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

[laughing dog]

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)?

 

[EricK]

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 mainly says that unarmed people dealing with a dangerous situation will have to act differently to armed people dealing with it. If the man had been armed, but chose to not use his weapon in this confrontation, then that would say a lot more.

 

[Derec]

Same Dustin Brown?

Morton man pleads not guilty to child porn charges
It looks like he may have Down's. Also, that's a bit of an unfortunate name.

 

[bigfield]

Badass of the Week.

 

[Achwienichtig]

Chess lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$150
Chess set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 20
Having a badass chess tutor . . . Priceless!

 

[laughing dog]

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 mainly says that unarmed people dealing with a dangerous situation will have to act differently to armed people dealing with it. If the man had been armed, but chose to not use his weapon in this confrontation, then that would say a lot more.

True. It also suggests that properly trained police officers who first resort to shooting in these situations are acting hastily.

 

[Derec]

True. It also suggests that properly trained police officers who first resort to shooting in these situations are acting hastily.

But the old guy was still injured in the process. If he had a gun he'd be fully justified in using it against an assault with a deadly weapon just like any police officer would and just like this pastor did (deadly weapon in question was a brick)

 

[laughing dog]

True. It also suggests that properly trained police officers who first resort to shooting in these situations are acting hastily.

But the old guy was still injured in the process. If he had a gun he'd be fully justified in using it against an assault with a deadly weapon just like any police officer would and just like this pastor did (deadly weapon in question was a brick)

That story is irrelevant - the pastor is not a trained police officer.

If a 75 year old man can disable an assailant while putting himself in danger, then so can a presumably well-trained police officer. The mindset implicit in your post is the problem.

 

[skepticalbip]

But the old guy was still injured in the process. If he had a gun he'd be fully justified in using it against an assault with a deadly weapon just like any police officer would and just like this pastor did (deadly weapon in question was a brick)

That story is irrelevant - the pastor is not a trained police officer.

If a 75 year old man can disable an assailant while putting himself in danger, then so can a presumably well-trained police officer. The mindset implicit in your post is the problem.

You are making a really bad assumption that all people are equal physically and only training makes the difference in a struggle. A hundred and fifty pound person with eight hours of training is no match for a two hundred and sixty pound street fighter on crack. You have to look at each case individually to figure out what was necessary and needed to be done.

 

[Bomb#20]

"Police Officer" is a calling like "Secret Service Agent", only for criminals instead of Presidents. When you sign up to be a police officer you're signing up to choose a knife in two of your arteries over a bullet in a would-be murderer. It's right there in all the Police Academy recruitment material. This is why most of the cops in America are Amish.

 

[Derec]

That story is irrelevant - the pastor is not a trained police officer.

And where does it say that police should be putting themselves in needless danger?

If a 75 year old man can disable an assailant while putting himself in danger, then so can a presumably well-trained police officer.

First of all, if the 75 year old had a gun, he'd have been justified in using it. Second, the assailant wasn't exactly and might (judging from his photo) have Down's. Thus he was easier to take down by a 75 year old than your average knife-wielding attacker. Thirdly, if you have a gun and are attacked you run the danger that the assailant takes your gun and shoots you (unless you have one of those James Bond from Skyfall guns of course).

The mindset implicit in your post is the problem.

What mindset? That police should not be required to take a stabbing or two before responding with deadly force?

 

[laughing dog]

And where does it say that police should be putting themselves in needless danger?

This man showed that it was not needless.

First of all, if the 75 year old had a gun, he'd have been justified in using it. Second, the assailant wasn't exactly and might (judging from his photo) have Down's. Thus he was easier to take down by a 75 year old than your average knife-wielding attacker. Thirdly, if you have a gun and are attacked you run the danger that the assailant takes your gun and shoots you (unless you have one of those James Bond from Skyfall guns of course).

You keep evading the issue. The man handled the knife-wielding assailant without killing him. Are you seriously arguing that a professional trained police officer should be expected to be less competent and able and willing than a 75 year old chess tutor? Wow.

What mindset? That police should not be required to take a stabbing or two before responding with deadly force?

The mindset that makes excuses for unnecessary shootings by the police.

 

[Toni]

And where does it say that police should be putting themselves in needless danger?

If a 75 year old man can disable an assailant while putting himself in danger, then so can a presumably well-trained police officer.

