New blockade in Minneapolis

[laughing dog]

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.

Did you read the article? He was known to be suicidal!

Actually, if one read the article with even a modicum of reading comprehension, he was feared to be suicidal. That is not the same thing as "known". Moreover, the fact that was even feared (or known) to be suicidal does not mean that he was necessarily suicidal when he interacted with the police.

 

[laughing dog]

When police act like snowflakes because some guy has a knife, it's sad, rather disturbing as well as disgusting. I mean, a knife! Seriously? Those bid bad cops, who are supposed to wear protective vests and have guns, couldn't have tried to talk the guy down, or maybe even shoot him in the foot or lower leg, which would caused him to fall down and drop his knife? OMG! The cops are really fucking idiots.

Somebody needs to give them more training in how to deal with people who seem like they might be mentally disturbed or suicidal. The dead man probably appeared disturbed because nobody in his right mind confronts the police with a knife. I can only assume that the cops were pissed off because the disturbed man made them chase him, and. that in their opinion was a justification for killing him.

This is so ignorant that it seems like satire.

Apparently you are unaware that police around this country are recognizing that they need more education and training on how to spot and deal effectively and humanely (i.e. not gunning them down).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most drugs used to treat psychiatric drugs have unpleasant side effects that are difficult to tolerate. Many of these meds can also be very expensive. Or, some patients feel enough relief from their medication that they begin to feel they don’t need their meds any longer, so they go off their meds, and their symptoms reappear. It can take several changes in medications or combinations of meds to be truly effective for an individual. It is also extremely difficult to access mental health care. There are not nearly enough beds in psychiatric facilities and not nearly enough money to pay for a spot.

Pick any of the above or any combination and you will have a likely explanation for why an individual goes off their meds.

Yup. Also, consider that when they are functioning they feel the bad side effects but when they're off their meds and nuts they don't realize how bad it is. Hence they make very poor evaluations of which is worse.

 

[Toni]

When police act like snowflakes because some guy has a knife, it's sad, rather disturbing as well as disgusting. I mean, a knife! Seriously? Those bid bad cops, who are supposed to wear protective vests and have guns, couldn't have tried to talk the guy down, or maybe even shoot him in the foot or lower leg, which would caused him to fall down and drop his knife? OMG! The cops are really fucking idiots.

Somebody needs to give them more training in how to deal with people who seem like they might be mentally disturbed or suicidal. The dead man probably appeared disturbed because nobody in his right mind confronts the police with a knife. I can only assume that the cops were pissed off because the disturbed man made them chase him, and. that in their opinion was a justification for killing him.

This is so ignorant that it seems like satire.

Many of your posts do seem that way. It is a fact that police departments are beginning to recognize the need for specialized training and personnel for similar situations where serious mental illness seems to be the situation rather than criminal or violent intent towards another individual.

 

[Derec]

Moreover, the fact that was even feared (or known) to be suicidal does not mean that he was necessarily suicidal when he interacted with the police.

So he could have just wanted to stab police officer for unrelated reasons? I am not sure how that's better or how it justifies blockading an interstate in his honor.

 

[laughing dog]

Moreover, the fact that was even feared (or known) to be suicidal does not mean that he was necessarily suicidal when he interacted with the police.

So he could have just wanted to stab police officer for unrelated reasons?

At this writing, there is no evidence he tried to attack anyone.

I am not sure how that's better or how it justifies blockading an interstate in his honor.

No one blockaded an interstate in his honor. It was a protest about his killing.

Why do you feel the need to ignore the facts and invent new ones?

