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

[laughing dog]

Someone better tell these police that they did not attend the proper self-defense classes :

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20141230/covina-police-disarm-suicidal-man-with-knife
http://www.kwtx.com/ourtown/home/headlines/Waco--Police-Disarm-Arrest-Knife-Wielding-Woman-288831761.htmlhttp://www.ksdk.com/story/news/2014/09/05/bodycam-captures-murder-suspects-arrest/15145405/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ebbs5UmHho
http://www.kpho.com/story/19238632/police-use-stun-gun-to-disarm-knife-wielding-student .

Apparently it is not as uncommon or difficult to disarm a knife-wielding civilian as some people claim.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Last link: cop had a knife thrown at his face by a 16-year-old girl.

 

[ApostateAbe]

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.

I don't really see a contradiction here. Maybe you think that it is either apples or oranges, and, if you have both of them in a bowl, then it is a contradiction. I know you probably don't really think that, and maybe I don't understand your point.

(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"?)

No, I just have my own training.

 

[laughing dog]

Last link: cop had a knife thrown at his face by a 16-year-old girl.

And yet, she was not gunned down. Do you think these outcomes are the result of divine intervention or something more mundane such as decent training and ethos?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

See some posts above...IMO he/they could have handled the situation differently, quite possibly resulting in all coming out alive.

Furthermore, seeing this report I strongly suspect this is a suicide by cop. She set up a situation where the cops would have little choice.

She was clearly disturbed. IMO, if the police had handled this differently, they could have controlled the situation so that she could not force them to make this terrible choice. Back off, wait til the right people are there to handle a disturbed teenage girl. If she gets aggressive, be far enough back that she can't lunge, and keep moving back.

I see assertions that there were alternatives. That doesn't mean there were any.

The cop who grappled her let go--the only reason this makes any sense is if he felt the knife was a threat. Once he let go there were no options.

- - - Updated - - -

You would rather that the cops do some sweet jujitsu moves on the homicidal teenager with a knife, so everyone wins. I get it. Each handicap you impose on cops to defend themselves increases their odds of death. It is putting an extra bullet in their chambers of Russian Roulette. You would not follow the rules that you impose on cops, nor would you impose those rules on the lives of people that you care about. So you are comfortable imposing those rules on cops.

I see it's moved from hogwash to complete bullshit now.

I would rather that both the girl and the police had come out of this without injury or death. The same holds true for any confrontation between the police and the public. I'm sure the police officers involved would agree with me. IMO, there are ways that the police could have handled this particular situation that would have resulted in that outcome. Is that really so fucking hard for you to understand?

Phasers on stun would have done it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think it's the count of legal homicides. They're not all police shootings, though--civilian self-defense cases fall in the same basket. As do executions.

That's right, Loren...make sure the murders are neatly filed in the correct BASKETS. You always seem to be saying, "Let there be order," without regard for whether or not that "order" is particularly fair.

I was explaining that the number covered more than just cop shootings. Whether you agree with the death penalty or not has nothing to do with what the stat means.

 

[Mageth]

I don't really see a contradiction here. Maybe you think that it is either apples or oranges, and, if you have both of them in a bowl, then it is a contradiction. I know you probably don't really think that, and maybe I don't understand your point.

After using "Bystanders!" in an attempt to defend the cop's actions in tackling the girl alone rather than backing off and waiting for backup, you brought up the possibility of dangerous accomplices as a reason for the cop to release the girl once subdued and pinned. You've been called on that, and so now the empty lobby was full of both innocent bystanders and dangerous accomplices!!!

Further, other than the girl and the cop the lobby was empty, was clearly empty, and the cop could easily tell that it was empty. Your notion of bystanders that needed to be protected, hence prompting the cop to approach and attempt to physically control the girl, followed by dangerous accomplices that needed to be avoided by releasing the girl, is prima facie ridiculous.

Moreover, if possible dangerous accomplices to a clearly disturbed teenage girl were really a concern to the cop, then it would make no sense for the cop to confront and try to physically control the girl by himself in the first place, as that would expose him to the threat of these feared accomplices. Backing off and waiting for backup would be the far wiser and safer choice if the cop was actually concerned about accomplices suddenly appearing in an otherwise empty police station lobby.

Seriously, Abe, your attempt at a defense is a muddled mess and makes no sense at all.

