Maybe don't take a job of protecting and serving if a kid with a gardening tool is a bit too frightening for you to handle non-lethally.
Yeah, the kid didn't have something dangerous like an acorn.
Ha! That was a hoot of a story back then. Not for the dude in the back of course.
That was a hoot of a story back then
Jesus christ, america
How should police have handled it?
The bodycam video shows the officer approaching with his gun holstered, drawing it while backing up, turning and trying to run away, while the kid quickly closes the distance and tries to strike the officer's face, head, and upper body with a long-handled tool.
How should the officer have handled this?
How would you have handled this?
If a random person were attacked in such a manner, is it possible that they could have lost an eye? Is it possible that they could have been permanently disfigured? Had their carotid artery severed and quickly bled out? Been knocked out?
Is it possible that a reasonable person could have reasonably believed this attacker posed a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm to an innocent person?
First of all, they got radios. He knew cop number 2 was a second behind him. So have the tactical patience to group properly.
Designate a lethal guy and a non lethal guy.
In the future, train actual hand to hand to trap an arm holding a weapon and neutralize it.
We don't pay police to kill us.
So have the tactical patience to group properly.
Ah. The Uvalde Gambit.
Uvalde was a shooter attacking children while police stood by. This is a completely different situation.
Correct. I wasn't referring to this situation.
I was referring to the parent comment, where they suggested responding officers should wait around outside, while the kid is trying to kill his family members inside.
This kid charged as soon as the first officer made verbal contact with the occupants. So, when called to a domestic dispute, where a family member has been reported using a weapon, parent comment seems to suggest adopting a policy of "stick thumb up ass and wait until we have overwhelming force" before even approaching the scene.
Ignore that the enraged attacker is trying to kill people inside. Ignore that the occupants are calling for help. Just stand by and wait for more people.
That's what police did at Uvalde. Parent comment is recommending a policy consistent with the bungled response at Uvalde.
"Uvalde Gambit" concisely implies the problems with parent comment's suggestion: waiting consistently leads to worse outcomes than immediate actions.
Oh so those are the choices? No engagement at all until a third party intervenes or charging in like a Call of Duty player?
That's not a good faith argument.
The other choice is what most humans would do. That's remove yourself from what you perceive as a dangerous situation. I know it hurts fee fees when ego is on the line but better than killing someone.
Right? The kid was no longer threatening the family. Lead him to your partner. Do a dance around the patrol car.
Nope straight to shooting kids.
A taser?
Are you asking or telling? Are you telling me that it would have been more appropriate to use a tazer, or are you asking me if a tazer would have been a feasible option?
Are you trained and qualified to determine when and how to employ a tazer? Are you qualified to discuss the conditions under which a tazer can or should be employed?
Basically, do you actually know what you're talking about when you mention a tazer?
I'm not trained in how to employ a tazer, but a cop probably should be.
It seems like there ought to be some way to safely help a teenager having a mental breakdown without killing them.
I'm not trained in how to employ a tazer,
Clearly. If you had been trained on the proper use of a taser, you would recognize that they can't be effectively employed in the way you suggest.
You might as well be arguing that the cop should have just shot the weapon out of the kid's hands. It's just as feasible.
It would have been a better option than the gun.
Disagree?
How could a tazer have been employed in this situation?
By pulling it out of his holster instead of the gun.
<.< Well, y’see, a taser and a gun are very similar in these instances. You take it out, point it at the target, and pull the trigger.
Since there were two cops, that means there were two tasers. Funny how two guns were used though, as if they never even considered using their tasers?
Well, y’see, a taser and a gun are very similar in these instances
Yes. Yes, they are.
Sometimes I forget that most people have zero training in defensive force.
Tell me: how accurately can well-trained personnel put rounds on target in immediate, defensive situations? How many hits can they land in the time it takes an attacker to land his first blow? How many misses? How about by his second blow? I know what I have been taught, but you're not going to trust me. Go find that number.
When you find the real-world hit percentages in close-quarters combat. multiply it times two for the number of times they can shoot their tasers.
If that number is less than 1, the attacker is more likely to land a blow than not.