 

[Derec]

Holy thread resurrection, Batman, but there is an update:

This case was so clear cut, even the civil lawsuit failed.
Court: Shooting of knife-wielding man didn’t violate U.S. Constitution

At this point, Quinones-Rosario was in Richfield, driving erratically and barely avoiding collisions with other vehicles. Police continued to attempt to stop Quinones-Rosario by bumping the back of his car. Eventually, Quinones-Rosario braked and got out of his car. When Quinones-Rosario exited the car, he brandished a large kitchen knife. Officers drew their firearms and told Quinones-Rosario to drop the knife, but he refused. Instead, Quinones-Rosario sprinted toward the officers with the raised knife. At first, officers attempted to subdue Quinones-Rosario with a taser. Quinones-Rosario told officers to “do it.” When Quinones-Rosario got within 13 feet of the officers — running at an estimated speed of 7.4 miles an hour — officers opened fire. Quinones-Rosario survived the round of shots and slowed his pace; however, he kept advancing toward the officers with the knife. Additional officers began shooting at Quinones-Rosario two seconds later. In four seconds, officers fired 18 shots. A third of those shots hit Quinones-Rosario, who fell to the ground and succumbed to his injuries.

The shyster's statements are particularly distateful.

“A person with a knife is very unlikely to be a threat,” asserted Lewis. “A person with a knife, in clear psychological distress, is very unlikely to be a threat.”
Lewis argued that deadly force should not be justified if an assailant had a knife unless the person was a little closer than lunging distance, not 13 feet away.

I know "lawyer" rhymes with "liar" for a reason, but 13 feet (~4m in proper units) is no distance at all, esp. when the perp is already moving. Furthermore, a knife is a dangerous deadly weapon, and a knife wielding maniac is a threat per se.

So tell me, Hound et al, why you think it was justified to blockade interstates to "protest" against police and in favor of this guy?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are protests because there is no trust. We saw with the Brown killing, how the Police typically cover up the stuff inner city folk are complaining about. No one is listening, so they block Interstates so people can listen.

Running at 7.4 miles per hour. That is about an 8 minute mile, which while not standing still, isn't fast or remotely sprinting. The question you never seem to give a damn about is, "Could the officers have apprehended him without injury to themselves?" not whether "Is there any remotely possible way an officer could get hurt?"

The officers appear to use force almost immediately, via a taser 9being non-lethal doesn't make it not force), after yelling at the guy didn't work. Was it a difficult situation? Yes. Did the guy have to die? Based on the training these officers had, yes. Should police officers be better (actually?) trained to manage situations with people who are not mentally well or under an influence? Yes, that would be good.

 

[Gospel]

13 feet is surprisingly close. How'd he get that close is obvious to me. American Cops just plop themselves in harms way and then sit like a pile of bricks. I once had to dodge a person with a knife, circling a car until a friend cleaned his clock from behind. That ended the situation for that guy and he lived to not try that bullshit again.

 

[laughing dog]

Holy thread resurrection, Batman, but there is an update:

This case was so clear cut, even the civil lawsuit failed.
Court: Shooting of knife-wielding man didn’t violate U.S. Constitution

At this point, Quinones-Rosario was in Richfield, driving erratically and barely avoiding collisions with other vehicles. Police continued to attempt to stop Quinones-Rosario by bumping the back of his car. Eventually, Quinones-Rosario braked and got out of his car. When Quinones-Rosario exited the car, he brandished a large kitchen knife. Officers drew their firearms and told Quinones-Rosario to drop the knife, but he refused. Instead, Quinones-Rosario sprinted toward the officers with the raised knife. At first, officers attempted to subdue Quinones-Rosario with a taser. Quinones-Rosario told officers to “do it.” When Quinones-Rosario got within 13 feet of the officers — running at an estimated speed of 7.4 miles an hour — officers opened fire. Quinones-Rosario survived the round of shots and slowed his pace; however, he kept advancing toward the officers with the knife. Additional officers began shooting at Quinones-Rosario two seconds later. In four seconds, officers fired 18 shots. A third of those shots hit Quinones-Rosario, who fell to the ground and succumbed to his injuries.

The shyster's statements are particularly distateful.

“A person with a knife is very unlikely to be a threat,” asserted Lewis. “A person with a knife, in clear psychological distress, is very unlikely to be a threat.”
Lewis argued that deadly force should not be justified if an assailant had a knife unless the person was a little closer than lunging distance, not 13 feet away.

