Your scenario is far from being on point.
So far, no one has suggested that there was no danger to the man who so valiantly protected his charges against the attack of someone who seems to be mentally unbalanced.
Yes, laughing dog did imply exactly that. IF that presumption is not held, then no implications follow from this incident about is or is not the best option in such a scenario.
No, you're mistaken. I think you have infer mixed up with imply.
No, laughing dog's claims logically presume that the outcome was not "good fortune" but a predictable and consistent outcome of how the man acted in that situation, and thus a "best option" of how to act for police. Again, without this presumption, the incident carries none of the implications that he claims it does and is just the isolated anecdote from which no rational inferences can be drawn.
Mistaken again. The mistake about what I meant is my fault: I believe that it was fortunate that no one was killed and the man appears not to have life threatening injuries and indeed, intends to return to tutoring, I did NOT mean that it was merely good fortune that allowed him to overcome the attacker.
It is apparent than not only is this man courageous, but that he is also determined, had a clear focus on what his mission was (to save children and to prevent harm), and also some skills learned decades ago when he was in the military.
I don't believe that it is necessary to be military trained in order to stop an attack on oneself or on others, but it can be very useful to have such training. I've averted attacks and I've seen others do so. I am fairly small in stature, very slight in build, yet I prevailed with no injuries other than to dignity,such as that was. I've seen other people deflect attacks before they got started, simply by their body language and strength of presence. A close family member disarmed someone who was bent on attacking (with a weapon) his spouse, in front of his children, and held him there until police arrived. My family member was not armed and also was not a very large person. The attacker had a good 6 inches and probably 50 pounds on him. Other family members have diverted attacks, in a couple of cases, armed attacks. BTW, a couple of times, it was elderly family members, one of whom is quite frail.
No one was injured. No one was killed. In all but one case, the attacker was arrested by the police. In the other case, the armed assailants escaped before police arrived.
I am an extremely average person.
I believe that police officers receive training, no?
We are all cognizant of the fact that there are far too many other scenarios where valiant people have in fact died while warding off the attacks of some deranged person, usually armed with multiple firearms, intent on murdering as many as possible and ending their own lives.
Laughing Dog's assertions prove he is not cognizant of this fact or most other relevant facts that contradict his claims.
No, your posts demonstrate extreme extrapolation that does not further useful discussion but instead supports (such as that support is) that your sole interest is in 'winning the internet' rather than have a reasoned discussion.
I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that police officers should not use a weapon to subdue someone who is intent upon harming others, or the officer.
Yes they are. Laughing Dogs claims that this man's actions tell us what the best option is for cops in a relevant situation. That logically presumes that cops should act like he did and would get the same outcome. IF his outcome required massive random luck, then his actions are actually just what cops should not due, since we don't want their ability to safeguard people against violent threats to depend on massive luck.
The chips and branches and redwoods you carry on your shoulders are interfering with your reading and reasoning abilities.
The question is: Should we expect trained police officers, where possible, to utilize other means at their disposal other than an armed attack?
This isolated incident has zero implications for that question, unless you make precisely the absurd and false assumptions that you pretend you are not making.
If this man escaped with only minor injuries (and thus the kids lived) on due to "a great deal of good fortune", then that inherently means that most of the time that cops tried to do what he did, they and the kids would die. To any moral and reasonable person this means that cops should never do what he did when they have the option of shooting him and reducing such reliance on good fortune to prevent the death of those kids.
You are clearly not interested in a reasoned discussion but rather in 'winning' some 'point' which means nothing. Meanwhile, a lot of people are dying needlessly and no one is being made a bit safer for it.
It's high time that society engaged in a reasoned discussion about how police should conduct themselves.
Once again, you are proving that you are in fact making the assumptions that you pretend you and laughing dog are not. This guy has "a great deal of good fortune". If you sincerely accept that and logically apply it, then it means we should expect a person (like a cop) to shoot the perp in that situation to reduce reliance on luck. Reliance on luck means his outcome was rare and not likely if the situation were repeated. Should cops use less lethal force at unarmed traffic stops than in with armed people trying to kill kids? Sure, but the OP story doesn't imply anything about that.
OK, let me be more clear, since obviously anything other than black/white absolutes are beyond your ken:
If a 75 year old man can retain enough of training he received decades ago to successfully defend a group of children from an armed attack, cannot we, as a society, expect young, healthy, well trained police to utilize non-lethal strategies where necessary? And to use training and common sense and decency to avoid, where possible, the necessity of using any force?
A quick google search of people tased by police officers gives results of such incidents involving people from >70 years old all the way down to small children, including a 6 year old and an 8 year old, neither of whom were armed.
And this incident tells us zero about what the best option is in those situations since it has no similarity.
In this case, 16 young children were in grave danger from an armed attacker who seemed bent on killing them.
In the cases I cited, the children faced danger--from the police. In fact, the police manage to kill a number of citizens, including young, healthy ones, by using tasers rather than reasoning and patience.
I don't know why, but the fact that this lucky guy got himself and the kids out alive without a gun implies nothing about whether we should accept the use of force in the completely different scenarios you are referring to.
Yeah, it does imply that we need to quit giving police a pass and a big blue wall shielding them from the consequences of too much force and the wrong force utilized far too frequently for far too little reason.
We should expect cops not to put themselves and others in greater danger against a violent criminal by being pathetically stupid enough to infer what the best option is in any situation from this meaningless isolated event that laughing dog's considers such clear and strong evidence that "tells us what in any situation, since it has zero implications unless some absurdly false assumptions are made. In the situation similar to that this old man found himself in, we should expect cops to pull their gun command the killer to drop their weapon and freeze and shoot them dead if they do not. We should expect them to do this without pausing to consider that some immoral dolts who care more about scoring political points than about people will point to scenarios like in this isolated incident in the OP as evidence that the cops used excessive force. In other situations with completely different parameters, whatever we should expect has zero to do with anything that can be validly inferred from the incident at hand.
So you are not at all interested in a reasoned discussion.
Duly noted.