Next, multiply it by 30 to 38, for the number of times they could shoot their handguns. Now you have a reasonable tool for stopping a deadly attack.
Most adults would take a knife to the arm to protect a child, but god forbid taking a garden tool to the arm to not shoot one.
This kid's own family was unwilling to take such a hit from this kid, but you expect it from a complete stranger?
Yes?
Would you save a child from being shot at the cost of being stabbed?
Nope.
This kid's family did the right thing when they asked people with guns to stop their child from murdering someone.
Shoot the tazer darts at the boy while he's approaching instead of bullets?
Did you watch the video? Remember: each and every blow the kid lands with that weapon has the possibility of permanently maiming, disfiguring, or killing the officer.
Watching the video, the officer was able to draw his gun, but was not able to get it on target before the kid was within striking distance, and swinging his weapon at the officer's head or upper body. The video ends before we see who actually fired the shots.
Remember: each and every blow the kid lands with that weapon has the possibility of permanently maiming, disfiguring, or killing the officer.
That's the risk of being in a job that isn't even in the top 20 most dangerous jobs in America.
As you were told elsewhere, soldiers in war zones wouldn't act this way and their job is far more dangerous.
You're just encouraging police cowardice. Not that it needs to be encouraged.
You always know you're going to hear some pig fellating boot sucking shit take when someone calls oinkers "officer".
Gotcha.
It is "cowardice" to take effective steps to stop an attacker from jamming a garden hoe in your neck.
Understood.
it is cowardice to conclude lethal force is the only option here.
So there are no possible effective steps that could have been taken without murdering the boy?
Amazing cops aren't murdered constantly in Europe.
I'm not asking you. I'm phrasing it as a question because it's one of the most blatantly obvious answers to your question. A taser is better unquestionably when someone is coming after you with clearly not a gun. Yes. I'm not trained but I have enough common sense to realize that not killing someone who's chasing you with a clearly non lethal weapon is much better than killing them.
How was that tool clearly non lethal? If fists are potentially lethal, then a long sturdy tool sure as hell is.
who's chasing you with a clearly non lethal weapon is
The weapon in question is a metal blade on a stick.
It is readily capable of destroying an eye. (Aka: "Grievous bodily harm") It is readily capable of severing the carotid artery. (Aka: "death") It is capable of causing a wide variety of similar permanently debilitating, disfiguring, or lethal injuries to the officer in a very short period of time.
The video shows that the kid was attempting to strike a retreating officer in the head or upper body. Any person in the officer's position would reasonably fear a significant possibility of death or grievous bodily harm from this attack.
I therefore reject your assertion that the weapon being employed against the officer can be reasonably described as "clearly non lethal".
That's the beauty of it, police don't have to protect and serve in America. Courts made sure of that. Don't need to know the laws they're enforcing either. Just run an obstacle course and take a 40 hr course on killology - the idea that policing is the most dangerous job on the planet and everyone is trying to kill you at all times- and presto, they give you a gun, body armor, and protection from the legal and financial repercussions of your actions.
Plus, there's lots of networking opportunities with local white supremacist and christofascist organizations.
I can crack your skull with a single swing of a gardening hoe. It's hilariously unreasonable to expect police not to treat this as a lethal weapon. Look at the video; they're telling him to stop or they'll shoot and even turn around and start running away in order to avoid doing that.
Also the "kid" is a 15 year old adult sized man.
And I can crack your head with nothing in my hands. Are we just shooting anyone now?
A cop could trip on the sidewalk walking up to the door and crack his head open. This is such a stupid argument. These people are supposedly paid to deal with dangerous situations. Cop lovers always talk about how "they're putting their lives on the line" yet in reality, we see they're really putting everyone else's life on the line in every situation because apparently your life is worth more than everyone else's once you take a 6-week course at a local community college and put on a badge.
Shooting violent people that attack others with bladed long weapons is a justified use of force. No doubt there are better and worse ways of handling situations like this but if it's racist police murdering innocent people you're looking for then this isn't it.