I know "lawyer" rhymes with "liar" for a reason, but 13 feet (~4m in proper units) is no distance at all, esp. when the perp is already moving. Furthermore, a knife is a dangerous deadly weapon, and a knife wielding maniac is a threat per se.

13 ft is not lunging distance unless you are immobile or a coward.

So tell me, Hound et al, why you think it was justified to blockade interstates to "protest" against police and in favor of this guy?

Yes, I think protesting against unnecessary police violence is justified. Which is not the same thing as protesting "in favor of the victim" because no one is claiming in this case that the victim was innocent.

 

[Toni]

Holy thread resurrection, Batman, but there is an update:

This case was so clear cut, even the civil lawsuit failed.
Court: Shooting of knife-wielding man didn’t violate U.S. Constitution

At this point, Quinones-Rosario was in Richfield, driving erratically and barely avoiding collisions with other vehicles. Police continued to attempt to stop Quinones-Rosario by bumping the back of his car. Eventually, Quinones-Rosario braked and got out of his car. When Quinones-Rosario exited the car, he brandished a large kitchen knife. Officers drew their firearms and told Quinones-Rosario to drop the knife, but he refused. Instead, Quinones-Rosario sprinted toward the officers with the raised knife. At first, officers attempted to subdue Quinones-Rosario with a taser. Quinones-Rosario told officers to “do it.” When Quinones-Rosario got within 13 feet of the officers — running at an estimated speed of 7.4 miles an hour — officers opened fire. Quinones-Rosario survived the round of shots and slowed his pace; however, he kept advancing toward the officers with the knife. Additional officers began shooting at Quinones-Rosario two seconds later. In four seconds, officers fired 18 shots. A third of those shots hit Quinones-Rosario, who fell to the ground and succumbed to his injuries.

The shyster's statements are particularly distateful.

“A person with a knife is very unlikely to be a threat,” asserted Lewis. “A person with a knife, in clear psychological distress, is very unlikely to be a threat.”
Lewis argued that deadly force should not be justified if an assailant had a knife unless the person was a little closer than lunging distance, not 13 feet away.

I know "lawyer" rhymes with "liar" for a reason, but 13 feet (~4m in proper units) is no distance at all, esp. when the perp is already moving. Furthermore, a knife is a dangerous deadly weapon, and a knife wielding maniac is a threat per se.

So tell me, Hound et al, why you think it was justified to blockade interstates to "protest" against police and in favor of this guy?

Wow. At 13 feet, only a third of the shots fired hit Quinones-Rosario. Shots from multiple officers. On one hand, I suppose we should be grateful there were no more injuries or deaths. On the other hand, is it difficult to understand why there is so little trust in officers who are unable to subdue one man, armed with a kitchen knife, when the officers are armed with tasers and firearms?

Yes, the lawyer has a good point: if he was not within striking distance of any other person and was armed only with a kitchen knife, then it is difficult to understand why it was necessary to shoot him even once, much less multiple times with multiple officers who are so poorly trained that even at such a close distance only a third of their shots hit their target.

 

[bilby]

is it difficult to understand why there is so little trust in officers who are unable to subdue one man, armed with a kitchen knife, when the officers are armed with tasers and firearms?

A large part of the problem is that the police are over-armed.

To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Police are so completely dependent on their guns that they don't even consider a more proportionate response, and that's reflected in their utter failure to do simple defensive tactics like moving away from a person who is wielding a knife.

If they weren't routinely armed, they would, and could, apprehend knife wielding suspects without killing them. This happens routinely in places like the UK, where firearms aren't routinely carried by most police officers.

Officers are rarely injured in such confrontations, because they're trained and provided with appropriate equipment for the use of non-lethal force.

 

[Toni]

is it difficult to understand why there is so little trust in officers who are unable to subdue one man, armed with a kitchen knife, when the officers are armed with tasers and firearms?

A large part of the problem is that the police are over-armed.

To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Police are so completely dependent on their guns that they don't even consider a more proportionate response, and that's reflected in their utter failure to do simple defensive tactics like moving away from a person who is wielding a knife.

