New blockade in Minneapolis

[Jarhyn]

I am always amazed at the number of mental health experts on this forum who can produce an accurate diagnosis in these cases from news reports.


The police of Edina and Richfield have earned (either justly or unjustly) distrust from the communities of color in the area which may help explain the reaction.

I -494 in Richfield is a mess anyway, with a big chunk of that freeway closed to traffic over the weekend. So I doubt there was much disturbance to travellers on Sunday night.

But nice to see the classy title to this tragedy in the OP.

The police of Edina and Richfield are on payroll specifically to keep "the poors" out. You know how much of a kicking/screaming match light rail to the southwest metro was?

Besides, maybe this is a hot take, but I think police should be forced to accept liability to be stabbed, and that knives shorter than a machete should not be considered lethal enough to shoot someone.

Yes people die from stab wounds and yes cops might die from stab wounds, but the probability of death or even permanent loss of function from a stab wound is quite low.

A knife should not be considered "above the threshold", especially when a police officer has a stand-off distance.

A knife is NOT going to be more effective than a billy club or police baton or a stun-gun. The nearest three cops should have had tazers, and the back rank guns to put someone down if they had more than a knife or crowbar.

Yeah, if we’re going to militarize police, then why not train them in hand to hand combat? About half serious there.

And why not prove more/better mental health screenings and support. Totally serious. Policing is a tough job.

I actually thought after I posted this "like, seriously, why are police partner groups not 'one melee expert plus one firearms expert'?"

With both of them trained in de-escalation tactics to lessen the chances there will be a melee or a need to use a firearm.

I would say "and an understanding of ethics" but I'll still take "hit with a stick" over "shot full of bullets".

Then again I'm not really the sort of person who visually screams on seeing them "hit with stick".

One person has in the last week, and too often before that, have said my walking stick looks like a weapon.

Just think how lucky you were that person was not packing a fire arm!!!!!!

That's the thing.... he was telling me I should understand that I should know how to defend myself with it, and it's "good for protection". There was approval/encouragement there towards that end.

For me, there's something I don't talk publicly about that happened where it was brandished as a weapon. I'll let the people who know vouch, but I'm not going to discuss it here. It was justified and I still feel so many mixed feelings over it, including relief a gun wasn't involved. I almost destroyed what it was for me, and that stick means a lot to me. It's memories of friendship and creativity, like a personal photo album and portfolio. It's littered with indexes into my own memory of wonderful and beautiful things, people, experiences, places, sights, and experiments.

That in and of itself is a grand piece of magic, and it's not the only such construction I carry.

I don't want what is my favorite thing to be an *index* into my memories of *violence* except explicitly expressing my disapproval of that.

As a result, I often take offense when people suggest I would be untrustworthy for having it, it actually sincerely hurts me. I made it out of a softer hardwood that easily and visibly scars. I can describe generally what caused every one of those scars. It's an *index* after all.

I'm more worried a cop is going to shoot me, though, than someone who sees someone walking with a stick as someone who needs to be "put down" in broad daylight on a crowded street. Someone would need to pick me out of the crowd, and to be honest, I'd rather be the lightning rod that event precipitates towards, because that means *someone else isn't*.

 

[Toni]

You're grasping for rationales for not shooting.

So let me understand you: shooting someone is NOT a last resort thing?

The problem is you don't understand they're out of other resorts.

Are they? Commanding, yelling/screaming commands, guns out isn't exactly the only things in the playbook.

With both of them trained in de-escalation tactics to lessen the chances there will be a melee or a need to use a firearm.

"Deescalation tactics" isn't some magic spell to resolve these things. Most of the time when things go bad they go bad very fast.

Indeed not. Yet, in these situations, there never seems to actually be any attempts to keep a situation calm, forget deescalated.

You're grasping for rationales for not shooting.

So let me understand you: shooting someone is NOT a last resort thing?

The problem is you don't understand they're out of other resorts.

I honestly don’t buy that -and if it’s true, then they had terrible training.

Putting a loaded gun in someone’s hand ( or holster) makes it seem like the best, safest choice. Which is only true if you are fine with street executions. It seems you are, provided the executioner wears a police uniform.

OTOH, I am not in favor of street executions.