If you watch the video it's reaching shears. Don't make this out like it's a sword. And he's holding it a hand on either end so he has no leverage to swing it. You could easily tackle him and render them useless.
Absolutely a fucked up panic shoot that will get swept under the rug with the rest. Cowards shouldn't have badges and they should face charges for playing judge dredd.
Near impossible to tell from the video but definitely looks more like a hoe to me. Also, the cop had around 4 seconds to figure out what to do and he's literally running away from the guy chasing and about to swing at him with it the moment they opened fire at him. It doesn't get much more legitimate from that.
Okay and still, what leverage does he have with his hands like that?
This officer also created the situation by not waiting just a couple seconds for his buddy. Instead we have two guys acting individually with just pistols.
There's certainly no other outcome expected from a couple guys panicking with guns
Either you’ve never been swung on in your life, or you were incapable of absorbing any learnings from it.
Lmao. Sure buddy, whatever you say.
I'm just saying I've had the shit beat out of me a few times, and based on my experience ain't no way I'm gonna analyze somebody's arm angle, stance, gait, wind speed, and other atmospheric conditions like I'm some fucking shonen anime fighting savant in 4 seconds.
Hell I don't think I could've gotten off a shot in 4 seconds, I'd be laid out by this kid and he'd be wailing on me.
Maybe you've had amazing training on this front and could make such a calculus, but most people don't, and cops aren't much better trained than regular people.
14 weeks in Georgia, tender care of the Army. But forgive me for thinking the police should at least be able to do better than the Army whose default win mode is achieve the objective without committing a war crime.
And it's easy to get a draw and shoot down to about 1 second. But they really should have had weapons up going in, together. They knew it was a call about an aggressive minor. They could have easily had one guy trying less than legal with guy 2 ready to shoot.
The lack of training to use deadly force isn't an excuse. It's a reason to disarm normal patrol officers.
Are you coming at me in a threatening manner?
So yes. You think you have a license to shoot anyone. Great. I really don't look forward to your future headline.
you know, educators and mental health workers are expected to manage situations like this without shooting students/patients/clients.
Also the “kid” is a 15 year old adult sized man
Weird how you only hear this type of stuff when describing black kids. 🤔
I don't understand why you all care so much about someone's skin color. If you disagree with something I've said then tell me what it is. These ad-hominem attacks aren't doing much.
Because black children being described as and treated like adults is a pattern that has been repeatedly used to justify violence against them.
I have plenty of dangerous gardening tools in my shed.
The fact is, and point I was trying to make, we don't know what the tool was therefore, we can't draw conclusions about acceptable risk yet.
Protecting includes the family, the ones who called the police in the first place, from danger too.
Oh for Christ’s sake. What other countries does this happen in? Is the US so profoundly filled with dangerous gardening tools that they present a clear and present danger in the hands of a child facing armed and armored officers? I believe they have garden tools in places like England and New Zealand and such.
Maybe if we didn’t arm every cop like they’re supposed to take Baghdad and train them that their first job is coming home alive, huh?
Yo, no offence here, buut you people seem to forget all about the random Europe attacks with bladed instruments. Let alone all the attacks in the rest of the world that go unreported globally.
Melee weapon attacks are dangerous and often deadly. My country prohibits having anything that can be classified as a white weapon in your car due to how many fuckwits started hitting and stabbing each other in traffic.
You lot are really downplaying the risks involved just because cops were at the center of it.
No offense here either, but you seem to have fallen for the NRA-driven narrative that knife attacks are more common in Europe as if that balances out the enormous rate of gun crimes (including this one) in the US. Statistically, both the US and Europe have approximately the same rate of knife attacks - with some countries in Eastern Europe being a bit higher.
But let’s reason that through a bit more, just to be scientists. If an officer is willing to fire a gun at the literal drop of a hat, and that was somehow a deterrent to knife crimes, then we might hypothesize that the fact that in European countries officers use de-escalation first and engagement with pepper spray or tasers second would in fact see far higher rates of knife crimes. They don’t.
So logically speaking, I don’t think either the statistics nor the models support your hypothesis.
My "hypothesis" is simply that you're downplaying the dangers of an attack with a melee weapon. They can be and often are deadly, regardless of how often they happen.
