[Edited] Video of Dallas Police Killing Mentally Ill Man

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you under the impression that these police officers were teleported from their beds and then immobilised?

It's common for such people to downplay the risks of the situation--even in their own minds. I very much doubt she told them the whole situation.

You are literally making up excuses without a shred of evidence to support your assumptions.

Listen to the video. The cop asks what's going on. That implies the cops probably don't know.

Wherever I have lived, the police always ask what is going on when they arrive. That allows them to confirm they are at the right location, that they are taking with the caller, and it permits them to learn what has transpired since they received the call. Please stop making up excuses.

I was under the impression you were capable of telling time. Look at that video, where do they have time to arrange anything after they find out they're facing an aggressive schizo?

They had time to shoot, so they had time to not shoot and figure something out. You do realize these are trained police officers who are awake, alert and mobile. Wait, I amend that statement, because after they shot this guy and he is not moving and bleeding on the ground, they continue to yell at him to drop the screwdriver and then one of them asks "Should we cuff him"?

So, I apologize. These two police officers are dimwits. But that does not excuse their execution of a mentally ill man.

I'm afraid you're calling yourself stupid here. You say they had time to figure something out--yet you, with far more time, hasn't figured anything out.

Nice try at shifting the goal posts. I was not asked to figure out something else. Ironically, you have had plenty of time to actually think about what happened and come up with actual evidence to support your claims of fact, but you still respond with the same idiotic defense of "Danger Danger, must shoot to kill".

Since cops are generally of average intelligence the only explanation is that you're far below average intelligence, or else that you have absolutely no idea of how the police function.

There other explanations. For example, your assumption that these particular police officers are of average intelligence is counter-factual (as demonstrated by the video confirmation of their wondering about cuffing a dying immobile man). Another explanation is that you have no clue about police or normal human behavior.

Which is it, or do you want to rethink your position??

I am rethinking my position in the usefulness in discussing this issue with a kneejerk defender of the police whose imagination is not bound by reality or human decency.

A rebuttal would have been to propose such a course of action. I note that you didn't.

 

[laughing dog]

A rebuttal would have been to propose such a course of action. I note that you didn't.

Logic Fail: a rebuttal of a claim need only show that the claim is false or not necessarily true, it does not require that one show what is necessarily true. Moreover, I did actually "rebut" (using your definition) a number of your claims. On the otherhand, you have yet to actually validate any behavioral assumption on your part.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A rebuttal would have been to propose such a course of action. I note that you didn't.

Logic Fail: a rebuttal of a claim need only show that the claim is false or not necessarily true, it does not require that one show what is necessarily true. Moreover, I did actually "rebut" (using your definition) a number of your claims. On the otherhand, you have yet to actually validate any behavioral assumption on your part.

Rather than this eternal twisting how about proposing a course of action? They had maybe a second, you've had days. It should be trivial.

 

[laughing dog]

Logic Fail: a rebuttal of a claim need only show that the claim is false or not necessarily true, it does not require that one show what is necessarily true. Moreover, I did actually "rebut" (using your definition) a number of your claims. On the otherhand, you have yet to actually validate any behavioral assumption on your part.

Rather than this eternal twisting how about proposing a course of action? They had maybe a second, you've had days. It should be trivial.

They had more than a second. In the time it took to step up and pull their pistols and shoot the man, they could have
1) backed up,
2) stopped yelling and intimidating or scaring him, and
3) pulled their tasers or their nightsticks to use on him.


You have had days to substantiate your claims. It should be trivial to do so. Since you have not, a reasonable assumption is that once again, you have posting bullshit apologia.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Rather than this eternal twisting how about proposing a course of action? They had maybe a second, you've had days. It should be trivial.

They had more than a second. In the time it took to step up and pull their pistols and shoot the man, they could have
1) backed up,
2) stopped yelling and intimidating or scaring him, and
3) pulled their tasers or their nightsticks to use on him.


You have had days to substantiate your claims. It should be trivial to do so. Since you have not, a reasonable assumption is that once again, you have posting bullshit apologia.

1) You backed up--right into the parked car. You got stabbed. Not to mention that realistically the person charging will always move faster than the person trying to move backwards, even if the car wasn't in the way you die.

2) Reaction time--even if they had shut up there wasn't time for him to calm down and decide not to attack. Once again you are dead. Nor is there any obligation to leave oneself open in the hope the other guy will not take advantage of the situation.

3) Tasers, maybe--but I see three big problems here.
3a) One cop has a crossing shot--not exactly a high probability hit.
3b) If they both hit the guy probably doesn't go down--the wires will likely cross, rendering both tasers useless.
3c) Tasers are nothing like 100% effective. If the leads are deflected or don't stick it does nothing. If the leads are shorted (those wires are uninsulated) it does nothing. The law does not require you to risk your life like this, whether you are a civilian or a cop.

4) Nightsticks--what good would they do? By the time he's in range to use one it's too late to avoid being stabbed. And do the cops even have them anymore? Generally they have been replaced with tasers.


Three strikes, you're out.

