesters and not live rounds, is because they are not active lethal threats and so deadly force is unnecessary.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Satsuki:

I think this says it:

[hide][qimg]https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/176891224_171952514790753_8516694998420805461_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=31cfXgY9SicAX8cjL2u&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=7468f6f0643e173c382a71c5214e916b&oe=60A6856D[/qimg][/hide]

Absolute nonsense.

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.

@Huschel:

That is a lot of what ifs. I would hope there is more than 1 out of 14 million scenarios where actually nobody has to be injured at all. Judging which action to take on the fly is, of course, extremely hard. That's where training should apply. Not reaching for your gun as the first instinct. Not shooting more than one time. Not going for the kill immediately.

And all are reasonable what if’s.

So magically, the girl is going to come to her senses and stop swinging the knife?

Or is the police officer supposed to gamble the victims life that she ‘holds on’ until he makes it there to restrain the assailant?

Training did apply here. He did what every officer is literally trained to do, and he did so within the bounds of the law. Deadly force is to be met with deadly force. Especially when an innocent life is at stake. The officers obligation is to that person, first and foremost.

You fire more than one shot because one shot is not guaranteed to neutralize the threat. He stopped firing when the victim got away. What if he fires one shot and the girl doesn’t stop attacking and kills the other girl? Then you have two dead people instead of one. Great.

You want this perfect, magical scenario that just doesn’t exist. The reality of this situation is that the officer acted within the bounds of the law and as he was trained to do. No more and no less. I’m certain the girl he saved is grateful of his decisive actions to save her life.

@Huschel:

As a Europeanᵀᴹ, I can sort of logically understand the mentality of US police wanting to neutralize a person as quickly as possible because basically anybody could be carrying a gun and be threatening out of nowhere. This girl was openly carrying a knife. We do have knives in Europe. I cannot accept that trained (?) police people are incapable of engaging with nonlethal weaponry.

Could he have rushed in and tried to restrain her? Sure, he could have.

What if those 2 extra seconds though are the difference between that girl having her carotid artery slashed though? What if he engages her in a fight himself and ends up stabbed in the neck? What if he opts to taze her and the it doesn’t work because her clothing blocks the prongs (which happens a lot)?

Shooting her was the only way to ensure that victims safety. Anything else would have been gambling with the victims life. How is that fair when they are ones being assaulted with a deadly weapon? Keyword there.

And once again, they engage with non-lethal weaponry all of the time. It just doesn’t make the news because it isn’t newsworthy. Meeting deadly force with deadly force is a reasonable course of action.

@Satsuki:

Please keep in mind that the girl with the knife was the one who called the cops, because the others were coming after her. She was holding the knife in self-defense. In this case "shoot to neutralize" is the same as "shoot to kill". How often does that happen? Probably too much. And should it BE within the law? Another question that needs to be considered as the whole police system needs to be re-examined.
You can technically die from any bullet wound, but you are far more likely to survive if shot in the arm or leg than right in the chest.

It doesn't matter if she called the cops if she is being the aggressor when they have arrived on scene.

• She calls the cops.
• Cops arrive.
• Cops give orders to everyone to calm down.
• Girl with knife and her dad(?) run outside chasing someone.
• The girl falls to the floor and dad(?) kicks the fallen girl in the head.
• Girl with knife attempts to stab girl on floor.
• Police are still attempting to give orders to calm down.
• Girl with knife ignores orders once again
• Girl with knife switches attention to girl in pink.
• Cop opens fire on girl with knifes center mass.

Shoot to neutralize is not the same as shoot to kill. Like I said, shooting center mass just so happens to be the most reliable, effective and safest (for the victim and innocent bystanders) way to neutralize an active threat. Again, I have to reiterate, this is not a Hollywood movie and these cops don't have have the ability to just draw their gun and land a pinpoint accurate shot on an assailants arm or leg at will when they are flailing their arms around, moving their feet quickly and fighting with their victim in close quarters proximity. https://media.tegna-media.com/assets/WBNS/images/0be71663-d369-490a-9d45-1cb0f54610e6/0be71663-d369-490a-9d45-1cb0f54610e6_1920x1080.jpg

Lets say the officer opens fire on her arm during that frame in the above photo I linked. What if he misses? There's a damn good chance it hits the victim right in the chest or abdomen, And since arms are so thin, fast and mobile relative to center mass, there's a pretty good chance he misses. Not to mention the assailant and the victim are both moving frantically and flailing their arms all over the place. That's the shot you expect him to hit instead of just shooting at her body and ensuring the victims safety? You do understand that this all happens very quickly, right???? The time it would take to set up a hail mary shot on her arm, could be the difference between saving the girl and a knife ending up in her neck.