First of all, if the 75 year old had a gun, he'd have been justified in using it. Second, the assailant wasn't exactly and might (judging from his photo) have Down's. Thus he was easier to take down by a 75 year old than your average knife-wielding attacker. Thirdly, if you have a gun and are attacked you run the danger that the assailant takes your gun and shoots you (unless you have one of those James Bond from Skyfall guns of course).

The mindset implicit in your post is the problem.

What mindset? That police should not be required to take a stabbing or two before responding with deadly force?

I cannot believe you are arguing that someone who was able to stop a knife attack without a gun would have been justified in using a weapon he clearly did not need and kill someone instead of subduing the attacker.

Oh, wait. I can.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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)?

What it says is that you aren't paying attention to what happened.

Note that he suffered injuries--and since he was fighting a guy with a knife that probably means he was stabbed. There's no obligation to accept such injuries in a defense situation, your comparison thus has no bearing on reality.

 

[Toni]

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)?

What it says is that you aren't paying attention to what happened.

Note that he suffered injuries--and since he was fighting a guy with a knife that probably means he was stabbed. There's no obligation to accept such injuries in a defense situation, your comparison thus has no bearing on reality.

What reality is that, Loren? That instead of one person being dead, two people are alive? Because one of those people had the common sense and frankly, the balls to stop an attack and NOT kill someone?

What the hell is wrong with you? Are you so anxious to justify any level at all of police violence against unarmed victims that you also feel compelled to advocate for higher levels of violence when such increased violence was not necessary to stop an attack?

 

[laughing dog]

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)?

What it says is that you aren't paying attention to what happened.

No, it means you lack reading comprehension.

Note that he suffered injuries--and since he was fighting a guy with a knife that probably means he was stabbed. There's no obligation to accept such injuries in a defense situation, your comparison thus has no bearing on reality.

My point is that if this unarmed 75 year old man dealt with a knife wielding person intending to kill others even though he was unarmed and he did not kill the perpetrator, then one should expect a trained professional police officer who is equipped with more skills to be able to do the same - even if that means the officer gets injured. This 75 year chess tutor showed the guts and humanity that we should expect from our police force. So, your post is literally non-responsive.

 

[laughing dog]

That story is irrelevant - the pastor is not a trained police officer.

If a 75 year old man can disable an assailant while putting himself in danger, then so can a presumably well-trained police officer. The mindset implicit in your post is the problem.

You are making a really bad assumption that all people are equal physically and only training makes the difference in a struggle. A hundred and fifty pound person with eight hours of training is no match for a two hundred and sixty pound street fighter on crack. You have to look at each case individually to figure out what was necessary and needed to be done.

I am not really making that assumption. Just look at the number of posters in this thread who explicitly (or implicitly through an attempt with moronic sarcasm) would excuse a trained police officer shooting this assailant.

 

[Toni]

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)?

What it says is that you aren't paying attention to what happened.

Note that he suffered injuries--and since he was fighting a guy with a knife that probably means he was stabbed. There's no obligation to accept such injuries in a defense situation, your comparison thus has no bearing on reality.

Silly question but did you click on the link, Loren? Did you read the article?

Does the guy look horribly upset that he didn't kill another man? In front of 16 children? Do you realize that he is soooooo traumatized that he's already planning the next chess lesson with the kids. Wow. I guess he really messed up by not killing some deranged guy.

Do you think that maybe he got his fill of killing during his days in the army? I swear I am against conscription, and war in general and killing in general, but reading these threads full of blood lust and wannabe cowboys who are so so so certain that what is really needed is more guns to kill more people, especially scary people like brown people and mentally ill people, I swear I think that a whole bunch of posters really need to spend some time in a war zone and find out what it actually means to kill someone.

I don't know a single person who has been who is anxious to repeat the experience.

Because they've had that experience and they don't want it again. I don't know one who doesn't wish he didn't have that experience.

And because they have a) brains and b) stones.

 

[RavenSky]

Same Dustin Brown?

Morton man pleads not guilty to child porn charges
It looks like he may have Down's. Also, that's a bit of an unfortunate name.

Derec, what possible justification do you have for posting the photo of a (completely non-involved) black man in this thread?

 

[Bomb#20]

I swear I am against conscription, and war in general and killing in general, but reading these threads full of blood lust and wannabe cowboys who are so so so certain that what is really needed is more guns to kill more people, especially scary people like brown people and mentally ill people, I swear I think that a whole bunch of posters really need to spend some time in a war zone and find out what it actually means to kill someone.

That's pretty rich coming from a lady who's certain old Adolf ought to have killed twelve million Jews.