 

[laughing dog]

1) You backed up--right into the parked car. You got stabbed. Not to mention that realistically the person charging will always move faster than the person trying to move backwards, even if the car wasn't in the way you die.

2) Reaction time--even if they had shut up there wasn't time for him to calm down and decide not to attack. Once again you are dead. Nor is there any obligation to leave oneself open in the hope the other guy will not take advantage of the situation.

3) Tasers, maybe--but I see three big problems here.
3a) One cop has a crossing shot--not exactly a high probability hit.
3b) If they both hit the guy probably doesn't go down--the wires will likely cross, rendering both tasers useless.
3c) Tasers are nothing like 100% effective. If the leads are deflected or don't stick it does nothing. If the leads are shorted (those wires are uninsulated) it does nothing. The law does not require you to risk your life like this, whether you are a civilian or a cop.

4) Nightsticks--what good would they do? By the time he's in range to use one it's too late to avoid being stabbed. And do the cops even have them anymore? Generally they have been replaced with tasers.

None of your imaginary responses are realistic or convincing.

I realize this is hard for you, but instead of literally make shit up, substantiate your claims about police behavior. After repeated requests and a number of days, all we get is more of your bizarre imagings masquerading as reality. And remember, you have already admitted these police officers could have handled this better. And yet, you continue to respond with unadulterated nonsense to support their actions. As far as I am concerned, you have one last chance to show that you actually have a clue about what you are posting about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) You backed up--right into the parked car. You got stabbed. Not to mention that realistically the person charging will always move faster than the person trying to move backwards, even if the car wasn't in the way you die.

2) Reaction time--even if they had shut up there wasn't time for him to calm down and decide not to attack. Once again you are dead. Nor is there any obligation to leave oneself open in the hope the other guy will not take advantage of the situation.

3) Tasers, maybe--but I see three big problems here.
3a) One cop has a crossing shot--not exactly a high probability hit.
3b) If they both hit the guy probably doesn't go down--the wires will likely cross, rendering both tasers useless.
3c) Tasers are nothing like 100% effective. If the leads are deflected or don't stick it does nothing. If the leads are shorted (those wires are uninsulated) it does nothing. The law does not require you to risk your life like this, whether you are a civilian or a cop.

4) Nightsticks--what good would they do? By the time he's in range to use one it's too late to avoid being stabbed. And do the cops even have them anymore? Generally they have been replaced with tasers.

None of your imaginary responses are realistic or convincing.

I realize this is hard for you, but instead of literally make shit up, substantiate your claims about police behavior. After repeated requests and a number of days, all we get is more of your bizarre imagings masquerading as reality. And remember, you have already admitted these police officers could have handled this better. And yet, you continue to respond with unadulterated nonsense to support their actions. As far as I am concerned, you have one last chance to show that you actually have a clue about what you are posting about.

You're going after me instead of the arguments--you're showing you have no rebuttal, that I'm right.

 

[laughing dog]

You're going after me instead of the arguments--you're showing you have no rebuttal, that I'm right.

Yet another logic fail. I am pointing out that you persistently evaded to substantiate any of your claims about behavior. It is reasonable to conclude from that persistent failure that you are unable to do so. Which then makes it reasonable to conclude that you are simply making stuff up. And you are now blowing smoke to evade that reality.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're going after me instead of the arguments--you're showing you have no rebuttal, that I'm right.

Yet another logic fail. I am pointing out that you persistently evaded to substantiate any of your claims about behavior. It is reasonable to conclude from that persistent failure that you are unable to do so. Which then makes it reasonable to conclude that you are simply making stuff up. And you are now blowing smoke to evade that reality.

You offered a set of options that do not work. When challenged on them you once again attack me rather than try to support them.

 

[Frikki]

They had more than a second. In the time it took to step up and pull their pistols and shoot the man, they could have
1) backed up,
2) stopped yelling and intimidating or scaring him, and
3) pulled their tasers or their nightsticks to use on him.


You have had days to substantiate your claims. It should be trivial to do so. Since you have not, a reasonable assumption is that once again, you have posting bullshit apologia.

1) You backed up--right into the parked car. You got stabbed. Not to mention that realistically the person charging will always move faster than the person trying to move backwards, even if the car wasn't in the way you die.

2) Reaction time--even if they had shut up there wasn't time for him to calm down and decide not to attack. Once again you are dead. Nor is there any obligation to leave oneself open in the hope the other guy will not take advantage of the situation.

3) Tasers, maybe--but I see three big problems here.
3a) One cop has a crossing shot--not exactly a high probability hit.
3b) If they both hit the guy probably doesn't go down--the wires will likely cross, rendering both tasers useless.
3c) Tasers are nothing like 100% effective. If the leads are deflected or don't stick it does nothing. If the leads are shorted (those wires are uninsulated) it does nothing. The law does not require you to risk your life like this, whether you are a civilian or a cop.

4) Nightsticks--what good would they do? By the time he's in range to use one it's too late to avoid being stabbed. And do the cops even have them anymore? Generally they have been replaced with tasers.


Three strikes, you're out.

See guys, this is why Loren is our resident urban* combat specialist.


*Not the black kind.