To take it a step further… the assailant is probably pissed off, scared, excited, nervous and pumped full of adrenaline. Whose to say that even if he is a fucking marksman among marksmen and does hit her in the arm, that it stops her assault on the victim? What then? When you guys say "Just shoot them in the leg/arm." you really aren't thinking any of it through. You think hitting those shots are: 1. Easy to hit and 2. Guaranteed to stop the assailant in their tracks. That's just not the case. On top of that even, you expect them to hit these shots in a split second while shits hitting the fan and they have 0.5 seconds to make a decision about whether or not they're are going to allow the assailant to continue their assault with a deadly weapon.

This isn't the white vs black issue you're trying to make this out to be. If it were a white person actively attacking someone with a deadly weapon, I'm certain the officer would have opened fire. Most officers would regardless of their race. It's what they are trained to to.

@pariston_hill:

So you mean the only training you get at a police academy is how to escalate conflict and violent situations into inevitable deaths? There's no teaser guns? The no negotiating a peaceful resolution? You know a gun is far more deadly and dangerous than a knife an almost all situations. "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight" is not a popular saying for nothing. And shooting a suspect in a non vital area can give the opportunity for a second cop to disarm or imobilize said subject. I expect that a person that was trained to enforce law and order don't be trigger happy and use a gun to solve anything from a robbery to getting a cat out of a tree.

Police are taught how to shoot to neutralize, not how to shoot to kill. The most effective way to neutralize a threat, is to fire at center mass.

Deadly force is allowed to be met with deadly force. If the girl was not using deadly force, the officer would not have used his firearm, he may have tazed her or moved in to physically restrain her. The officer arrived on the scene however, and within seconds recognized that the girl was employing deadly force, so he responded with deadly force as well. That's well within the law.

Negotiate a "peaceful resolution" with someone mid knife swing? How? Are you listening to yourself right now?

Where is a "non-vital area"? You can kill someone if you shoot them in their leg too, you know? It's called the femoral artery. So again, where is the cop supposed to shoot the person? Their head??? Their arms that are flailing around all over the place??? Their small, quick moving legs that they can easily miss?? Where would YOU shoot the girl pariston? How would YOU neutralize the threat to that girl in a split second when shit is hitting the fan and you don't have time to think clearly or aim at small, fast moving targets because someone is about to get stabbed to death with a knife?

He was trained to shoot center mass in the face of deadly force. Which is what he did. That's not being trigger happy, that's being a good cop. I'm sure the victim is happy a knife didn't end up in her neck or chest.

@pariston_hill:

REAL.FUCKING.USEFULL.
The white, black, latino and asian population in America is the same so those absolute number show that the cops shoot more white people.
There were 1733 white people shot, out a population of 234,370,202 (2017 est.) that gives 7,39exp-06 of the population.
No for a black person the chance is 2,33exp-05 , 1,19exp-05 % for a latino.
Per million it would give us:
7,39 whites/million
23,34 blacks/million
11,92 latinos/ million.
3,16 times more black people are lethally shot than white people in adjusted number.
Or as the own site you used puts:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings-rate-ethnicity-us/

If you want to defend that the police should use lethal force every time they have to make a split second decision it means your not training a law enforcer your training a shooter. I means that the police training is lacking methods to solve problems that don't require brute force or using fancy militar grade equipment.

If you want to argue that more white people are shot, at least do it in a way that statistically relevant and not the bullshit of gross numbers.

If you thing the police system, not only in US but all over the world, don't need to be fixed to root out systemic racism, trigger happy violent sociopaths among the ranks, to make it less an institution of protection of the elites interests, into a more useful tool of governance and protection of the population, pal you're part of the problem. You see a rotting tree on the edge to fall in a house and thing it's easier to fix the damage to the house than remove the rotting tree.