Im not even in favor the death penalty after a fair and just trial resulting in a conviction.

You still show that you don't understand the difference between execution and self defense. You don't like the outcome so you decide it must have been wrong--but you're not even remotely showing that wrongness.

One guy with a kitchen knife vs multiple trained police officers carrying a lot of equipment plus firearms sounds like self defense for the guy who died, not the police. I can’t see it any way except execution.

Once again, you made my point.

An execution involves absolutely zero threat of the person being killed. I don't think it is fair to consider this an "execution". There is danger for the officers involved. The question is, how they manage the situation from start to finish in order to minimize the necessity for any violence.

After all, once the taser is out, Officers have come to the conclusion they must at least threaten force in order to gain compliance of the person, ie, they are almost out of control of the situation.

There's danger just getting out of bed in the morning. Or staying in bed, as well. Of course there is danger in being the executioner: That's why they are anonymous and protected and often multiple people throw the lever/switch/whatever to confuse the certainty of who actually was responsible for the death.

Did they force this guy to his knees and put a gun to his head before they fired? Well, they were no Derek Chauvin so it was just a group execution.

We don't know what kind of knife was being held--butter knife? Butcher knife? Steak knife? It could be anything. There were multiple, well armed, presumably trained police officers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You're grasping for rationales for not shooting.

So let me understand you: shooting someone is NOT a last resort thing?

The problem is you don't understand they're out of other resorts.

Are they? Commanding, yelling/screaming commands, guns out isn't exactly the only things in the playbook.

With both of them trained in de-escalation tactics to lessen the chances there will be a melee or a need to use a firearm.

"Deescalation tactics" isn't some magic spell to resolve these things. Most of the time when things go bad they go bad very fast.

Indeed not. Yet, in these situations, there never seems to actually be any attempts to keep a situation calm, forget deescalated.

You're grasping for rationales for not shooting.

So let me understand you: shooting someone is NOT a last resort thing?

The problem is you don't understand they're out of other resorts.

I honestly don’t buy that -and if it’s true, then they had terrible training.

Putting a loaded gun in someone’s hand ( or holster) makes it seem like the best, safest choice. Which is only true if you are fine with street executions. It seems you are, provided the executioner wears a police uniform.

OTOH, I am not in favor of street executions.

Im not even in favor the death penalty after a fair and just trial resulting in a conviction.

You still show that you don't understand the difference between execution and self defense. You don't like the outcome so you decide it must have been wrong--but you're not even remotely showing that wrongness.

One guy with a kitchen knife vs multiple trained police officers carrying a lot of equipment plus firearms sounds like self defense for the guy who died, not the police. I can’t see it any way except execution.

Once again, you made my point.

An execution involves absolutely zero threat of the person being killed. I don't think it is fair to consider this an "execution". There is danger for the officers involved. The question is, how they manage the situation from start to finish in order to minimize the necessity for any violence.

After all, once the taser is out, Officers have come to the conclusion they must at least threaten force in order to gain compliance of the person, ie, they are almost out of control of the situation.

There's danger just getting out of bed in the morning. Or staying in bed, as well. Of course there is danger in being the executioner: That's why they are anonymous and protected and often multiple people throw the lever/switch/whatever to confuse the certainty of who actually was responsible for the death.

Did they force this guy to his knees and put a gun to his head before they fired? Well, they were no Derek Chauvin so it was just a group execution.

We don't know what kind of knife was being held--butter knife? Butcher knife? Steak knife? It could be anything. There were multiple, well armed, presumably trained police officers.

Sure there is danger in getting out of bed. The point I was making was the term "execution" never involves risk to the executioners (other than something via gross negligence). Brandishing a knife implies a risk. I'm not saying it is severe risk to the life of the officers, but that the situation isn't on par with an execution.

In situations, officers should be allowed to have discretion. But in some cases, it appears the discretion is being defaulted to force. And it is only in rare cases which required recorded evidence, we have seen numerous cases where officers have shown behavior that was in conflict with their claims. As I noted, people are protesting because there is no trust. Chauvin (unrelated case) had countless complaints against him, and things only got real after a video appeared of the death of Brown. Because the police report didn't play out like it had in the video.

