75 year old chess tutor fights off knife wielding man intent on killing children

[Crazy Eddie]

double post

 

[KeepTalking]

This is mainly because police officers tend to be incompetent in matters of self-defense, hence their (over) reliance on firearms.

Which is the point of this entire thread. A 76 year old man with proper self-defense training is capable of subduing a knife-wielding attacker. I have to think a 35 year old man with similar training should be MORE effective, not less.

It matters, because premise of the OP is that it is reasonable to expect policemen to deal successfully with knife attacks using their bare hands.
Most of the criminals with knives don't intend to use it, but if they do then odds are heavily in their favor.

Why? Are you assuming that most criminals with knives actually ARE trained in hand-to-hand combat? To a greater degree than police officers, no less? That's an extraordinary claim that I don't think you are in any position to back up.

Great point. The knife competent person in any confrontation with police should be assumed to be the police officer. The suspect may also be knife competent, but in most cases they will not be. The police officer should be well trained in disarming a knife wielding suspect, if they are not, that is a failure in training, and that is what should be remedied.

 

[Toni]

knife-competent person will win 8 out of 10 fights with gunless police officers

Citation? Or just your best guess?

 

[barbos]

knife-competent person will win 8 out of 10 fights with gunless police officers

Citation? Or just your best guess?

Ok, if you insist, 10 out 10 knife wins bare hands.

 

[Bomb#20]

Attempting to refute an argument that is not made is a straw man. So the reasoning error is yours.

Ah, so the problem is that you don't know what "straw man" means. A straw man is a deliberate misrepresentation. As far as I can tell, my characterization of your position was spot on. If I'm misunderstanding you, that's what happens when you attempt to explain how I'm wrong using nothing but handwaving.

So? That is an idea that my posts didn't contain. Are you attributing that idea to me? If so, what's your basis? If not, why are you filling your response with red herrings?

You're the one who is talked about "risks' without specifying them, not me. Police face risks of varying degrees most of the time. Risk cannot be avoided.

Quote me. You either made that up or you've confused me with some other poster. Wouldn't be the first time. I never talked about unspecified "risks". That was you. I'm the one who consistently talked about the specific risk of having two arteries cut open by an attacker's knife.

So can you give me a specific example of some situation in which a police officer is allowed to take some particular action against an attacker, if we're going by the "should be expected to disarm that person without shooting him" rule, but the officer would not be allowed to take that same action against that same attacker, if we're going by the "expected to choose slashed arteries over a bullet in the perp" rule?

I have no idea what any of this means.

Your recurring loss of ability to comprehend plain English sentences with more than two clauses seems to come upon you at the most convenient times.

Are you asking for the equivalent of a "frame by frame" description or what?

That would be fine. An outline would also be fine. A general scenario would also be fine. Do you have anything at all to back up the contention that there's a substantive difference between what it's okay for an officer to do according to your description of the expectation, and according to my description of it?

The issue is not whether police are legally permitted to gun down perps. The issue is whether they ought to gun them down.

That's the larger issue; but the immediate issue is whether conforming to that moral judgment of yours is in point of fact what they signed up for.

"Moral judgment"? What are you talking about?

I'm talking about what you wrote that I responded to. You can tell I'm talking about that, from my having quoted you right in front of my response. People are customarily talking about their moral judgments when they say "ought to". You appear to be making the moral judgment that it's immoral for police to gun down perps. You told me this after I indicated that our police hadn't signed up to not gun down perps attacking them with knives; but that doesn't really address the fact that they hadn't signed up for that. If we're not going to let our police gun down perps attacking them with knives we really ought to let them know that before they become police officers.

A person who commits to being a police officer is not committing to blowing people away as the first option.

I don't see anybody arguing for it to be the first option. The obvious first option when one encounters a suspect with a knife is to point a gun at him and tell him to drop the knife. What's at issue is whether it should be an option, if the perp responds to the command by attacking you with the knife.

 

[Toni]

Citation? Or just your best guess?

Ok, if you insist, 10 out 10 knife wins bare hands.

You don't get out much, do you?

 

[laughing dog]

Ah, so the problem is that you don't know what "straw man" means. A straw man is a deliberate misrepresentation. As far as I can tell, my characterization of your position was spot on. If I'm misunderstanding you, that's what happens when you attempt to explain how I'm wrong using nothing but handwaving.