No, I just have my own training.

Remind me never to hire you as a security guard.

 

[Mageth]

I see assertions that there were alternatives. That doesn't mean there were any.

Of course there were alternatives. Even you agree...see below...

The cop who grappled her let go--the only reason this makes any sense is if he felt the knife was a threat.

A 200 pound cop was on top of a 17 year old girl lying on her face. He had her under control. Some threat she was!

Oh, and there's one alternative already - WAIT FOR BACKUP BEFORE GRAPPLING WITH HER.

Once he let go there were no options.

So then, once he chose to grapple with her by himself with no backup and managed to subdue her, it seems he shouldn't have let her go. Which would be another alternative - not letting her up once you have her down and under control. There's already at least two alternatives we've come up with, you and me working together!

Phasers on stun would have done it.

So, the only alternative you can see to a situation involving three cops and a disturbed teenage girl in a police station lobby that resulted in at least three shots fired into the teenage girl is "Phasers on stun!" The only alternative that you can see to a disturbed teenage girl tragically getting shot and killed by cops in a police station lobby is science fiction.

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, are you guys even listening to yourself?

She got up after backup arrived. The cops clearly lost/relinquished control of the girl. Don't let her up off the floor once she's on the floor. Keep her down, keep her under control once you've gained control, cuff her. There's that alternative again! No science fiction needed. And no death.

 

[EPresence2]

BTW, I'm willing to bet (or hoping) that the officers involved in this tragic incident are thinking along those same lines that I've been talking about...what could I/we have done differently? I don't think any of them wanted to kill the girl, and I'm sure all of them wish that things hadn't taken such a tragic turn.

For what it's worth, I agree more with You (and Starr).

 

[arkirk]

Any way you slice it, it was lousy police work. Sure, they should think how to avoid things taking such a tragic turn...BEFORE PULLING THE FUCKING TRIGGER!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Any way you slice it, it was lousy police work. Sure, they should think how to avoid things taking such a tragic turn...BEFORE PULLING THE FUCKING TRIGGER!

How about before unholstering the gun?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Of course there were alternatives. Even you agree...see below...

The cop who grappled her let go--the only reason this makes any sense is if he felt the knife was a threat.

A 200 pound cop was on top of a 17 year old girl lying on her face. He had her under control. Some threat she was!

Oh, and there's one alternative already - WAIT FOR BACKUP BEFORE GRAPPLING WITH HER.

Why were they even grappling?? Should he not have shot her when he saw her weapon? I mean, what other option could he have had?

 

[ApostateAbe]

After using "Bystanders!" in an attempt to defend the cop's actions in tackling the girl alone rather than backing off and waiting for backup, you brought up the possibility of dangerous accomplices as a reason for the cop to release the girl once subdued and pinned. You've been called on that, and so now the empty lobby was full of both innocent bystanders and dangerous accomplices!!!

Further, other than the girl and the cop the lobby was empty, was clearly empty, and the cop could easily tell that it was empty. Your notion of bystanders that needed to be protected, hence prompting the cop to approach and attempt to physically control the girl, followed by dangerous accomplices that needed to be avoided by releasing the girl, is prima facie ridiculous.

Moreover, if possible dangerous accomplices to a clearly disturbed teenage girl were really a concern to the cop, then it would make no sense for the cop to confront and try to physically control the girl by himself in the first place, as that would expose him to the threat of these feared accomplices. Backing off and waiting for backup would be the far wiser and safer choice if the cop was actually concerned about accomplices suddenly appearing in an otherwise empty police station lobby.

Seriously, Abe, your attempt at a defense is a muddled mess and makes no sense at all.

No, I just have my own training.

Remind me never to hire you as a security guard.

No need for a reminder, as I certainly wouldn't work for you as a security guard. Your points demand an omniscient cop, demanding not just absolute certainty that the immediate vicinity was empty but the knowledge that there was nobody yet to arrive, either bystanders or accomplices.

 

[Nexus]

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.

I see you have abandoned any attempt to discuss the cops tactical decisions with this sad sarcasm. But to play along, no calling me wouldn't be the best course of action. Being aware of the situation you are entering is the number 1 priority in any self defense/conflict situation. The idea that the suspect would be the person with the number advantage in a police station is ludicrous. The only way that would be likely would be if there were some mass arrest but in that case the all the police there would be on heightened alert. We know and he had to have known he wasn't going to face multiple attackers. So the pitfalls of grappling wouldn't apply.