The evaporation of trust is a problem that some people don't want to deal with. Sure, there are people that want to take advantage of the lack of trust, swing up protests, make a name, but the underlying problem is they are taking advantage of a lack of trust that exists for a reason... a reason that many white people easily discount as nonsense.

And we haven't even got to the part about training and better management of high intensity situations. Issues like effective communication with the suspect (several barking/yelling officers), situation assessment where panicking behavior of officers who can't even tell if a weapon is present and shoot anyway. The same people who discount the experience of blacks with the police, also never want to discuss reviewing the situation and trying to determine how it could have been dealt with better. As if that is some sort of knock at the officers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're not providing any rationale, you're just arguing they should have done something else.

Even in the most restrictive states you're only required to escape if you have a sure escape--just because you could probably get away doesn't mandate that you risk your life to try. And running from a knife-wielder when encumbered is nothing like a sure escape.

Encumbered by what? A loaded gun?

Take a look at an officer sometime. First link I find the Google snippet says 20-25 pounds of gear on the belt. And add the vest they're likely wearing.

I am flabbergasted that you seem to ignore the risk to the public of having multiple police officers firing at a person armed with a …kitchen knife. We don’t even know what that means in this case. Is it a butter knife? A butcher knife? A paring knife? A table knife? Just how poorly were these officers trained that firing so many rounds into a single person seemed like their only option??

I'm thinking of the knife block in our kitchen--the hone would have a pretty hard time killing, as would the shears. Everything else certainly could kill.

And I've already repeatedly pointed out that the number of rounds doesn't prove wrongdoing.

An experienced shooter (and I would assume most all police qualify) can shoot something like 4 to 5 rounds per second. The human decision loop to react to major changes (such as deciding "this guy is no longer a threat, stop shooting") is over 1 second. Thus you would expect at least 4 rounds even if the first one was an instant stop. Add in a few more officers and the round count obviously goes way up.

Wow. That much gear and outnumbering a guy several times over and they….have to shoot him to death. Missing most of the time at close range.

You’ve more than made my point.

The only point you've made is that you have shown you don't understand the situation.

What is the world is having more people supposed to do to keep one of them from being stabbed??? You're committing the standard liberal faith error--assuming there must be a better answer because you don't like the current one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is the news is always trying to stir up controversy. "Unjustified shooting" is far more newsworthy than "justified shooting". They play up disputes that don't really exist.

They report what people say and do.

If someone says a shooting was justified, they report that. If someone else says it was unjustified, they report that, too. And they report on the circumstances of the shooting and the histories and personalities of those involved, if known, so that readers will have some way of understanding how and why the events unfolded as they did.

There are always some who say one side and some who say the other. The news are very prone to presenting controversy without regard for whether it's right.

Yes, controversies drive sales for news outlets. Yes, there are some outlets that gin up controversies where none exist, or exaggerate them beyond recognition. That's the Fox News business model in a nutshell. But that is not every news outlet reporting on every issue.

That's almost all news, not just Faux.

If you are dismissing discussions of justified vs. unjustified shootings merely because some news outlet reports it like it's a controversy, then you have no idea what's going on.

I'm saying that just because they reported it doesn't mean there's a real controversy.

Same thing I was saying above--playing to controversy. "Shot for jaywalking" is a lot more newsworthy than "shot for trying to take the officer's gun." Or one I just saw today, "shot for shoplifting" when it was really "shot for driving at an officer."

I said he was stopped for jaywalking, which is an indisputable fact thoroughly attested to by witnesses including Officer Wilson.

Stopped for jaywalking, not shot for jaywalking. You're being very deceptive.

The stop led to an argument, which led to some kind of physical contact, which led to Wilson trying to shoot Brown from inside his car, which led to Brown running away, which led to Wilson exiting his car and fatally shooting Brown from a distance while Brown's arms were out to the sides and some say up in the air.

Wilson's life was not in danger, and neither were the lives of anyone except Brown himself, hence the controversy over his death. Also, this took place in Ferguson, MO, a town funding it's police force through citations and tickets issued to mostly black citizens for very minor infractions like jaywalking or having a non functioning car in the driveway.

The way the police department in Ferguson operated was very much in keeping with the pattern of policing noted in the article Derec found.