So should a cop respond with lethal force against a child because they have a garden tool, or has the rest of the planet been making a terrible mistake that only the Americans, with their off the charts levels of violence and incarceration, have figured out?
Do you think a militarized police force has a negative effect on violent crime and the rest of the world outside of places like Haiti and Somalia need to catch up with us?
You know what I think? I think it doesn't matter what I think. Society is gonna do what it does regardless.
And as it seems, the general consensus of society in this regard is fuck the kids.
Epstein's island, clergy abuse, school shootings, bombings, starvation, kidnappings, mutilations, etc. No matter the corner of the world, kids are getting fucked in every way possible.
You think these cops shooting a black and/or autistic kid makes them special? It doesn't. Not even top ten of the most fucked up thing happening to kids across the world.
The outrage is ridiculous.
The cops aren't the problem. They're a symptom. They lack training, proper equipment and the leadership to grant what they need. But even that isn't enough. They need a competent elected government that will grant the correct laws and the required budget to enact these changes. And that can only be done through fair elections by an educated electorate.
Without actually changing society at the fundamental level, this outrage of yours doesn't solve anything. Because obviously not enough people in the right places care enough to get shit done.
None of that though changes that you're downplaying the dangers of melee combat.
I'm not here defending or jumping to conclusions of anyone or any economic, cultural, or racial statement.
All I want to know is what the damn tool was!
Dude it literally doesn't fucking matter. Police in other countries disarm people wielding knives on a regular basis, without fucking killing them.
You are siding with an incompetent, oppressive and racist organization under the guise of rationality. Please stop. Cops are not your friends. They do not protect you. They are state sponsored bullies.
A couple years ago I would have understood where you're coming from and possibly even agreed with you. But the more I learn about the history of police and how utterly ineffective they are the more I agree with radical leftist beliefs. No matter how much you want to believe we live in a functioning society, with a functioning police force, it just isn't reality. The police have a long and violent history of brutalizing and murdering the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society. Fuck the police.
The "if you're not with me, you're against me" argument is BS and a tool of the ignorant. I'm not your enemy because I refuse to debate a position I never addressed in the first place. I was talking about a garden tool, nothing else. You want to goad me into an argument I simply won't have.
Furthermore, you have no business telling me who my friends are. I have, in fact, had some very positive experiences with police in the past. I don't share your rational and I am, as an individual, entirely entitled to my first hand, fact-based opinion even if it doesn't reflect yours.
You're asking for information that is simply irrelevant, police should and can disarm people wielding melee weapons. Maybe you genuinely believe you are asking an important question, but asking questions like "but what did he do to deserve it" is a common bad faith argument used to muddy the waters and make the situation appear more ambiguous than it truly is. Hence, no one in this thread wants to fucking answer your question. You are the one attempting to goad people into engaging in an argument we simply won't have.
I too have had positive experiences with cops, this proves absolutely nothing. You are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to think society would be better off if people like you had a more critical opinion of an organization that does pretty much anything other than serve and protect.
What a crap take. You know how many people young and old have been in a foreign country with a majority of the populace looking to kill them, have a thing called ROE Rules Of Engagement to guide when they should shoot to kill. Many time people with weapons, lethal weapons in their hand and those people would have to gauge whether or not they were a threat.
All police should have to adhere to a common ROE when engaging with the America/non American populace. If soldiers had to do it in a country where they were not welcome it should be a no brainier that the people sworn to "protect and serve" should have to do this bare minimum in our own country.
You did read the article including the part he was attacking his sister possibly with the garden tool or "piece of glass" while his other family was avoiding him and calling the cops? What is your threat assessment of that?
Anyways...
I don't know if the shooting was justified or not, and I've never made such statement and don't have an opinion one way or the other.
My post, if you read it again, is about The Guardians lack of information about the freaking tool.
That's all I want to know. What is the tool? JFC people.
Do you think that his family who called the cops wanted the cops to murder him?
Heard you the first time. Just leave it there then? Perhaps they hadn't been given that information yet.