 

[laughing dog]

Yet another logic fail. I am pointing out that you persistently evaded to substantiate any of your claims about behavior. It is reasonable to conclude from that persistent failure that you are unable to do so. Which then makes it reasonable to conclude that you are simply making stuff up. And you are now blowing smoke to evade that reality.

You offered a set of options that do not work.

That is incorrect. I offered a set of options that you claimed would not work by concocting ridiculous scenarios. For example, in the 1st one, you said I'd back into a car. Utterly ridiculous - there was no car there and it assumes that a police officer has no idea about his or her surroundings. Your fairy tale around the taser was unconvincing - why not assume the police officers would shoot each other if they used actual fire arms. Your "analysis" was mind numbingly silly.

When challenged on them you once again attack me rather than try to support them.

Nope. Still waiting for you to substantiate your behavioral assumptions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You offered a set of options that do not work.

That is incorrect. I offered a set of options that you claimed would not work by concocting ridiculous scenarios. For example, in the 1st one, you said I'd back into a car. Utterly ridiculous - there was no car there and it assumes that a police officer has no idea about his or her surroundings. Your fairy tale around the taser was unconvincing - why not assume the police officers would shoot each other if they used actual fire arms. Your "analysis" was mind numbingly silly.

When challenged on them you once again attack me rather than try to support them.

Nope. Still waiting for you to substantiate your behavioral assumptions.

Try watching the video and note how the cop has to squeeze between the car and the bush as he walks up to the door.

 

[laughing dog]

That is incorrect. I offered a set of options that you claimed would not work by concocting ridiculous scenarios. For example, in the 1st one, you said I'd back into a car. Utterly ridiculous - there was no car there and it assumes that a police officer has no idea about his or her surroundings. Your fairy tale around the taser was unconvincing - why not assume the police officers would shoot each other if they used actual fire arms. Your "analysis" was mind numbingly silly.

When challenged on them you once again attack me rather than try to support them.

Nope. Still waiting for you to substantiate your behavioral assumptions.

Try watching the video and note how the cop has to squeeze between the car and the bush as he walks up to the door.

So, you are assuming the police officer is an idiot who has no idea about where he actually is. I thought you said police were generally of average intelligence?

Good thing I am not holding my breath while waiting for you to substantiate your assumptions about behavior. I'd have been dead days ago.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is incorrect. I offered a set of options that you claimed would not work by concocting ridiculous scenarios. For example, in the 1st one, you said I'd back into a car. Utterly ridiculous - there was no car there and it assumes that a police officer has no idea about his or her surroundings. Your fairy tale around the taser was unconvincing - why not assume the police officers would shoot each other if they used actual fire arms. Your "analysis" was mind numbingly silly.

When challenged on them you once again attack me rather than try to support them.

Nope. Still waiting for you to substantiate your behavioral assumptions.

Try watching the video and note how the cop has to squeeze between the car and the bush as he walks up to the door.

So, you are assuming the police officer is an idiot who has no idea about where he actually is. I thought you said police were generally of average intelligence?

Good thing I am not holding my breath while waiting for you to substantiate your assumptions about behavior. I'd have been dead days ago.

Evade, evade, evade.

How do you reach the conclusion the cop is stupid? The car is parked there when he walks up, he can squeeze past it or he can turn around and leave.

 

[laughing dog]

How do you reach the conclusion the cop is stupid?

You are assuming the cop is stupid if you think he had no place to move.

The car is parked there when he walks up, he can squeeze past it or he can turn around and leave.

Or move to the side. It is clear you are literally just making stuff up without regard to the actual facts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are assuming the cop is stupid if you think he had no place to move.

The car is parked there when he walks up, he can squeeze past it or he can turn around and leave.

Or move to the side. It is clear you are literally just making stuff up without regard to the actual facts.

We are talking about a human being, not an unguided rocket. Sidestepping isn't a defense.

 

[laughing dog]

You are assuming the cop is stupid if you think he had no place to move.
Or move to the side. It is clear you are literally just making stuff up without regard to the actual facts.

We are talking about a human being, not an unguided rocket. Sidestepping isn't a defense.

Of course it is a defense if it keeps you from getting attacked. Besides, if you actually looked at the video, neither police officer is in front of the car.

 

[ksen]

You are assuming the cop is stupid if you think he had no place to move.
Or move to the side. It is clear you are literally just making stuff up without regard to the actual facts.

We are talking about a human being, not an unguided rocket. Sidestepping isn't a defense.

you know who else was a human being?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We are talking about a human being, not an unguided rocket. Sidestepping isn't a defense.

Of course it is a defense if it keeps you from getting attacked. Besides, if you actually looked at the video, neither police officer is in front of the car.

And why in the world do you think sidestepping will keep the guy from simply turning to where you now are???

 

[laughing dog]

Of course it is a defense if it keeps you from getting attacked. Besides, if you actually looked at the video, neither police officer is in front of the car.

And why in the world do you think sidestepping will keep the guy from simply turning to where you now are???

I don't. Why in the world do you assume that this particular person would continue to lunge at the police and that the officer would be immobile after the first sidestep or that there wouldn't be better shot at tasering or using some other method of subduing him?