Once again, deceptive.

1) "Some kind of physical contact"--sorry, we have Brown's DNA on Wilson's gun. Brown was trying to take Wilson's gun.

2) "Some say"--many of the "witnesses" for Brown could not actually have seen what they reported to see.

3) You're bringing up a bunch of irrelevant things.

 

[Toni]

You're not providing any rationale, you're just arguing they should have done something else.

Even in the most restrictive states you're only required to escape if you have a sure escape--just because you could probably get away doesn't mandate that you risk your life to try. And running from a knife-wielder when encumbered is nothing like a sure escape.

Encumbered by what? A loaded gun?

Take a look at an officer sometime. First link I find the Google snippet says 20-25 pounds of gear on the belt. And add the vest they're likely wearing.

I am flabbergasted that you seem to ignore the risk to the public of having multiple police officers firing at a person armed with a …kitchen knife. We don’t even know what that means in this case. Is it a butter knife? A butcher knife? A paring knife? A table knife? Just how poorly were these officers trained that firing so many rounds into a single person seemed like their only option??

I'm thinking of the knife block in our kitchen--the hone would have a pretty hard time killing, as would the shears. Everything else certainly could kill.

And I've already repeatedly pointed out that the number of rounds doesn't prove wrongdoing.

An experienced shooter (and I would assume most all police qualify) can shoot something like 4 to 5 rounds per second. The human decision loop to react to major changes (such as deciding "this guy is no longer a threat, stop shooting") is over 1 second. Thus you would expect at least 4 rounds even if the first one was an instant stop. Add in a few more officers and the round count obviously goes way up.

Wow. That much gear and outnumbering a guy several times over and they….have to shoot him to death. Missing most of the time at close range.

You’ve more than made my point.

The only point you've made is that you have shown you don't understand the situation.

What is the world is having more people supposed to do to keep one of them from being stabbed??? You're committing the standard liberal faith error--assuming there must be a better answer because you don't like the current one.

Don't you read? A better answer is a better trained police force that does NOT rely on 20-30 lbs of tactical gear but instead relies on people skills, common sense, and actual physical fitness and which is committed to the principles of public service, not execution.

I truly hope that this never happens to you, Loren, but what makes you think that you will NEVER have a mental health crisis and be mistaken for a danger to yourself and others?

If my doorbell rings while I am preparing dinner and I answer it with the kitchen knife I'm using to prep the evening's meal, should the police shoot me dead? For making dinner in my own home? Before you scoff, please remember that police have killed people sitting on their own porch and sleeping in their own beds.

Your insistence that the current insanity of police perpetuating and instigating armed violence is alarming and not terribly rational. All that has given us is more mass shootings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you're no one? Because in this very thread you're saying they should run from the knife--and I'm saying even the most restrictive laws only require running when there's a sure escape and this most certainly is not a sure escape.

Please produce my words where you believe I said the police should run from an attacker with a knife because I never did.

Again, no one was discussing what is mandated or required by law, so your persistence interjection of this as sone sort of a justification reeks of desperation.

You gave a weasel answer:

New blockade in Minneapolis

It's a distance that can be closed very quickly. In ~1.2 s at the speed St. Brian was going. Immobile? Do you suggest they should have ran away from the knife-wielding maniac? Coward? What do you think they should have done that would not be cowardly for you? Not immediately opening fire and...

iidb.org

"Backing off a bit". When someone's charging you with a knife the only way to "back off a bit" is to run.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All it takes is cutting me out of one back/forth and I would stop getting weird pings for empty quotes, guys. Hey @RayJ it's happening right now in this thread if you want to take a look.

Unfortunately, the editor generally does not remove such errant blank quotes unless you go into raw mode and remove them manually.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're committing the standard liberal faith error--assuming there must be a better answer because you don't like the current one.

Don't you read? A better answer is a better trained police force that does NOT rely on 20-30 lbs of tactical gear but instead relies on people skills, common sense, and actual physical fitness and which is committed to the principles of public service, not execution.

You're just doubling down on the error. None of these things work against a suicide by cop.

I truly hope that this never happens to you, Loren, but what makes you think that you will NEVER have a mental health crisis and be mistaken for a danger to yourself and others?