That wasn't my argument. I'm not saying white people are killed more per capita. Please read more carefully. Green said that "white people are taken alive most of the time" and those statistics show that that simply isn't true. White people are killed plenty. You don't just get to say "they are taken alive more than not" and completely ignore the contexts in which they were apprehended without being shot or the hundreds of cases where they were shot dead.

Police solve plenty of problems without the use of lethal force. Those cases just don't receive airtime because it's business as usual and not anything noteworthy. When is a police officer supposed to use deadly force then if literally attacking and trying to kill someone isn't enough for you? Does her throat need to be slashed? Does the knife need to be sticking out of her chest? How many times does she need to be stabbed before it's okay for him to neutralize the threat? Get a grip on reality, man. This isn't Hollywood.

@pariston_hill:

I'm gonna assume the officer is a 200lb man, if your choice of action to disarm a person with a knife is 4 shots to the person, you didn't learn shit during your police training.

1. You don't know that.
2. Even if that was true, the officer has to make a split second decision to save someone's life.

When a person is pumped up on anger/excitement/nervousness/adrenaline it can take more than one shot to put that person down. There are plenty of instances where the police shoot someone and the person is still an active threat and retaliating in a violent manner. When you pull out a deadly weapon in front of a cop and express a clear intent to do harm with said deadly weapon, you need to expect deadly force. If that's what happened here, the officer was well within the bounds of the law to do what he did. Someones life was at stake, and the difference between that person living or dying could have been the officers decision to open fire on the threat.

@Green_vs_Red:

Officer was a former military marksman. Plus regardless of what she was or wasn't intending to do with the knife it does look problematic when you have an armed minority with a knife that winds up getting shot but when you have an armed white person with a weapon most of the time they're taken in alive.

Sure. Cops don't shoot white people dead by the hundreds each year. https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/ The, context of the situation matters. You're only looking at this as "black vs white", instead of "Was the suspect an active threat or not?" The Texas shooter was arrested 2 hours after his attack, of course you can't just pull up and shoot at someone if they aren't an active threat. That's murder and reckless endangerment. This girl appeared to be an active threat. She didn't stab the girl, go home and then get shot up while lounging on the couch, she got shot in the midst of a deadly assault. Color has nothing to do with why the officer opened fire here and why they didn't in the Texas case.

I don't care if the dude was a military marksman, that is irrelevant. Police are trained to shoot center mass. You can easily miss a leg and end up shooting the victim or someone else who has nothing to do with the conflict, especially when emotions are high and you need to make a split second decision about the best way to ensure the victims safety. What would you say about the officer if he shoots at her legs, misses, and the girl being attacked ends up with a 7 inch knife stuck in her carotid artery? What if he accidentally kills or injures someone who has nothing to do with what's going on? What if he shoots the person being assaulted on accident? Center mass is the most reliable way to neutralize an active threat.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-training-limits-officers-choice-deadly-force-77229299

@electricmastro:

And I’ve seen similar replies made in regards to “not thinking clearly,” in that those wanting to get rid of the police entirely accuse opposers of not thinking clearly/humanly enough about black lives mattering, as well as Asian lives, Hispanic lives, etc. I’ve seen that sort of reply made so much that it can make one wonder what the worst and most destructive monster would turn out to be depending on how far the police abolishment goes.

Huh? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I'll reiterate my point from that post though. You can't just abolish our law enforcement. All you can do is add more checks and balances. I think semi-frequent mental health evaluations and mandatory bodycams would go a long way.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Satsuki:

And right after we get justice for George Floyd, another teenage girl gets shot. After CALLING the police:
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/20/989342784/16-year-old-black-girl-who-called-for-help-fatally-shot-by-police-ohio-family-sa?utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR1mn8Uufo_RKFSMilfqbYjmmxyNqK05xAXJ4dQg8H8bFMrW0pVIFaNi-5Q

sigh

She charged at a girl while wielding a knife (deadly weapon). https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/210421151957-no-card-use-01-columbus-shooting-makhia-bryant-exlarge-169.jpg

That's kind of forcing the officers hand if you ask me if this is what it looks like at face value. That being said, I'm gonna wait for the full story before casting judgement. You should too.

Got my first shot of Moderna today, let’s gooooo!

@Green_vs_Red:

You can't keep the broken, dangerous, and problematic system we've had in place for the last 70-80 years or so in place either.