Can you provide me with an example ROE and show me how the actions of the police here would have violated it?
Just for clarity, Here is the body cam video of the attack.
What ROE would have prohibited a member of the military deployed in a foreign nation from using lethal force in an equivalent scenario?
Maybe don't take a job of protecting and serving if a kid with a gardening tool is a bit too frightening for you to handle non-lethally.
Yeah, the kid didn't have something dangerous like an acorn.
Ha! That was a hoot of a story back then. Not for the dude in the back of course.
Jesus christ, america
How should police have handled it?
The bodycam video shows the officer approaching with his gun holstered, drawing it while backing up, turning and trying to run away, while the kid quickly closes the distance and tries to strike the officer's face, head, and upper body with a long-handled tool.
How should the officer have handled this?
How would you have handled this?
If a random person were attacked in such a manner, is it possible that they could have lost an eye? Is it possible that they could have been permanently disfigured? Had their carotid artery severed and quickly bled out? Been knocked out?
Is it possible that a reasonable person could have reasonably believed this attacker posed a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm to an innocent person?
First of all, they got radios. He knew cop number 2 was a second behind him. So have the tactical patience to group properly.
Designate a lethal guy and a non lethal guy.
In the future, train actual hand to hand to trap an arm holding a weapon and neutralize it.
We don't pay police to kill us.
Ah. The Uvalde Gambit.
Uvalde was a shooter attacking children while police stood by. This is a completely different situation.
Correct. I wasn't referring to this situation.
I was referring to the parent comment, where they suggested responding officers should wait around outside, while the kid is trying to kill his family members inside.
This kid charged as soon as the first officer made verbal contact with the occupants. So, when called to a domestic dispute, where a family member has been reported using a weapon, parent comment seems to suggest adopting a policy of "stick thumb up ass and wait until we have overwhelming force" before even approaching the scene.
Ignore that the enraged attacker is trying to kill people inside. Ignore that the occupants are calling for help. Just stand by and wait for more people.
That's what police did at Uvalde. Parent comment is recommending a policy consistent with the bungled response at Uvalde.
"Uvalde Gambit" concisely implies the problems with parent comment's suggestion: waiting consistently leads to worse outcomes than immediate actions.
Oh so those are the choices? No engagement at all until a third party intervenes or charging in like a Call of Duty player?
That's not a good faith argument.
The other choice is what most humans would do. That's remove yourself from what you perceive as a dangerous situation. I know it hurts fee fees when ego is on the line but better than killing someone.
Right? The kid was no longer threatening the family. Lead him to your partner. Do a dance around the patrol car.
Nope straight to shooting kids.
A taser?
Are you asking or telling? Are you telling me that it would have been more appropriate to use a tazer, or are you asking me if a tazer would have been a feasible option?
Are you trained and qualified to determine when and how to employ a tazer? Are you qualified to discuss the conditions under which a tazer can or should be employed?
Basically, do you actually know what you're talking about when you mention a tazer?
I'm not trained in how to employ a tazer, but a cop probably should be.
It seems like there ought to be some way to safely help a teenager having a mental breakdown without killing them.
Clearly. If you had been trained on the proper use of a taser, you would recognize that they can't be effectively employed in the way you suggest.
You might as well be arguing that the cop should have just shot the weapon out of the kid's hands. It's just as feasible.
It would have been a better option than the gun.
Disagree?
How could a tazer have been employed in this situation?
By pulling it out of his holster instead of the gun.
<.< Well, y’see, a taser and a gun are very similar in these instances. You take it out, point it at the target, and pull the trigger.
Since there were two cops, that means there were two tasers. Funny how two guns were used though, as if they never even considered using their tasers?
Yes. Yes, they are.
Sometimes I forget that most people have zero training in defensive force.
Tell me: how accurately can well-trained personnel put rounds on target in immediate, defensive situations? How many hits can they land in the time it takes an attacker to land his first blow? How many misses? How about by his second blow? I know what I have been taught, but you're not going to trust me. Go find that number.
When you find the real-world hit percentages in close-quarters combat. multiply it times two for the number of times they can shoot their tasers.