The problem is that you are unable to admit or even see that your characterization was wrong. As far as I can see, your misunderstanding is not based on anything I have actually written.

That would be fine. An outline would also be fine. A general scenario would also be fine. Do you have anything at all to back up the contention that there's a substantive difference between what it's okay for an officer to do according to your description of the expectation, and according to my description of it?

How about the scenario that happened here? The police officer is there, assesses the situation before drawing his weapon and firing, and decides whether or not he can deal with the assailant without shooting first.

I'm talking about what you wrote that I responded to. You can tell I'm talking about that, from my having quoted you right in front of my response. People are customarily talking about their moral judgments when they say "ought to"….

“Ought to” may or may not have any moral implications. For example, “one ought to eat more vegetables” is not necessarily a moral judgment .

I don't see anybody arguing for it to be the first option. The obvious first option when one encounters a suspect with a knife is to point a gun at him and tell him to drop the knife. What's at issue is whether it should be an option, if the perp responds to the command by attacking you with the knife.

And what if he doesn’t? There are plenty of posters – including participants in this thread – who think it is okay to gun him down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is that it's being taken as evidence that it's an expected outcome when in reality this is a hail mary play that worked.

No. It is taken as evidence that it is a reasonably possible outcome so that "shoot first, ask questions later" should not be the expected first action.

You're the one who is taking it as reasonable.

Knife vs bare hands, anything like equal skill and the knife wins.

It worked this time because the guy had a lot of skill and had surprise on his side. It's not the expected outcome.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is mainly because police officers tend to be incompetent in matters of self-defense, hence their (over) reliance on firearms.

Which is the point of this entire thread. A 76 year old man with proper self-defense training is capable of subduing a knife-wielding attacker. I have to think a 35 year old man with similar training should be MORE effective, not less.

It matters, because premise of the OP is that it is reasonable to expect policemen to deal successfully with knife attacks using their bare hands.
Most of the criminals with knives don't intend to use it, but if they do then odds are heavily in their favor.

Why? Are you assuming that most criminals with knives actually ARE trained in hand-to-hand combat? To a greater degree than police officers, no less? That's an extraordinary claim that I don't think you are in any position to back up.

It doesn't matter how competent you are with your hands, it's still perfectly reasonable to shoot when facing a knife. Training them all up to special-forces standards isn't going to change the hands vs guns ratio much at all.

 

[laughing dog]

No. It is taken as evidence that it is a reasonably possible outcome so that "shoot first, ask questions later" should not be the expected first action.

You're the one who is taking it as reasonable.

Knife vs bare hands, anything like equal skill and the knife wins.

It worked this time because the guy had a lot of skill and had surprise on his side. It's not the expected outcome.

You don't know if the 75 year old chess tutor had a lot of skill (he simply remembered his training from 50 years earlier) and you don't know he had surprise on his side. And why would you assume that police would not be sufficiently trained to deal with this if that was the expectation? Really, your responses are based on unsubstantiated or unreasonable assumptions.

 

[bilby]

This is mainly because police officers tend to be incompetent in matters of self-defense, hence their (over) reliance on firearms.

Which is the point of this entire thread. A 76 year old man with proper self-defense training is capable of subduing a knife-wielding attacker. I have to think a 35 year old man with similar training should be MORE effective, not less.



Why? Are you assuming that most criminals with knives actually ARE trained in hand-to-hand combat? To a greater degree than police officers, no less? That's an extraordinary claim that I don't think you are in any position to back up.

It doesn't matter how competent you are with your hands, it's still perfectly reasonable to shoot when facing a knife.

No, it isn't. The UK experience demonstrates that, when shooting is not an option, the injury and fatality rates due to knives are not significantly changed. Police can AND DO encounter knives routinely in situations where they do not have a gun, and are able to subdue and arrest the suspect in such situations, without being killed or injured, in the vast majority of such encounters. A trained police officer with pepper spray and an extendible baton is perfectly able to complete an arrest without endangering the life of the suspect; Where it is possible to arrest a suspect without shooting him, it is NOT reasonable to shoot him.