If they weren't routinely armed, they would, and could, apprehend knife wielding suspects without killing them. This happens routinely in places like the UK, where firearms aren't routinely carried by most police officers.

Officers are rarely injured in such confrontations, because they're trained and provided with appropriate equipment for the use of non-lethal force.

One of the biggest problems is how police officers are trained. Excess military equipment is marketed and sold to police departments who are increasingly trained as paramilitary occupying a hostile territory—who pays their salaries for the privilege.

The out of control proliferation of weapons in the US, coupled with the plethora of violent entertainment contributes to the drive mentality of some. The biggest fear of many police departments is being out-gunned by well armed violent criminals. This is neither a trivial nor a completely negligible fear.

Most policing does not involve confrontations with drug dealers armed with semiautomatic weapons. But much of police training is predicated on that potential rather than the much more frequent occurrences of domestic situations and mental health issues, abd even more prevalent traffic issues and petty crimes.

 

[Derec]

There are protests because there is no trust. We saw with the Brown killing, how the Police typically cover up the stuff inner city folk are complaining about.

As we have seen with St. Michael Brown of the Blessed Swisher Sweets, there will be a lot of lies that fuel these #BLM riots.
Remember media sanctifying him as a "Gentle Giant" who had no reason to attack a police officer, but then it came out that he robbed a convenience store and did attack the cop?

No one is listening, so they block Interstates so people can listen.

You don't have the right to impede people's freedom of movement just because you want to force them to listen to you. Especially not when you have nothing to say since the shooting in this case, that of Brian Quinones-Rosario was completely justified.

Running at 7.4 miles per hour. That is about an 8 minute mile, which while not standing still, isn't fast or remotely sprinting.

So what? He was not at a track meet. He was attacking cops with a knife.
And since he was ~4m away, he could cover that distance in ~1.2 s, which is no time at all.

The question you never seem to give a damn about is, "Could the officers have apprehended him without injury to themselves?" not whether "Is there any remotely possible way an officer could get hurt?"

Trying to tackle him would have been very dangerous.

The officers appear to use force almost immediately, via a taser 9being non-lethal doesn't make it not force), after yelling at the guy didn't work.

So they did attempt a less lethal method, but it failed.
What would you have done? Please be specific.

Was it a difficult situation? Yes. Did the guy have to die? Based on the training these officers had, yes. Should police officers be better (actually?) trained to manage situations with people who are not mentally well or under an influence? Yes, that would be good.

I do not know what mental health training could have accomplished in this situation. That may work if the perp is standing still some distance away and you have time to try to talk him down. Running at you with a knife with 1.2 s before he reaches you? You need to act, and act fast.

Note that not only did the criminal investigation exonerate the officers, but so did the civil court. Good thing the city/county did not settle prematurely with the greedy family.

 

[Derec]

13 ft is not lunging distance unless you are immobile or a coward.

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?

Yes, I think protesting against unnecessary police violence is justified.

Protesting is one thing, blockading highways quite another.
And this shooting was justified. Unlike the Interstate blockade.

Which is not the same thing as protesting "in favor of the victim" because no one is claiming in this case that the victim was innocent

Of course it is "protesting" in favor of the attacker. If you do not think police had the right to self defense against him, then you must presume that he was innocent of attacking them with a knife. Or do you believe police have no right to self-defense when attacked?

If any civilian was charged with a knife-wielding schizophrenic, nobody would bat an eye at the civilian using deadly force to defend him or herself. So why should police get less right to self defense?

 

[Derec]

13 feet is surprisingly close. How'd he get that close is obvious to me.

If you read the article, 13 ft (~4m) was not the distance at the beginning, but the distance at which they decided to open fire.
So he was running at them from some farther distance.

American Cops just plop themselves in harms way and then sit like a pile of bricks.

It is their job to put themselves in harms way in order to enforce the law. And what is this "pile of bricks" business? Should they have ran away?