So what's your solution then?

You‘re gonna have racist, sexist, incompetent, etc people in the police force the same as you’re going to have these sorts of folks occupying any other profession. You cannot weed this stuff out at the level you want. You need to have a clean record to become a police officer to begin with. Anyone with a clean record can present as “normal” during the hiring process. I’m certain I’ve encountered people who hate me before just for being black, but I’d never know it. All you can do is have more checks & balances in place to deter misbehavior like all of them being forced to use body cams, and of course you get rid of blatantly hateful officers from the force when they present as such through their actions.

Again though, you can’t completely eliminate it. Eliminating these issues starts at home with your upbringing and during the education process.

Also your “They use lethal force 95% of the time” is just blatantly wrong. I’m a black man in a red state whose had multiple encounters with law enforcement for a variety of reasons (speeding, an expired tag, jay walking and being mistaken for someone else they were looking for). Not once have I been shot or beaten. Yet according to your odds, I should be dead multiple times over.

@wolfwood:

What makes it feel weird is that you seem to force it toward a choice betwenn a broken police system and a free for all.

What exactly am I “forcing”? You can’t just tear down the entire system and replace it with some perfect alternative as easily as you guys are trying to make it sound.

@Green_vs_Red:

Police officers being deterrents for murder, robbery, sexual assaults is a weird take between the issue of murders going unsolved (which isn’t generally their fault), them insisting on shooting and killing unarmed people which they almost always get no jail time for. And then there’s the issue of sexual assaults in which investigations get bungled (which is their fault), victims are occasionally dismissed or not believed which plays a hand in future acts going unreported, or worse the officers themselves are the perpetrators of said assaults.

Deterrents for robbery? Civil Forfeiture anyone?

And let’s even get started on the prison system which is even more corrupt and screwed up. No one is talking about having no one around to deal with these things the issue at heart is that you need better checks and balances and most important of all accountability. Neither of which you have or at least have to an effective extent.

You can’t keep the old system as is.

“A weird take” lmao. So if someone breaks into my house to try and murder me, who am I supposed to call?

What’s your solution then? Who is going to enforce the law without police? The capitol would have been razed to the ground with no police presence.

You still haven’t answered. If there’s no system in place to enforce the law, why should anyone obey it? Am I going to go around stealing from, raping and murdering people? No. But I guarantee you a lot of people would feel emboldened to do so with no police presence. It’s an incredibly dumb idea.

@electricmastro:

It was recently suggested to me that, regardless of how individual police officers feel and courses of action they’ve taken, that there can’t exist a good police officer in America because of the institutional corruption put in place over them by way of institutional greed, prejudice, bad treatment of immigrants, etc., and that America would be better to get rid of the police officer institution entirely so as to help lessen the corruption in America, which I think is asking for a lot no matter what and are big shoes to fill, but what do you guys think. Can there honestly exist “a good police officer” in America?

The cure can't be worse than the perceived illness.

Where is the deterrent for assault or breaking and entering?
Where is the deterrent robbery?
Where is the deterrent for murder?
Where is the deterrent for rape?
Prisons are staffed with officers, we letting inmates run the joint now? Or do we just let them all out?
Whose gonna stop me from running red lights and stop signs?
Why shouldn't I drive drunk/high now? Whose gonna stop me?
Expired/suspended license? Who cares!

Whoever suggested that to you is not thinking clearly.

@Johnny:

Dude, when are you guys going to lynch Bolsanaro already?

Same reason I don’t plan to lynch Trump or Biden. Normal people aren’t barbarians is probably why.

@Satsuki:

Technically no. He officially signed the place from a residence to a private club, and nobody is supposed to stay in the guest suites for more than 21 days. The legal issue right now is whether or not he can stay as he's not a member, but the owner.

And employees don't live there.

https://people.com/politics/palm-beach-hears-arguments-trump-living-at-mar-a-lago/

It makes sense to me.

@pariston_hill:

Wait…wasn't illegal for him to life there since he signed that the place was full business for tax cuts?

If he’s an employee he can live there as long as he wants.

@pariston_hill:

32.777 deaths in 18 days. Only 13 more to end the the month.
You take the vaccine that's available to you. The fact that we have 5-7 different vaccines develop in a spam of less than a year is already unprecedented. The efficient level of the vaccine, just mean that, for those with lower numbers we need a higher percentage of the population to be vaccinated to stop the contagion.

