3 brave officers disarm 17 year old girl by shooting her to death

[Jimmy Higgins]

I did not specify going after her with hands but I do know there is a lot of material available other than guns that could have been used...also you apparently did not take any of your training to heart. This might have been what happened at the police station...the officers just took the easy way out. Being a good cop is a very hard job. That is why they receive so much training and conditioning.

You can safely defend yourself against a knife with your bare hands if you are Chuck Norris, and you are in a TV studio. Is that the background you are speaking from? You don't think I took my self-defense training to heart? It was the center of my life.

Against a teenager you likely outweigh 2 to 1 and you are already on top of her, with her chest to the ground?

Is this a particularly hard situation to deal with? To cuff her? Or was he so busy thinking about pulling out his gun (did it twice) to restrain her, while she was pretty much harmless?

Is that part of the training? When to give the person who is a threat to you a second chance?

 

[ApostateAbe]

You can safely defend yourself against a knife with your bare hands if you are Chuck Norris, and you are in a TV studio. Is that the background you are speaking from? You don't think I took my self-defense training to heart? It was the center of my life.

Against a teenager you likely outweigh 2 to 1 and you are already on top of her, with her chest to the ground?

Is this a particularly hard situation to deal with? To cuff her? Or was he so busy thinking about pulling out his gun (did it twice) to restrain her, while she was pretty much harmless?

Is that part of the training? When to give the person who is a threat to you a second chance?

While in the mount, you have control of the opponent beneath you. You are completely vulnerable to anyone else in your opponent's company. Review the previous discussion on this point if you have objections.

 

[Archimedes]

More bullshit, I see. I did not say that the cop should "run away". And the cop's "fucking job" was to handle the situation so that no one gets killed or seriously injured, not to shoot a clearly disturbed girl. He failed at his job this time.

As I said, as a first action, he could have (and IMO should have) backed off and waited for backup before trying to control the clearly disturbed girl. Trying to subdue her by himself greatly increased the risk to both her and himself.

Is that really so fucking hard for you to understand?

- - - Updated - - -

to these sorts of people, any impediment whatsoever to cops indiscriminately murdering anyone without any consequence whatsoever is imposing handicaps on the cops and trying to destroy the moral fabric of america.

No, you are just trying to impose ridiculous handicaps on cops, not trying to destroy the moral fabric of America.

"Don't shoot clearly disturbed people" is a ridiculous handicap?

Back off how far? The more he backs off, the harder it is to hit the target and the harder it is to orient himself to shoot the target instead of a nearby bystander near the line of fire.

There you have it folks. The cop was justified in shooting this girl because if he didn't do so immediately then her, being a "target" would become a more difficult "target" if he backed off.

Jesus wept.

 

[Nexus]

You are completely vulnerable to anyone else in your opponent's company.

Why would you assume your opponent would have a gang of friends to help while you grapple with them if you're a cop in a police station. How often do groups of criminals beat up a lone cop in a police station?

 

[Mageth]

According to Abe's pretzel logic, in the middle of the night, in addition to a cop and a target, this police station lobby was crowded with bystanders and accomplices. Hence, the correct thing to do is, let the target go after pinning it, stay real close to it, and shoot it when it moves.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Against a teenager you likely outweigh 2 to 1 and you are already on top of her, with her chest to the ground?

Is this a particularly hard situation to deal with? To cuff her? Or was he so busy thinking about pulling out his gun (did it twice) to restrain her, while she was pretty much harmless?

Is that part of the training? When to give the person who is a threat to you a second chance?

While in the mount, you have control of the opponent beneath you. You are completely vulnerable to anyone else in your opponent's company. Review the previous discussion on this point if you have objections.

That didn't address a single point, especially the whole part about 2 to 1 weight ratio cop having the person already in a vulnerable position... and for who knows why, gets up and takes out his gun (for the second time). A maneuver that puts the entire station at greater risk.

 

[Mageth]

While in the mount, you have control of the opponent beneath you. You are completely vulnerable to anyone else in your opponent's company. Review the previous discussion on this point if you have objections.

