Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Salty, Aug 19, 2014.
This time in St Louis -
Suicide by cop.
Completely justifiable shooting.
What in the world are you talking about? I watched the video. No "cop" committed suicide.
he means the dead man.
he was suicidal but probably didn't have the guts to do himself in, so he charged at cops knowing they will shoot him dead, or something to that effect.
Yes, it has happened before
I'd never do suicide by cop. Rather, I'd leave the seat up and wait for Mrs. Jkdbuck to kill me.
:laugh: How true.
I have been in the situation of needing to disarm a much stronger, mentally disturbed man with a knife.
I managed without a weapon and without getting hurt.
There have been other situations, all managed without shooting the person.
I saw the video - and believe much more could and should have been tried before shooting him.
I am under five foot two and used to not weigh much. So what's the difference? A small bit of knowledge about mental illness and a few lessons in how to get someone who attacks under control without harming them.
Whatever you choose to approach a situation with from the start is crucial. You pick your strongest weapon first, you're not likely to let it go unused if you feel more threatened as things proceed.
Which is why I just don't get the idea of starting off a negotiation with a pointed gun.
To just shoot as the first defense? Two on one when his hands were down and he was walking? This should not be okay. I think people have become so used to police shootings that they use very odd ways of measuring justified shootings. What would rarely be okay for a regular citizen is defended for officers when, if anything, their training and access to alternative weapons for subduing someone would logically mean we have higher expectations of officers and would expect LESS lethal force.
You were lucky. Keep it up and your luck will run out. You'll run into someone not only bigger and stronger, but determined.
You won't stand a chance.
Some folks only mean to perpetuate the systems and psychosis that allows them to live isolated lives devoid of interaction and unattached to reality.
The Powell video shows a complete breakdown of fundamental police training and how to deal with a mentally ill person. The citizens in the video, prior to the police showing up don't consider the man a threat, though they keep a respectful distance. As the police roll up, they immediately draw weapons and level them at the suspect, thus exacerbating his condition and the situation.
The first show is fired as the suspect is turning, knife down, and about 15 feet from the officer. The subsequent dozen other shots are entirely unnecessary. This is a prime example of the police aggression problem we have in this county.
No reasonable person can watch the Powell video and say he deserved to be shot multiple times. Why wasn't non-lethal force applied first? Why did the officers step into the scene with weapons drawn and ready?
We have a massive problem in our country folks.
Easy peasy to solve this dilemma; simply DON'T raise the seat to begin with, then the hens will greatly appreciate that you do in fact raise the seat.
People make a big deal out of the number of shots fired. Who cares?
Dead is dead, whether it be one or 10.
First off, they did not know if the man was mentally ill or not. They did not know if he was a fighter or not. For all they know he could have been training in a dojo in the use of short bladed weapons.
His hands were down. So what? Did you know that the average athletic man can strike faster than a snake? They held their fire until he was within lunging distance, giving him opportunity to defuse the situation several times before he forced them to open fire.
At the risk of sounding mean, anyone who watches the video and thinks the officers did anything wrong just do not have a clue. This is textbook right.
And they didn't start off negotiation with a gun. HE started it off with a lethal weapon, a knife. And he obviously had no concern for his life, making him that much more dangerous to an officer's life.
Again, textbook perfect. As sad as any death is, I applaud the officers. They handled it perfectly.
Is it possible the textbook isn't right?
I understand there's always a risk, however small, that someone is highly skilled in using a knife with major skills rarely seen. It is even more likely that they are highly trained in hand-to-hand combat. There is also the chance that the person reaching for insurance papers is going for a gun, or that they have turned the edge of their driver's license into a razor blade.
How paranoid should everyone get? Does this only apply to officers or should medics and healthcare workers also get the benefit of the doubt if they shoot to kill in the same situations a number of officers have been given the green light for in recent years? Should all citizens also have the right to such strong self-defense methods if they feel threatened? (and if no, why not if it is justifiable?)
Is a painful way to die, because it would be proceeded by some nagging reminders :laugh:
Sorry... but the 21 foot rule played a role here....and:
Everyone forgot that OJ killed two people with a knife. And an intimidated jury, fearing reprisal and riots, voted to acquit. I knife is lethal. Look up the link "The 21 foot rule" which says that is the distance a person with a knife needs to be from the victim to inflict deadly harm. This guy was no more than 6 feet away. Just sayin'!
Let's hope this grand jury is swayed by truth, and not intimidated by the fear of starting riots. Justice must be the deciding factor.
In Texas, we do. If someone comes at me with a knife, I can shoot them and will not be charged with a crime.
Hundreds of thousands of citizens licensed to carry firearms in Texas and rarely an incident.
Extremely rarely, to the point of being statistically insignificant.
Closer than that. He came to rest literally at the officers feet.
That "rule" has other factors that can influence it. Like the situation itself, number of officers, etc..
Given another officer there to assist do you remain convinced that an alternative method could have been attempted?
There just seemed to have been little logic going on, right down to following the "rules" and cuffing his body despite the high tensions.
The streets are not part of the military and officers are not soldiers. We shouldn't expect the same things to work for both. There is room for your own judgment in police work, within parameters. Or, obviously, should be given the seriousness of the issue of distrust between many people and their police forces.
The police officer used their own judgement and shot what he perceived as a lethal threat, but that isn't good enough for you. Now you don't trust the officer's judgement.