If that number is less than 1, the attacker is more likely to land a blow than not.
Next, multiply it by 30 to 38, for the number of times they could shoot their handguns. Now you have a reasonable tool for stopping a deadly attack.
Most adults would take a knife to the arm to protect a child, but god forbid taking a garden tool to the arm to not shoot one.
This kid's own family was unwilling to take such a hit from this kid, but you expect it from a complete stranger?
Yes?
Would you save a child from being shot at the cost of being stabbed?
Nope.
This kid's family did the right thing when they asked people with guns to stop their child from murdering someone.
Shoot the tazer darts at the boy while he's approaching instead of bullets?
Did you watch the video? Remember: each and every blow the kid lands with that weapon has the possibility of permanently maiming, disfiguring, or killing the officer.
Watching the video, the officer was able to draw his gun, but was not able to get it on target before the kid was within striking distance, and swinging his weapon at the officer's head or upper body. The video ends before we see who actually fired the shots.
That's the risk of being in a job that isn't even in the top 20 most dangerous jobs in America.
As you were told elsewhere, soldiers in war zones wouldn't act this way and their job is far more dangerous.
You're just encouraging police cowardice. Not that it needs to be encouraged.
You always know you're going to hear some pig fellating boot sucking shit take when someone calls oinkers "officer".
Gotcha.
It is "cowardice" to take effective steps to stop an attacker from jamming a garden hoe in your neck.
Understood.
it is cowardice to conclude lethal force is the only option here.
So there are no possible effective steps that could have been taken without murdering the boy?
Amazing cops aren't murdered constantly in Europe.
I'm not asking you. I'm phrasing it as a question because it's one of the most blatantly obvious answers to your question. A taser is better unquestionably when someone is coming after you with clearly not a gun. Yes. I'm not trained but I have enough common sense to realize that not killing someone who's chasing you with a clearly non lethal weapon is much better than killing them.
How was that tool clearly non lethal? If fists are potentially lethal, then a long sturdy tool sure as hell is.
The weapon in question is a metal blade on a stick.
It is readily capable of destroying an eye. (Aka: "Grievous bodily harm") It is readily capable of severing the carotid artery. (Aka: "death") It is capable of causing a wide variety of similar permanently debilitating, disfiguring, or lethal injuries to the officer in a very short period of time.
The video shows that the kid was attempting to strike a retreating officer in the head or upper body. Any person in the officer's position would reasonably fear a significant possibility of death or grievous bodily harm from this attack.
I therefore reject your assertion that the weapon being employed against the officer can be reasonably described as "clearly non lethal".
That's the beauty of it, police don't have to protect and serve in America. Courts made sure of that. Don't need to know the laws they're enforcing either. Just run an obstacle course and take a 40 hr course on killology - the idea that policing is the most dangerous job on the planet and everyone is trying to kill you at all times- and presto, they give you a gun, body armor, and protection from the legal and financial repercussions of your actions.
Plus, there's lots of networking opportunities with local white supremacist and christofascist organizations.
I can crack your skull with a single swing of a gardening hoe. It's hilariously unreasonable to expect police not to treat this as a lethal weapon. Look at the video; they're telling him to stop or they'll shoot and even turn around and start running away in order to avoid doing that.
Also the "kid" is a 15 year old adult sized man.
And I can crack your head with nothing in my hands. Are we just shooting anyone now?
A cop could trip on the sidewalk walking up to the door and crack his head open. This is such a stupid argument. These people are supposedly paid to deal with dangerous situations. Cop lovers always talk about how "they're putting their lives on the line" yet in reality, we see they're really putting everyone else's life on the line in every situation because apparently your life is worth more than everyone else's once you take a 6-week course at a local community college and put on a badge.
Shooting violent people that attack others with bladed long weapons is a justified use of force. No doubt there are better and worse ways of handling situations like this but if it's racist police murdering innocent people you're looking for then this isn't it.
If you watch the video it's reaching shears. Don't make this out like it's a sword. And he's holding it a hand on either end so he has no leverage to swing it. You could easily tackle him and render them useless.