You have completely right to worry about yourself and your loved ones, and take the necessary actions of protection, but by saying you want vaccine X instead on Y and Z you sound like a spoiled brat complaining about the ice cream flavour his parents bought him - with all due level of difference taken into account.
You're not harming anyone by not vaccinating now and staying at home, but you are not helping yourself by being picky about it.

But by your "I (not you, gov't, or society) own to myself what I believe is best for myself." is exactly the individual needs trumping over the societal needs that got us neck deep in shit with the pandemic.
"I don't want a mask, I think social distancing is bull shit, a party now after a couple months of isolation won't hurt no one, the bars reopened so I can go clubbing now again, etc" are the types of individualistic thinking the further exacerbated the pandemic, i.e the post Thanksgiving in US and post Christmas-New Years in Brazil.
The needs of the society are ALWAYS above the needs of the individual, because we, duh, live in a society and that's the fabric of the social contract.
And people revolt we the needs of few individuals are above the rest (as in minorities vs US institucional racism).

Pardon me? I'm not complaining about any of the vaccines. I'm simply waiting patiently for the one I want while continuing isolation. I don't see how this makes me a "spoiled brat".

Society does not "need" me to vaccinate though. I'm surviving off my of savings and Twitch revenue and have everything I need delivered to me, where I disinfect before bringing into my home. The only time I leave the house is to deliver food to my mom, who is living the same way I am right now. So I fail to see how waiting and continuing to be careful is of the same ilk as not wearing a mask, not social distancing and throwing pandemic parties. I adhere to the CDC guidelines and take extra precautions on top of them. I'm doing my part to stop the spread regardless of whether or not I'm vaccinated now or in 2 months when I am able to choose.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Satsuki:

I wasn't sighing so much about J&J, but about all the arguing about which vaccine is better.

Ahh I see. My mistake.

@Coookie:

I've got nothing left to say to you that would be productive so I'll just leave it at that. Just next time maybe take a moment to reflect if something you said added to misunderstandings instead of pushing all the blame onto others.

If in the future I say something innocuous and it’s met with hostility. I will push back the way I have here. Maybe instead you should reflect on confronting people for no reason.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Satsuki:

Got my shot!

. . . the first one anyway. Vaccine ended up being Pfizer, as the nurse said they use whichever they can get, be it Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J. I'm not picky however, only now I have to go back in 21 days.

Congrats!!! It sounded before like you weren’t thrilled about the J&J, so I’m glad you got the Pfizer! Hope the shot(s) give you some peace of mind.

@Coookie:

Am I though? The fault can’t be entirely on my side if other people get similar vibes from what you said. Also entitlement isn’t something you have to claim, it can also shine through other stuff you say, e.g.

“Not good enough”, “I don’t have to settle”, “Not getting the best is a disservice to myself after what I’ve been through” is entitlement 101.

Yes, you are. I can’t help it if you or anyone else misinterpret or take offense to an innocuous statement.

The definition of entitlement means you feel like have a right to something.

I prefer the PS5 over the Xbox Series X and opted to wait for that too instead of buying the Xbox when I could have. Does that mean I feel entitled to own a PS5? Of course not. I still had to wait the same as everyone else, and did so patiently. Never once did I complain about not being able to secure it sooner, just as I’m not complaining that I can’t pick my preferred vaccine yet.

@Coookie:

Did you even read my whole post or only the things that offended you? I agreed that wanting e best for yourself is natural, that by waiting you’re not hurting anyone so I can’t complain and even thanking you for your sacrifice by choosing to mostly stay at home.

Yes, I read your entire post. I replied to the parts that required correction.

I’m not offended though? You’re the one who started this silly conversation and became hostile for no reason.

@pariston_hill:

The numbers simply are the percentage of people in the group study that upon vaccination did contract medical care require cases of covid. That doesn't mean your free of contracting it in 95 out 100 changes of contagion.
And stop bitching about which vaccine you want to take, when yours truly , will most certainly only receive his next year.

Bitching about what exactly? I'm chilling and patiently waiting my turn for the brand I prefer. Not complaining about it, just stated my reasons for opting to wait. I'm sorry you have to wait another year, but there's no need to be so aggressive. Not everyone chooses to deal with the pandemic the same way. As someone who is immunocompromised and whose mother is in the "high risk" category, I have to do what I feel is best for us.