The idea that it is reasonable to shoot someone who is armed with a knife is pure intellectual laziness. We have clear and unequivocal evidence that it is not necessary, neither to subdue the suspect, nor to protect the arresting officers, nor to protect the public. Shooting people unnecessarily, just to save some effort on the part of the police, is NOT REASONABLE.

 

[Toni]

It doesn't matter how competent you are with your hands, it's still perfectly reasonable to shoot when facing a knife.

No, it isn't. The UK experience demonstrates that, when shooting is not an option, the injury and fatality rates due to knives are not significantly changed. Police can AND DO encounter knives routinely in situations where they do not have a gun, and are able to subdue and arrest the suspect in such situations, without being killed or injured, in the vast majority of such encounters. A trained police officer with pepper spray and an extendible baton is perfectly able to complete an arrest without endangering the life of the suspect; Where it is possible to arrest a suspect without shooting him, it is NOT reasonable to shoot him.

The idea that it is reasonable to shoot someone who is armed with a knife is pure intellectual laziness. We have clear and unequivocal evidence that it is not necessary, neither to subdue the suspect, nor to protect the arresting officers, nor to protect the public. Shooting people unnecessarily, just to save some effort on the part of the police, is NOT REASONABLE.

I think you are too kind re: intellectual laziness. I see it as outright cowardice.

 

[barbos]

It doesn't matter how competent you are with your hands, it's still perfectly reasonable to shoot when facing a knife. Training them all up to special-forces standards isn't going to change the hands vs guns ratio much at all.

People here watched too many Hollywood movies where guy with a knife always loses unless it's against a guy with a gun in which case guy with a gun loses.

 

[Bomb#20]

That would be fine. An outline would also be fine. A general scenario would also be fine. Do you have anything at all to back up the contention that there's a substantive difference between what it's okay for an officer to do according to your description of the expectation, and according to my description of it?

How about the scenario that happened here? The police officer is there, assesses the situation before drawing his weapon and firing, and decides whether or not he can deal with the assailant without shooting first.

Do you mean to be implying that if the officer assesses the situation, decides whether or not he can deal with the assailant without shooting, and what he decides is that he can't deal with the assailant without shooting, so he shoots the assailant, then you'd be okay with that? If that's what you mean, that doesn't sound much like an expectation that an officer should disarm the assailant without killing him even if that means the officer gets injured.

A person who commits to being a police officer is not committing to blowing people away as the first option.

I don't see anybody arguing for it to be the first option. The obvious first option when one encounters a suspect with a knife is to point a gun at him and tell him to drop the knife. What's at issue is whether it should be an option, if the perp responds to the command by attacking you with the knife.

And what if he doesn’t? There are plenty of posters – including participants in this thread – who think it is okay to gun him down.

Brown ran into the room with two hunting knives yelling, "I’m going to kill some people!" Who are the posters participating in this thread who think it's okay to gun down a man who is simply standing there holding a knife and making no move to attack?

 

[laughing dog]

How about the scenario that happened here? The police officer is there, assesses the situation before drawing his weapon and firing, and decides whether or not he can deal with the assailant without shooting first.

Do you mean to be implying that if the officer assesses the situation, decides whether or not he can deal with the assailant without shooting, and what he decides is that he can't deal with the assailant without shooting, so he shoots the assailant, then you'd be okay with that? If that's what you mean, that doesn't sound much like an expectation that an officer should disarm the assailant without killing him even if that means the officer gets injured.

Depending on the specifics, I might be okay or I might not.

Brown ran into the room with two hunting knives yelling, "I’m going to kill some people!" Who are the posters participating in this thread who think it's okay to gun down a man who is simply standing there holding a knife and making no move to attack?

Read the end of post #89 for an example of such a poster.

 

[Bomb#20]

It matters, because premise of the OP is that it is reasonable to expect policemen to deal successfully with knife attacks using their bare hands.
Most of the criminals with knives don't intend to use it, but if they do then odds are heavily in their favor.

Why? Are you assuming that most criminals with knives actually ARE trained in hand-to-hand combat? To a greater degree than police officers, no less? That's an extraordinary claim that I don't think you are in any position to back up.

It doesn't matter how competent you are with your hands, it's still perfectly reasonable to shoot when facing a knife. Training them all up to special-forces standards isn't going to change the hands vs guns ratio much at all.