Absolutely a fucked up panic shoot that will get swept under the rug with the rest. Cowards shouldn't have badges and they should face charges for playing judge dredd.
Near impossible to tell from the video but definitely looks more like a hoe to me. Also, the cop had around 4 seconds to figure out what to do and he's literally running away from the guy chasing and about to swing at him with it the moment they opened fire at him. It doesn't get much more legitimate from that.
Okay and still, what leverage does he have with his hands like that?
This officer also created the situation by not waiting just a couple seconds for his buddy. Instead we have two guys acting individually with just pistols.
There's certainly no other outcome expected from a couple guys panicking with guns
Either you’ve never been swung on in your life, or you were incapable of absorbing any learnings from it.
Lmao. Sure buddy, whatever you say.
I'm just saying I've had the shit beat out of me a few times, and based on my experience ain't no way I'm gonna analyze somebody's arm angle, stance, gait, wind speed, and other atmospheric conditions like I'm some fucking shonen anime fighting savant in 4 seconds.
Hell I don't think I could've gotten off a shot in 4 seconds, I'd be laid out by this kid and he'd be wailing on me.
Maybe you've had amazing training on this front and could make such a calculus, but most people don't, and cops aren't much better trained than regular people.
14 weeks in Georgia, tender care of the Army. But forgive me for thinking the police should at least be able to do better than the Army whose default win mode is achieve the objective without committing a war crime.
And it's easy to get a draw and shoot down to about 1 second. But they really should have had weapons up going in, together. They knew it was a call about an aggressive minor. They could have easily had one guy trying less than legal with guy 2 ready to shoot.
The lack of training to use deadly force isn't an excuse. It's a reason to disarm normal patrol officers.
Are you coming at me in a threatening manner?
So yes. You think you have a license to shoot anyone. Great. I really don't look forward to your future headline.
you know, educators and mental health workers are expected to manage situations like this without shooting students/patients/clients.
Weird how you only hear this type of stuff when describing black kids. 🤔
I don't understand why you all care so much about someone's skin color. If you disagree with something I've said then tell me what it is. These ad-hominem attacks aren't doing much.
Because black children being described as and treated like adults is a pattern that has been repeatedly used to justify violence against them.
I have plenty of dangerous gardening tools in my shed.
The fact is, and point I was trying to make, we don't know what the tool was therefore, we can't draw conclusions about acceptable risk yet.
Protecting includes the family, the ones who called the police in the first place, from danger too.
Oh for Christ’s sake. What other countries does this happen in? Is the US so profoundly filled with dangerous gardening tools that they present a clear and present danger in the hands of a child facing armed and armored officers? I believe they have garden tools in places like England and New Zealand and such.
Maybe if we didn’t arm every cop like they’re supposed to take Baghdad and train them that their first job is coming home alive, huh?
Yo, no offence here, buut you people seem to forget all about the random Europe attacks with bladed instruments. Let alone all the attacks in the rest of the world that go unreported globally.
Melee weapon attacks are dangerous and often deadly. My country prohibits having anything that can be classified as a white weapon in your car due to how many fuckwits started hitting and stabbing each other in traffic.
You lot are really downplaying the risks involved just because cops were at the center of it.
No offense here either, but you seem to have fallen for the NRA-driven narrative that knife attacks are more common in Europe as if that balances out the enormous rate of gun crimes (including this one) in the US. Statistically, both the US and Europe have approximately the same rate of knife attacks - with some countries in Eastern Europe being a bit higher.
But let’s reason that through a bit more, just to be scientists. If an officer is willing to fire a gun at the literal drop of a hat, and that was somehow a deterrent to knife crimes, then we might hypothesize that the fact that in European countries officers use de-escalation first and engagement with pepper spray or tasers second would in fact see far higher rates of knife crimes. They don’t.
So logically speaking, I don’t think either the statistics nor the models support your hypothesis.
My "hypothesis" is simply that you're downplaying the dangers of an attack with a melee weapon. They can be and often are deadly, regardless of how often they happen.
So should a cop respond with lethal force against a child because they have a garden tool, or has the rest of the planet been making a terrible mistake that only the Americans, with their off the charts levels of violence and incarceration, have figured out?