So let me get this straight...instead of backing off and waiting for backup, the officer should approach, confront, and subdue the "target" so that innocent bystanders don't get shot. But instead of keeping the "target" pinned once subdued, the officer should release the "target" and back off so that accomplices don't get him while vulnerable.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

 

[Mageth]

I just can't leave this bizarre pretzel logic alone.

Apparently, when the officer first confronted the girl, the lobby was filled with innocent bystanders. But after subduing the girl, the lobby was suddenly filled with dangerous accomplices.

Incredible!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

While in the mount, you have control of the opponent beneath you. You are completely vulnerable to anyone else in your opponent's company. Review the previous discussion on this point if you have objections.

So let me get this straight...instead of backing off and waiting for backup, the officer should approach, confront, and subdue the "target" so that innocent bystanders don't get shot. But instead of keeping the "target" pinned once subdued, the officer should release the "target" and back off so that accomplices don't get him while vulnerable.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

You aren't taking into account that when the Officer gets up, that he has a gun on her and isn't actually scanning elsewhere for accomplices...

...wait...

...that doesn't help Abe's case, does it.

 

[ksen]

According to Abe's pretzel logic, in the middle of the night, in addition to a cop and a target, this police station lobby was crowded with bystanders and accomplices. Hence, the correct thing to do is, let the target go after pinning it, stay real close to it, and shoot it when it moves.

lol

 

[ApostateAbe]

You are completely vulnerable to anyone else in your opponent's company.

Why would you assume your opponent would have a gang of friends to help while you grapple with them if you're a cop in a police station. How often do groups of criminals beat up a lone cop in a police station?

You know, whenever a cop is defending his or her own life or the lives of others, he or she should assess probabilities rationally based on context, and the best case scenario would be to have your phone number on his or her speed dial so you can be consulted and exactly the right decision can be made, before doing anything.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why would you assume your opponent would have a gang of friends to help while you grapple with them if you're a cop in a police station. How often do groups of criminals beat up a lone cop in a police station?

You know, whenever a cop is defending his or her own life or the lives of others, he or she should assess probabilities rationally based on context, and the best case scenario would be to have your phone number on his or her speed dial so you can be consulted and exactly the right decision can be made, before doing anything.

So is that why they got off of her?

 

[Mageth]

Why would you assume your opponent would have a gang of friends to help while you grapple with them if you're a cop in a police station. How often do groups of criminals beat up a lone cop in a police station?

You know, whenever a cop is defending his or her own life or the lives of others, he or she should assess probabilities rationally based on context, and the best case scenario would be to have your phone number on his or her speed dial so you can be consulted and exactly the right decision can be made, before doing anything.

Sooooo....you try to come up with rational reasons for his actions (the reasons involving switching between innocent bystanders and dangerous accomplices), but now appear to dismiss these reasons because he can't have been expected to make the right decision in the heat of the moment?

According to your logic, this poor cop must have been quite confused, what with the lobby first filled with innocent bystanders to protect, and then suddenly rife with dangerous accomplices to fear!

 

[ApostateAbe]

You know, whenever a cop is defending his or her own life or the lives of others, he or she should assess probabilities rationally based on context, and the best case scenario would be to have your phone number on his or her speed dial so you can be consulted and exactly the right decision can be made, before doing anything.

Sooooo....you try to come up with rational reasons for his actions (the reasons involving switching between innocent bystanders and dangerous accomplices), but now appear to dismiss these reasons because he can't have been expected to make the right decision in the heat of the moment?

According to your logic, this poor cop must have been quite confused, what with the lobby first filled with innocent bystanders to protect, and then suddenly rife with dangerous accomplices to fear!

My general point would be that everyone (cops or not) acts on instinct and habit when in a fight-or-flight mentality. You think the cop should have made an exception to the general training behavior to lose the confined mount when alone, because it is a police station, and after putting a little thought into it he would know that accomplices are less likely in a police station and therefore it is a little more dangerous to lose the mount. That is a roughly reasonable inference from your comfortable armchair.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sooooo....you try to come up with rational reasons for his actions (the reasons involving switching between innocent bystanders and dangerous accomplices), but now appear to dismiss these reasons because he can't have been expected to make the right decision in the heat of the moment?