@Coookie:

I understand that you want what's best for you, it's only natural after all. What I personally find aggravating is the entitlement you demonstrate, especially when your understanding of it all doesn't go beyond "bigger number better" with no interest to learn more about it. (Reminds me of A&W's Third-Pound burger which flopped because McDonald's same-priced Quarter Pounder had the bigger number)
If you've lived like a hermit for the past year then that's far better than people who don't give a crap about any countermeasures one can easily take. Thanks for sacrificing your social life to protect vulnerable people. But honestly, you did much more than was necessary. It was your own personal choice to go above and beyond and it never meant that you would get the very best protection as a reward. As KageKageKing said, beggars can't be choosers and when the scientists and experts have deemed the other vaccines safe enough for widespread use, with trials after trials and by now millions of vaccinated people around, there really shouldn't be a need to wait longer just because it isn't good enough for you.

But again, no one can force you to get a vaccine and you're not directly harming other people, so I can't really complain aside from your personal attitude.

Entitlement?? You're casting a lot of assumptions about me here. I never claimed to be entitled to anything.

Again, I don't expect a "reward" for how I opted to confront the threat of the virus. All I've said that is that I (not you, my government, society) owe it to myself to do what I believe is best for me. What's wrong with that if I'm not hurting anybody or putting anyone else at risk?

What attitude? You're upset that I'm choosing to wait for my preferred vaccine? I'm sure they will all be readily available to whoever wants to be vaccinated within the next 2-3 months and that folks will have a choice. If anything, my choosing to stand aside and continue to isolate is a benefit since someone else, perhaps someone who feels they need to be vaccinated now and isn't as picky will be able to receive the vaccine sooner.

@Coookie:

Do you even understand what those numbers mean? Don't know how the vaccination process works at your place but as long as you don't hog vaccination appointments and don't show up because only the best is good enough for you, then feel free to wait it out

I understand that 95% is a larger number than the others, and that Moderna has had the least side-effect/poissible side-effects of the viable vaccines. Certainly not hogging appointments. Gonna continue my isolated lifestyle until I know for certain the Moderna vaccine is available to me. I feel I’d be doing myself a disservice at this point if I settled for anything less. Nearly zero human contact with anyone but my mother for a year has been tough.

So I've got 36 unopened SOC Zoro's collecting dust. Longshot, but anyone interested in a wholesale purchase?

@Coookie:

Which is ridiculous and only reduces the trust in the vaccines even more. People here already didn't show up to their vaccination appointments because they want the better Moderna or Biontech instead of the AstraZeneca one. Now you can pretty much throw them all away

Yeah that's what I'm waiting for. 95% efficacy or bust for me. Not settling for 94%, 82% or 72%.

I've been a hermit now since 03/07/2020. I can afford to wait a little longer for the best possible protection with the added benefit of seeing what kind of side effects, if any, are afflicting the people who have already been vaccinated with the various vaccines.

Just got a couple of Stimmy's direct deposited. Lets go. Looks like the homie Biden is gonna push for another round of checks as well.

Toriyama definitely does not write or draw the series, this is indisputable. Super is, however, canon regardless of how anyone feels about it or the direction of the story.

B-BURASTO! :wub:

Didn't always agree with her, but she was an absolute giant of a person who seemed to genuinely care. RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

@Satsuki:

A brilliant new way to combat the mask problem:

UcWViVHLZOS3lLACgvPQUOmYZCyOuIq8w15DA

Where can I buy one?

I read on mangasail.

@Satsuki:

Let's be real about the reason people vote for Trump:

https://scontent-bos3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/119110150_10218095803133180_8307026982633324784_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=Dufm-AvyRIYAX9yNXI1&_nc_ht=scontent-bos3-1.xx&oh=20a949aac35d89657e73ce152024b870&oe=5F7F965D

There's a myriad of other reasons why someone may vote for one candidate over another that have nothing to do with hating particular groups of people. Not everyone values the same issues or even if they do, maybe they don't place the same amount of importance on it as you do relative to another issue they deem important. To insinuate that 62,984,828 people are ALL racist is a little ignorant and quite dismissive of their values and reasons for voting.