"Mistaken for"??? Suicide by cop cases are a danger to others. If the officer doesn't shoot they very well might attack the officer or a bystander to get the officer to shoot. You want to get killed when the cop didn't shoot the suicide by cop so he stabs you to get the cop to shoot?

If my doorbell rings while I am preparing dinner and I answer it with the kitchen knife I'm using to prep the evening's meal, should the police shoot me dead? For making dinner in my own home? Before you scoff, please remember that police have killed people sitting on their own porch and sleeping in their own beds.

Reality check: She was hit by a stray round, not a shot aimed at her. She made the mistake of living with scum.

Your insistence that the current insanity of police perpetuating and instigating armed violence is alarming and not terribly rational. All that has given us is more mass shootings.

Mass shootings are caused by the media. The shooters prefer infamy over being nobodies, the media gives them the infamy.

 

[laughing dog]

So you're no one? Because in this very thread you're saying they should run from the knife--and I'm saying even the most restrictive laws only require running when there's a sure escape and this most certainly is not a sure escape.

Please produce my words where you believe I said the police should run from an attacker with a knife because I never did.

Again, no one was discussing what is mandated or required by law, so your persistence interjection of this as sone sort of a justification reeks of desperation.

You gave a weasel answer:

New blockade in Minneapolis

It's a distance that can be closed very quickly. In ~1.2 s at the speed St. Brian was going. Immobile? Do you suggest they should have ran away from the knife-wielding maniac? Coward? What do you think they should have done that would not be cowardly for you? Not immediately opening fire and...

iidb.org

You need to explain why you believe my answer is a "weasel answer".

"Backing off a bit". When someone's charging you with a knife the only way to "back off a bit" is to run.

Once again, you interject your facts not in evidence. In this case, no one was charging. Approaching someone need not be charging. Furthermore, backing off need not require running anywhere. It can mean side-stepping or jumping sideways while trying to calm/regain control the situation.

You persist in the standard conservative "law and order" error of "kill em all". The real tragedy is that there are so many people who are so fearful that this is all they think is the solution.

But it is clear you misrepresented my words. While I can understand the initial misunderstanding, there is no honest excuse for you to persist.

 

[laughing dog]

You're committing the standard liberal faith error--assuming there must be a better answer because you don't like the current one.

Don't you read? A better answer is a better trained police force that does NOT rely on 20-30 lbs of tactical gear but instead relies on people skills, common sense, and actual physical fitness and which is committed to the principles of public service, not execution.

You're just doubling down on the error. None of these things work against a suicide by cop.

I truly hope that this never happens to you, Loren, but what makes you think that you will NEVER have a mental health crisis and be mistaken for a danger to yourself and others?

"Mistaken for"??? Suicide by cop cases are a danger to others. If the officer doesn't shoot they very well might attack the officer or a bystander to get the officer to shoot. You want to get killed when the cop didn't shoot the suicide by cop so he stabs you to get the cop to shoot?

If my doorbell rings while I am preparing dinner and I answer it with the kitchen knife I'm using to prep the evening's meal, should the police shoot me dead? For making dinner in my own home? Before you scoff, please remember that police have killed people sitting on their own porch and sleeping in their own beds.

Reality check: She was hit by a stray round, not a shot aimed at her. She made the mistake of living with scum.

I didn't realize that "scum" was a clear legal term and that living with scum was grounds for death penalty. Blaming the innocent victim of poor police markmenship for her death is simply insane.

Your insistence that the current insanity of police perpetuating and instigating armed violence is alarming and not terribly rational. All that has given us is more mass shootings.

Mass shootings are caused by the media. The shooters prefer infamy over being nobodies, the media gives them the infamy.

Mass shootings are caused by mass shooters. The media may give some mass shooters motives, but the killers make their choice and act on it. It is insane to think otherwise.

 

[Arctish]

The problem is the news is always trying to stir up controversy. "Unjustified shooting" is far more newsworthy than "justified shooting". They play up disputes that don't really exist.

They report what people say and do.

If someone says a shooting was justified, they report that. If someone else says it was unjustified, they report that, too. And they report on the circumstances of the shooting and the histories and personalities of those involved, if known, so that readers will have some way of understanding how and why the events unfolded as they did.

