easyrider16 wrote: ↑Apr 23rd, '21, 10:582) is there a better way to handle this situation? I think the answer is maybe. Maybe it's a training issue, maybe the possibility of nonlethal weapons. Or maybe there was no better way. I think we need to approach this issue carefully and without losing sight of issue #1. But I also think the best possible outcome here was zero loss of life. That should be the goal in every case.
I think this is a slippery slope where officers are more concerned about how they harm the offender vs how the protect the victim. Use a taser there and miss or taser doesn't drop the girl ... now she's stabbing the victim.
deadheadskier wrote: ↑Apr 23rd, '21, 10:26
I tend to agree, but what if the officer missed with one of those five rounds and hit the potential victim instead?
It's a tough call when a situation escalates that fast.
Would non-lethal options such as a taser or rubber bullets have neutralized the threat as well?
I don't know the answer to that.
Moral of the story unfortunately is if you try to attack someone with a weapon in front of a police officer, you might get shot. Sadly, a 16 year old might not be old enough to understand that
I think a 16 year old should have the wherewithal to know they shouldn't try to stab other people, police officer present or not.
Operative word here is "should."
MANY 16 year olds and even people older than that do not have the awareness of potential consequences. Both the consequences to themselves and the danger to others. Kids have physical fights about dumb sh*t all the time. Hell there was a cult classic 80s film called 3 o'clock high about this very thing. I also remember many after school fights (some involving weapons) at my middle and high schools, which is essentially what this was.
Now if they played that bodycam footage in schools to show the deadly real life consequences, maybe more kids would understand and think twice about it.
If a 16 year old isn't aware stabbing other people is wrong, we have a much bigger (parenting, or lack thereof in Ma'Khia's case) issue. I agree with the 'scared straight' approach ... it won't reach some, but will reach many.
In the UK over 90% of police officers do not carry guns.
Are they less effective at neutralizing threats?
We have a massive gun violence problem in this country both by citizens and police. "But God damnit, the 2A and Freedom is so important! Let's do everything we can to not just maintain the status quo, but INCREASE gun ownership."....signed, The NRA
XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑Apr 23rd, '21, 11:26I think this is a slippery slope where officers are more concerned about how they harm the offender vs how the protect the victim. Use a taser there and miss or taser doesn't drop the girl ... now she's stabbing the victim.
The problem with this logic is police often don't know who the victim is and who the offender is until after the situation is defused and investigated. The objective of police should be to preserve the lives of everyone at the scene, not decide who to shoot and who to save. I realize that's not always possible, and again in Bryant's situation it appears the officer acted appropriately. But that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't try to come up with a better way to handle situations like this.
deadheadskier wrote: ↑Apr 23rd, '21, 11:40
Here's another point of view.
In the UK over 90% of police officers do not carry guns.
Are they less effective at neutralizing threats?
We have a massive gun violence problem in this country both by citizens and police. "But God damnit, the 2A and Freedom is so important! Let's do everything we can to not just maintain the status quo, but INCREASE gun ownership."....signed, The NRA
I don't think comparing US to UK is a reasonable comparison. UK has the most strict gun laws in the world, enabling officers to not carry. If we eliminate deaths by firearm in the US, there's something like ~1,500 stabbings resulting in death.
Until the US basically eliminates the 2a, which I would be against, officers need to carry. Even if 2a was eliminated, there are enough firearms in the US population police would still need to carry.
XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑Apr 23rd, '21, 11:26I think this is a slippery slope where officers are more concerned about how they harm the offender vs how the protect the victim. Use a taser there and miss or taser doesn't drop the girl ... now she's stabbing the victim.
The problem with this logic is police often don't know who the victim is and who the offender is until after the situation is defused and investigated. The objective of police should be to preserve the lives of everyone at the scene, not decide who to shoot and who to save. I realize that's not always possible, and again in Bryant's situation it appears the officer acted appropriately. But that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't try to come up with a better way to handle situations like this.
Respecting the humanity of one another would be a good start, but probably too lofty a goal.
deadheadskier wrote: ↑Apr 23rd, '21, 12:30
Isn't the argument that we are safer and better off because of the 2A?
Is that not true?
I don't think the argument holds water. All one needs to do is look at the number of justifiable homicides compared to criminal homicides using a firearm. Add to that the number suicides by firearm. The case can be made we're clearly less safe with firearms. Does that mean we need to abolish the 2A? No, but we should increase regulation over firearms.
Shot a 30-round magazine of 223 out of a AR15 in PA a few weeks ago. The clip seemed to last forever. Is there a need for you and I to own 30-round magazines? Probably not. In NY state I'm limited to (I think) 7-10 rounds a magazine and I can only top load the AR, but does this mean PA is less/more safe than NY? Probably not. I don't have a solution.
XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑Apr 23rd, '21, 11:26I think this is a slippery slope where officers are more concerned about how they harm the offender vs how the protect the victim. Use a taser there and miss or taser doesn't drop the girl ... now she's stabbing the victim.
The problem with this logic is police often don't know who the victim is and who the offender is until after the situation is defused and investigated. The objective of police should be to preserve the lives of everyone at the scene, not decide who to shoot and who to save. I realize that's not always possible, and again in Bryant's situation it appears the officer acted appropriately. But that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't try to come up with a better way to handle situations like this.
What would the news be leading with if the officer had held fire, tried to deescalate, and the girl was stabbed and died? Think about it.
brownman wrote: ↑Apr 23rd, '21, 09:24
What ever happened to ‘shoot em in the knee’ ?
These all appear to be kill shots now.
So you shoot the knife wielder in the knee (A far trickier and risky shot and more likely to miss), and he/she stabs the victim as was imminent anyway. Now what?
You need to incapacitate the life threatening perpetrator, not make him/her angry.
Was inquiring in general, as it seems every takedown now involves a kill shot or, in this case, 4. Understand knee is small target, especially if the cop has a limited number of hours on the shooting range. Some chiefs have pointed to that as a problem. Many of these new cops are not ex military. Some are just badly vetted.
.. the female perp was obviously already angry .. yo !
Interesting opinion piece about the anti-protest law DeSantis just signed into law in FL. Cites to stats that indicate well over 90% of protests had zero violence or vandalism. Goes to show you that skepticism of the media should include realizing they like to sensationalize what captures your attention, reporting over and over about protests that turned violent and largely ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority did not.
easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 3rd, '21, 05:43
Interesting opinion piece about the anti-protest law DeSantis just signed into law in FL. Cites to stats that indicate well over 90% of protests had zero violence or vandalism. Goes to show you that skepticism of the media should include realizing they like to sensationalize what captures your attention, reporting over and over about protests that turned violent and largely ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority did not.
Kind of like when Trump supporters trashed the Capitol building and tried to overthrow the results of a lawful election? But seriously...
The vast majority of Black Lives Matter protests—more than 93%—have been peaceful, according to a new report published Thursday by a nonprofit that researches political violence and protests across the world.
Btw, if you're counting, that's 3 sources that suggest more than 90% of the protests were peaceful. The opinion piece cites to an ABC news study and a Washington Post study, and the above link cites to a nonprofit study also cited by the opinion piece. Do you have a single source to contradict them?
The vast majority of Black Lives Matter protests—more than 93%—have been peaceful, according to a new report published Thursday by a nonprofit that researches political violence and protests across the world.
Btw, if you're counting, that's 3 sources that suggest more than 90% of the protests were peaceful. The opinion piece cites to an ABC news study and a Washington Post study, and the above link cites to a nonprofit study also cited by the opinion piece. Do you have a single source to contradict them?