 

[Shadowy Man]

No need for a reminder, as I certainly wouldn't work for you as a security guard. Your points demand an omniscient cop, demanding not just absolute certainty that the immediate vicinity was empty but the knowledge that there was nobody yet to arrive, either bystanders or accomplices.

So, clearly the answer to not knowing everything is to assume you know absolutely nothing and use the most prejudicial approach to the situation, right? This way, there's no room for ambiguity and safety is maximized.

 

[laughing dog]

After using "Bystanders!" in an attempt to defend the cop's actions in tackling the girl alone rather than backing off and waiting for backup, you brought up the possibility of dangerous accomplices as a reason for the cop to release the girl once subdued and pinned. You've been called on that, and so now the empty lobby was full of both innocent bystanders and dangerous accomplices!!!

Further, other than the girl and the cop the lobby was empty, was clearly empty, and the cop could easily tell that it was empty. Your notion of bystanders that needed to be protected, hence prompting the cop to approach and attempt to physically control the girl, followed by dangerous accomplices that needed to be avoided by releasing the girl, is prima facie ridiculous.

Moreover, if possible dangerous accomplices to a clearly disturbed teenage girl were really a concern to the cop, then it would make no sense for the cop to confront and try to physically control the girl by himself in the first place, as that would expose him to the threat of these feared accomplices. Backing off and waiting for backup would be the far wiser and safer choice if the cop was actually concerned about accomplices suddenly appearing in an otherwise empty police station lobby.

Seriously, Abe, your attempt at a defense is a muddled mess and makes no sense at all.



Remind me never to hire you as a security guard.

No need for a reminder, as I certainly wouldn't work for you as a security guard. Your points demand an omniscient cop, demanding not just absolute certainty that the immediate vicinity was empty but the knowledge that there was nobody yet to arrive, either bystanders or accomplices.

Um, the police officer acted to try to restrain the girl. That is a fact. Now, either he did not attend the same "self-defense" training you did, or he used his eyes to assess the situation and assume that his brother officers would quickly come to help in case he needed help or more "accomplices appeared" or he was omniscient. Seems to me that your position is rebutted by his actions and by the actions of many other police officers when faced with knife wielders.

Given that reality clearly rebuts your position at this time, you need to prove you are omniscient or come up with an argument that is consistent with the reality all of us but you seem to live in.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course there were alternatives. Even you agree...see below...

The cop who grappled her let go--the only reason this makes any sense is if he felt the knife was a threat.

A 200 pound cop was on top of a 17 year old girl lying on her face. He had her under control. Some threat she was!

Overall, certainly. Enough control to keep from being stabbed? That I wouldn't be too sure of.

Oh, and there's one alternative already - WAIT FOR BACKUP BEFORE GRAPPLING WITH HER.

That's not a realistic option--if she really did have a gun and he didn't grapple he might have been shot. (Her "I have a gun" message should be considered a threat, not merely information.)

Phasers on stun would have done it.

So, the only alternative you can see to a situation involving three cops and a disturbed teenage girl in a police station lobby that resulted in at least three shots fired into the teenage girl is "Phasers on stun!" The only alternative that you can see to a disturbed teenage girl tragically getting shot and killed by cops in a police station lobby is science fiction.

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, are you guys even listening to yourself?

You haven't presented another solution.

She got up after backup arrived. The cops clearly lost/relinquished control of the girl. Don't let her up off the floor once she's on the floor. Keep her down, keep her under control once you've gained control, cuff her. There's that alternative again! No science fiction needed. And no death.

That requires remaining close enough to get stabbed.

 

[ksen]

loren and abe have convinced me, the only viable alternative for police officers during any confrontation is to just shoot to kill because anything else would be too dangerous.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course there were alternatives. Even you agree...see below...



A 200 pound cop was on top of a 17 year old girl lying on her face. He had her under control. Some threat she was!

Overall, certainly. Enough control to keep from being stabbed? That I wouldn't be too sure of.

From being stabbed fatally, almost assuredly!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Overall, certainly. Enough control to keep from being stabbed? That I wouldn't be too sure of.

From being stabbed fatally, almost assuredly!

And a non-fatal stab wound is of no concern???