Do you think a militarized police force has a negative effect on violent crime and the rest of the world outside of places like Haiti and Somalia need to catch up with us?
You know what I think? I think it doesn't matter what I think. Society is gonna do what it does regardless. And as it seems, the general consensus of society in this regard is fuck the kids. Epstein's island, clergy abuse, school shootings, bombings, starvation, kidnappings, mutilations, etc. No matter the corner of the world, kids are getting fucked in every way possible. You think these cops shooting a black and/or autistic kid makes them special? It doesn't. Not even top ten of the most fucked up thing happening to kids across the world. The outrage is ridiculous.
The cops aren't the problem. They're a symptom. They lack training, proper equipment and the leadership to grant what they need. But even that isn't enough. They need a competent elected government that will grant the correct laws and the required budget to enact these changes. And that can only be done through fair elections by an educated electorate.
Without actually changing society at the fundamental level, this outrage of yours doesn't solve anything. Because obviously not enough people in the right places care enough to get shit done.
None of that though changes that you're downplaying the dangers of melee combat.
I'm not here defending or jumping to conclusions of anyone or any economic, cultural, or racial statement.
All I want to know is what the damn tool was!
Dude it literally doesn't fucking matter. Police in other countries disarm people wielding knives on a regular basis, without fucking killing them.
You are siding with an incompetent, oppressive and racist organization under the guise of rationality. Please stop. Cops are not your friends. They do not protect you. They are state sponsored bullies.
A couple years ago I would have understood where you're coming from and possibly even agreed with you. But the more I learn about the history of police and how utterly ineffective they are the more I agree with radical leftist beliefs. No matter how much you want to believe we live in a functioning society, with a functioning police force, it just isn't reality. The police have a long and violent history of brutalizing and murdering the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society. Fuck the police.
The "if you're not with me, you're against me" argument is BS and a tool of the ignorant. I'm not your enemy because I refuse to debate a position I never addressed in the first place. I was talking about a garden tool, nothing else. You want to goad me into an argument I simply won't have.
Furthermore, you have no business telling me who my friends are. I have, in fact, had some very positive experiences with police in the past. I don't share your rational and I am, as an individual, entirely entitled to my first hand, fact-based opinion even if it doesn't reflect yours.
You're asking for information that is simply irrelevant, police should and can disarm people wielding melee weapons. Maybe you genuinely believe you are asking an important question, but asking questions like "but what did he do to deserve it" is a common bad faith argument used to muddy the waters and make the situation appear more ambiguous than it truly is. Hence, no one in this thread wants to fucking answer your question. You are the one attempting to goad people into engaging in an argument we simply won't have.
I too have had positive experiences with cops, this proves absolutely nothing. You are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to think society would be better off if people like you had a more critical opinion of an organization that does pretty much anything other than serve and protect.
What a crap take. You know how many people young and old have been in a foreign country with a majority of the populace looking to kill them, have a thing called ROE Rules Of Engagement to guide when they should shoot to kill. Many time people with weapons, lethal weapons in their hand and those people would have to gauge whether or not they were a threat.
All police should have to adhere to a common ROE when engaging with the America/non American populace. If soldiers had to do it in a country where they were not welcome it should be a no brainier that the people sworn to "protect and serve" should have to do this bare minimum in our own country.
You did read the article including the part he was attacking his sister possibly with the garden tool or "piece of glass" while his other family was avoiding him and calling the cops? What is your threat assessment of that?
Anyways...
I don't know if the shooting was justified or not, and I've never made such statement and don't have an opinion one way or the other.
My post, if you read it again, is about The Guardians lack of information about the freaking tool.
That's all I want to know. What is the tool? JFC people.
Do you think that his family who called the cops wanted the cops to murder him?
Heard you the first time. Just leave it there then? Perhaps they hadn't been given that information yet.
Can you provide me with an example ROE and show me how the actions of the police here would have violated it?
Just for clarity, Here is the body cam video of the attack.
What ROE would have prohibited a member of the military deployed in a foreign nation from using lethal force in an equivalent scenario?