Hey Loren, laughing dog says this means you think it's perfectly reasonable for a cop to shoot when facing a guy who's holding a knife but is just standing and not attacking him with it. Is that what you meant?

Brown ran into the room with two hunting knives yelling, "I’m going to kill some people!" Who are the posters participating in this thread who think it's okay to gun down a man who is simply standing there holding a knife and making no move to attack?

Read the end of post #89 for an example of such a poster.

 

[Malintent]

A 76 year old fought off a knife wielding 19 year old who was intent of killing some children in a chess class the man was tutoring. James Vernon said his 50 year old army training helped him fight the man off. Vernon suffered injuries in the incident, but no children were injured. (full story: http://time.com/4077440/75-year-old-chess-teacher-fights-off-knife-wielding-man-threatening-to-kill-children/). Vernon had no weapons other than his training and human decency.
If a 75 year old man can disarm a knife-wielding attacker by himself, what does that say about police who shoot such attackers (i.e. attackers with firearms)?

It says they are not expected to take unnecessary risks... yes, shooting an armed person that is threatening others is completely reasonable. why should any risk be taken to protect the welfare of one that is explicitly attempting to damage the welfare of others. Makes no sense to me why you would even make this comparison.

 

[laughing dog]

It matters, because premise of the OP is that it is reasonable to expect policemen to deal successfully with knife attacks using their bare hands.
Most of the criminals with knives don't intend to use it, but if they do then odds are heavily in their favor.

Why? Are you assuming that most criminals with knives actually ARE trained in hand-to-hand combat? To a greater degree than police officers, no less? That's an extraordinary claim that I don't think you are in any position to back up.

It doesn't matter how competent you are with your hands, it's still perfectly reasonable to shoot when facing a knife. Training them all up to special-forces standards isn't going to change the hands vs guns ratio much at all.

Hey Loren, laughing dog says this means you think it's perfectly reasonable for a cop to shoot when facing a guy who's holding a knife but is just standing and not attacking him with it. Is that what you meant?

It is what he wrote.

 

[ronburgundy]

It matters, because premise of the OP is that it is reasonable to expect policemen to deal successfully with knife attacks using their bare hands.
Most of the criminals with knives don't intend to use it, but if they do then odds are heavily in their favor.

Why? Are you assuming that most criminals with knives actually ARE trained in hand-to-hand combat? To a greater degree than police officers, no less? That's an extraordinary claim that I don't think you are in any position to back up.

It doesn't matter how competent you are with your hands, it's still perfectly reasonable to shoot when facing a knife. Training them all up to special-forces standards isn't going to change the hands vs guns ratio much at all.

Hey Loren, laughing dog says this means you think it's perfectly reasonable for a cop to shoot when facing a guy who's holding a knife but is just standing and not attacking him with it. Is that what you meant?

It is what he wrote.

He wrote nothing of the sort. He wrote "facing a knife" in the clear context of "knife attacks", which implies to anyone not trying to dishonestly distort Loren's comment that he meant they are not merely holding a knife but clearly attempting to use it in a violent attack.

 

[laughing dog]

It matters, because premise of the OP is that it is reasonable to expect policemen to deal successfully with knife attacks using their bare hands.
Most of the criminals with knives don't intend to use it, but if they do then odds are heavily in their favor.

Why? Are you assuming that most criminals with knives actually ARE trained in hand-to-hand combat? To a greater degree than police officers, no less? That's an extraordinary claim that I don't think you are in any position to back up.

It doesn't matter how competent you are with your hands, it's still perfectly reasonable to shoot when facing a knife. Training them all up to special-forces standards isn't going to change the hands vs guns ratio much at all.

Hey Loren, laughing dog says this means you think it's perfectly reasonable for a cop to shoot when facing a guy who's holding a knife but is just standing and not attacking him with it. Is that what you meant?

It is what he wrote.

He wrote nothing of the sort. He wrote "facing a knife" in the clear context of "knife attacks", which implies to anyone not trying to dishonestly distort Loren's comment that he meant they are not merely holding a knife but clearly attempting to use it in a violent attack.

Unfortunately for your position, his words and the context are not consistent with your interpretation.