There are always some who say one side and some who say the other. The news are very prone to presenting controversy without regard for whether it's right.

What do you mean "whether it's right"?

Are you suggesting reporters should pre-judge issues and only report those that fit their own undoubtedly biased worldview? I think they should strive to be unbiased, and accurately report all sides of an issue their community is discussing.

I think we have very different ideas about what might be controversial when it comes to police killing suspects especially when video evidence and witness statements indicate the dead guy was surrendering or posed no threat that would justify such extreme measures. People in the US are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law. Cops killing people we presume are innocent should be controversial unless we're all in agreement that it was wrong, and even then there's likely to be some controversy over whether the killing was a crime.

Yes, controversies drive sales for news outlets. Yes, there are some outlets that gin up controversies where none exist, or exaggerate them beyond recognition. That's the Fox News business model in a nutshell. But that is not every news outlet reporting on every issue.

That's almost all news, not just Faux.

If you are dismissing discussions of justified vs. unjustified shootings merely because some news outlet reports it like it's a controversy, then you have no idea what's going on.

I'm saying that just because they reported it doesn't mean there's a real controversy.

Please explain what in your opinion makes something a 'real' controversy.

Same thing I was saying above--playing to controversy. "Shot for jaywalking" is a lot more newsworthy than "shot for trying to take the officer's gun." Or one I just saw today, "shot for shoplifting" when it was really "shot for driving at an officer."

I said he was stopped for jaywalking, which is an indisputable fact thoroughly attested to by witnesses including Officer Wilson.

Stopped for jaywalking, not shot for jaywalking. You're being very deceptive.

I said stopped for jaywalking. You must have misread my post. Please re-read it and retract your accusation.

The stop led to an argument, which led to some kind of physical contact, which led to Wilson trying to shoot Brown from inside his car, which led to Brown running away, which led to Wilson exiting his car and fatally shooting Brown from a distance while Brown's arms were out to the sides and some say up in the air.

Wilson's life was not in danger, and neither were the lives of anyone except Brown himself, hence the controversy over his death. Also, this took place in Ferguson, MO, a town funding it's police force through citations and tickets issued to mostly black citizens for very minor infractions like jaywalking or having a non functioning car in the driveway.

The way the police department in Ferguson operated was very much in keeping with the pattern of policing noted in the article Derec found.

Once again, deceptive.

1) "Some kind of physical contact"--sorry, we have Brown's DNA on Wilson's gun. Brown was trying to take Wilson's gun.

2) "Some say"--many of the "witnesses" for Brown could not actually have seen what they reported to see.

3) You're bringing up a bunch of irrelevant things.

1) We have as much evidence Brown was trying to shove the barrel of the gun away when Wilson first tried to kill him as we have that Brown was trying to take the gun. In fact, given that Wilson carried his weapon on his right hip and Brown couldn't have reached it from where he was standing unless and until Wilson pulled it out of his holster, we have slightly more evidence of the former than the latter.

2) Which ones? The only witness of record that I know of who could not have seen what they claimed to have seen was the woman who suffers from delusions who said Brown was attacking Wilson.

3) Not irrelevant to the article under discussion, or to the subject of this thread.

Some folks here have terrible memories. They need to be reminded of the facts, which I am usually more than willing to do so we don't wind up seriously discussing someone's homemade bullshit or ridiculous strawman arguments.

 

[Toni]

You're committing the standard liberal faith error--assuming there must be a better answer because you don't like the current one.

Don't you read? A better answer is a better trained police force that does NOT rely on 20-30 lbs of tactical gear but instead relies on people skills, common sense, and actual physical fitness and which is committed to the principles of public service, not execution.

You're just doubling down on the error. None of these things work against a suicide by cop.

I truly hope that this never happens to you, Loren, but what makes you think that you will NEVER have a mental health crisis and be mistaken for a danger to yourself and others?

"Mistaken for"??? Suicide by cop cases are a danger to others. If the officer doesn't shoot they very well might attack the officer or a bystander to get the officer to shoot. You want to get killed when the cop didn't shoot the suicide by cop so he stabs you to get the cop to shoot?