According to your logic, this poor cop must have been quite confused, what with the lobby first filled with innocent bystanders to protect, and then suddenly rife with dangerous accomplices to fear!

My general point would be that everyone (cops or not) act on instinct and habit when in a fight-or-flight mentality. You think the cop should have made an exception to the general training behavior to lose the confined mount when alone, because it is a police station, and after putting a little thought into it he would know that accomplices are less likely in a police station and therefore it is a little more dangerous to lose the mount. That is a roughly reasonable inference from your comfortable armchair.

The officer wasn't looking for accomplices. He has his eye and gun trained only on the teenager.

This ignores the whole... if he cuffs her quickly, while he is on top of her, she is neutralized and he is ready for the Big Boss at the end of Level 1.

She is initially contained, but he is misses a moment because he is putting his gun away and can't cuff her with one hand. Then he misses again, when on top of her to cuff, because... Big Boss at the end of Level 1 is about to appear. So now, she is able to resist again... all because a 2 to 1 weight ratio cop is unable to neutralize the teenager.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Jimmy Higgens, it turns out human beings also have ears to observe, in addition to eyes, and cops are no exception, believe it or not. Throw a lot of shit against a wall, and any reason that sticks for our lack of knowledge and critical thinking is a reason the cop was guilty of murder, even in the context of a lunging attacker with a knife. If such cops were guilty until proven innocent, that would actually be a step in the right direction. As it stands, they are absolutely always guilty, and there is no proving otherwise.

 

[Rhea]

. As it stands, they are absolutely always guilty, and there is no proving otherwise.

That is not true and I think you know that. Hyperbole does not advance your case.

 

[ApostateAbe]

. As it stands, they are absolutely always guilty, and there is no proving otherwise.

That is not true and I think you know that. Hyperbole does not advance your case.

It is hyperbole, yes. Hyperbole seems to be the norm in this thread, established as tradition by the OP.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jimmy Higgens, it turns out human beings also have ears to observe, in addition to eyes, and cops are no exception, believe it or not.

That is odd because he isn't reacting to the sound of the Big Boss.

Throw a lot of shit against a wall, and any reason that sticks for our lack of knowledge and critical thinking is a reason the cop was guilty of murder, even in the context of a lunging attacker with a knife.

He brandishes his gun twice. The gun should be a last option. Doesn't he press the gun up against her face, unless that is a baton?

If such cops were guilty until proven innocent, that would actually be a step in the right direction. As it stands, they are absolutely always guilty, and there is no proving otherwise.

He was on top of her. He weighs twice her weight. She could have been subdued at that moment. Instead, she is dead. He made a number of bad tactical decisions, that an officer shouldn't make... and shouldn't he be in better shape... I mean not compared to a potato?

She's dead, she didn't have to die. She should be receiving help right now in a hospital.

 

[Mageth]

My general point would be that everyone (cops or not) acts on instinct and habit when in a fight-or-flight mentality. You think the cop should have made an exception to the general training behavior to lose the confined mount when alone, because it is a police station, and after putting a little thought into it he would know that accomplices are less likely in a police station and therefore it is a little more dangerous to lose the mount. That is a roughly reasonable inference from your comfortable armchair.

No. What I think, which should be clear by my earlier posts, is that the cop should not have confronted, physically engaged, and tackled the girl while alone AT ALL. He should have backed off and waited for backup. But when I propose that scenario, you assert "Bystanters! Bystanders!"

But then when it's pointed out that, once the cop had the girl down while alone, he should have just kept her down, you assert "Accomplices! Accomplices!"

Now, when this flip-flopping is pointed out, you start asserting "Acting on instinct! Acting on instinct!"

Your flip-flopping pretzel logic assertions make no fucking sense at all.

(BTW, can you point to some police training reference that indicates that it's a "general training behavior to lose the confined mount when alone"?)