If my doorbell rings while I am preparing dinner and I answer it with the kitchen knife I'm using to prep the evening's meal, should the police shoot me dead? For making dinner in my own home? Before you scoff, please remember that police have killed people sitting on their own porch and sleeping in their own beds.

Reality check: She was hit by a stray round, not a shot aimed at her. She made the mistake of living with scum.

Your insistence that the current insanity of police perpetuating and instigating armed violence is alarming and not terribly rational. All that has given us is more mass shootings.

Mass shootings are caused by the media. The shooters prefer infamy over being nobodies, the media gives them the infamy.

Wow. Just all of it.

You believe that people who are having a mental health crisis are committing ‘suicide by cop’ and that police officers are obliged to assassinate them.

A woman deserved to be killed by police officers for the sim of living in a neighborhood you think was bad and having once upon a time dated a guy who turned out to be not great. I’m sure all your exes would give you stellar reviews. But it was her fault she was murdered in her own bed and not no knock warrrants or out of date warrants that sent police to the wrong address.

If I remember correctly Tamir Rice’s crime was being tall for his age and playing with a toy with the orange tip missing. Not the fault of the police dispatcher who failed to convey that it was likely a toy or the police officers who assassinated a child within seconds of roaring up in their police car.

Loren, you’ve got a real problem—two problems: You worship police and you think black people are all crimsons who provoke police brutality by…,existing.

 

[Toni]

So you're no one? Because in this very thread you're saying they should run from the knife--and I'm saying even the most restrictive laws only require running when there's a sure escape and this most certainly is not a sure escape.

Please produce my words where you believe I said the police should run from an attacker with a knife because I never did.

Again, no one was discussing what is mandated or required by law, so your persistence interjection of this as sone sort of a justification reeks of desperation.

You gave a weasel answer:

New blockade in Minneapolis

It's a distance that can be closed very quickly. In ~1.2 s at the speed St. Brian was going. Immobile? Do you suggest they should have ran away from the knife-wielding maniac? Coward? What do you think they should have done that would not be cowardly for you? Not immediately opening fire and...

iidb.org

"Backing off a bit". When someone's charging you with a knife the only way to "back off a bit" is to run.

No it’s not. Shit have t you ever watched a Bruce Lee movie?

I’m kidding but I swear that you get your world view from Herbert Hoover’s secret stash of comic books.

 

[Derec]

No it’s not. Shit have t you ever watched a Bruce Lee movie?

And in Westerns the good guy can just shoot the weapon out of the bad guy's hand.

Why don't cops just do that?

 

[Toni]

No it’s not. Shit have t you ever watched a Bruce Lee movie?

And in Westerns the good guy can just shoot the weapon out of the bad guy's hand.

Why don't cops just do that?

Yeah, why don’t they?

There are plenty of self defense classes offered to the public. A friend of mine used to teach one specifically for women. Mostly I’m sure it gave the women a sense of confidence which, in itself is a deterrent against certain kinds of situations. But it’s also practical. Most attackers don’t expect resistance, much less self defense.

No one, including me, is expecting police to refrain from firing at someone who has a gun and even appears to be using it or preparing to use it. Yeah, definitions get tricky here and I’m neither going to quibble here nor arm chair a situation where police officers shot a suspect who was firing a weapon or threatening to fire a weapon.

But several officers VS a single person with a kitchen knife should never have resulted in a serious injury, much less a fatality. If they couldn’t talk him into dropping the knife then surely one or two of them could have knocked it out of his hand or knocked him down and kicked the knife away.

Again, I would see it differently try if the person had a hostage or had injured or killed another person. As it is now, having a shiny object in your hands in front of a police officer might result in your death. Other countries manage to handle police duties without killing more than a thousand people every year.

 

[laughing dog]

No it’s not. Shit have t you ever watched a Bruce Lee movie?

And in Westerns the good guy can just shoot the weapon out of the bad guy's hand.

Why don't cops just do that?

I would settle for the police simply hit only their intended target and nothing else, but apparently that expectation is too high.

 

[Toni]

No it’s not. Shit have t you ever watched a Bruce Lee movie?

And in Westerns the good guy can just shoot the weapon out of the bad guy's hand.

Why don't cops just do that?

I would settle for the police simply hit only their intended target and nothing else, but apparently that expectation is too high.

I certainly would not! After all, police fully intended to kill Tamir Rice!

We need to fundamentally change how policing is done in the US. After all, Canada, who is very similar to the IS in terms of culture and roots, has only a very tiny fraction of the number of deaths at the hands of police .

 

[laughing dog]

No it’s not. Shit have t you ever watched a Bruce Lee movie?

And in Westerns the good guy can just shoot the weapon out of the bad guy's hand.

Why don't cops just do that?

I would settle for the police simply hit only their intended target and nothing else, but apparently that expectation is too high.

I certainly would not! After all, police fully intended to kill Tamir Rice!

There is a distinction between choosing the proper target and hitting what one aims. Proficiency in both should be the standard for police. IMO, that would dramatically reduce the needless deaths of harmless civilians. But that won't happen as long as there is a loud chorus of "shoot first and ask questions later" from the kneejerk defenders of the police.

 

[Jarhyn]

So you're no one? Because in this very thread you're saying they should run from the knife--and I'm saying even the most restrictive laws only require running when there's a sure escape and this most certainly is not a sure escape.

Please produce my words where you believe I said the police should run from an attacker with a knife because I never did.

Again, no one was discussing what is mandated or required by law, so your persistence interjection of this as sone sort of a justification reeks of desperation.

You gave a weasel answer:

New blockade in Minneapolis

It's a distance that can be closed very quickly. In ~1.2 s at the speed St. Brian was going. Immobile? Do you suggest they should have ran away from the knife-wielding maniac? Coward? What do you think they should have done that would not be cowardly for you? Not immediately opening fire and...

iidb.org

"Backing off a bit". When someone's charging you with a knife the only way to "back off a bit" is to run.

No it’s not. Shit have t you ever watched a Bruce Lee movie?

I’m kidding but I swear that you get your world view from Herbert Hoover’s secret stash of comic books.

In a more realistic world, when you are armed with a taser gun, have a baton twice as long as the knife, and have knife-resistant armor all up on your body, when someone is charging at you with a knife the answer is to stand your ground, strike their arm with the baton, and then their collar bone or hip or the side of their head.

Yes, they might still die, but you did it with a weapon that probably won't kill them, a

No it’s not. Shit have t you ever watched a Bruce Lee movie?

And in Westerns the good guy can just shoot the weapon out of the bad guy's hand.

Why don't cops just do that?

Yeah, why don’t they?

There are plenty of self defense classes offered to the public. A friend of mine used to teach one specifically for women. Mostly I’m sure it gave the women a sense of confidence which, in itself is a deterrent against certain kinds of situations. But it’s also practical. Most attackers don’t expect resistance, much less self defense.

No one, including me, is expecting police to refrain from firing at someone who has a gun and even appears to be using it or preparing to use it. Yeah, definitions get tricky here and I’m neither going to quibble here nor arm chair a situation where police officers shot a suspect who was firing a weapon or threatening to fire a weapon.

But several officers VS a single person with a kitchen knife should never have resulted in a serious injury, much less a fatality. If they couldn’t talk him into dropping the knife then surely one or two of them could have knocked it out of his hand or knocked him down and kicked the knife away.

Again, I would see it differently try if the person had a hostage or had injured or killed another person. As it is now, having a shiny object in your hands in front of a police officer might result in your death. Other countries manage to handle police duties without killing more than a thousand people every year.

Actually, I am. I don't think the police should be allowed to actually fire shots until someone else has.

Too many people have died for having cell phones to allow this to remain a "plausible" story.

I want police to not shoot first. Ever.

Police exist to keep us safe. We do not exist to keep police safe. Police injury should be an expected liability.

If nobody decides after such burdens are placed to become a police officer, then maybe we should reconsider how easy it is to carry concealed deadly weapons in public and how much of an extra burden that places on society.

If people want to be in that position, it should be a life of sacrifice and gnostic risk. There are plenty of people who would take those risks and accept those sacrifices on behalf of the society they are there to protect and serve rather than to attack and oppress.

I can guarantee that if the job of an armed officer was that much more dangerous, and required that kind of "public gentleness" that puts others' lives explicitly over their own, the fragile high school bullies who normally tend towards police employment would steer clear.