I once had to dodge a person with a knife, circling a car until a friend cleaned his clock from behind. That ended the situation for that guy and he lived to not try that bullshit again.

Good for you, but had you had a gun, nobody would have faulted you had you used it in order to defend yourself from an assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[Derec]

Wow. At 13 feet, only a third of the shots fired hit Quinones-Rosario. Shots from multiple officers.

I guess next you'll tell us that you had a much better hit percentage when you were attacked way back when?

On one hand, I suppose we should be grateful there were no more injuries or deaths. On the other hand, is it difficult to understand why there is so little trust in officers who are unable to subdue one man, armed with a kitchen knife, when the officers are armed with tasers and firearms?

The taser was deployed, but did not work. Taser success rate leaves something to be desired compared to "neuron whips" and "set phasers to stun" of science fiction.

When the tasers did not work, the perp was so close that the use of firearms was the only tenable option left.
How would you have subdued them?

Yes, the lawyer has a good point: if he was not within striking distance of any other person and was armed only with a kitchen knife, then it is difficult to understand why it was necessary to shoot him even once, much less multiple times with multiple officers who are so poorly trained that even at such a close distance only a third of their shots hit their target.

I do not know what the expected hit percentage would be in this situation. Do you? I do know a moving target and a rapidly deteriorating situation is quite different than shooting at a firing range.
The shyster does not have a good point. The perp was closing rapidly - he was only ~1.2 s away at the speed he was going.

 

[Derec]

A large part of the problem is that the police are over-armed.

Yeah, we all know you do not think police should have firearms, even in the US where many criminals do.
But what weapons do you think police should have? Are tasers ok?

To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

You mean like the man with a hammer from the other thread who managed to strike a policewoman several times with it before she shot him?
Police officer tackled, brutally attacked by hammer-wielding man: ‘Fighting for her life’
Should she not have used her gun at all just because cops with guns offend your Lord and Savior Robert Peel?

Police are so completely dependent on their guns that they don't even consider a more proportionate response, and that's reflected in their utter failure to do simple defensive tactics like moving away from a person who is wielding a knife.

Why should police move away?

If they weren't routinely armed, they would, and could, apprehend knife wielding suspects without killing them. This happens routinely in places like the UK, where firearms aren't routinely carried by most police officers.

And how many officers get stabbed trying to tackle knife attackers?
There was a case in Germany. An Iraqi fakefugee badly stabbed a policewoman in Berlin. Other police then shot him - not even German police play in that situation.

Iraqi man shot dead in Berlin after stabbing policewoman
Btw. even though the Iraqi was an Islamist and spent time in prison for an assassination plot, Germany failed to deport him.

Officers are rarely injured in such confrontations,

because they're trained and provided with appropriate equipment for the use of non-lethal force.

"Appropriate equipment" like what exactly?

 

[Derec]

One of the biggest problems is how police officers are trained. Excess military equipment is marketed and sold to police departments who are increasingly trained as paramilitary occupying a hostile territory—who pays their salaries for the privilege.

What do you consider "military equipment" and how does that have to do with this case?

The out of control proliferation of weapons in the US, coupled with the plethora of violent entertainment contributes to the drive mentality of some. The biggest fear of many police departments is being out-gunned by well armed violent criminals. This is neither a trivial nor a completely negligible fear.

The only time police use what could even remotely be described as "military equipment" is SWAT, and even you acknowledge that there is need for those.

Most policing does not involve confrontations with drug dealers armed with semiautomatic weapons.

Most handguns are "semiautomatic weapons" these days.
Any handgun that looks similar to this is a "semiautomatic weapon".

And those that are not semiauto are probably revolvers and look something like this:

So while most policing does not involve confrontations with perps armed with handguns, the chances of encountering "semiautomatic weapons" are anything but negligible.

But much of police training is predicated on that potential rather than the much more frequent occurrences of domestic situations and mental health issues, abd even more prevalent traffic issues and petty crimes.

Domestic situations can be very dangerous for the responding police.
Domestic incidents are highly dangerous for police officers, experts say
Perps with mental health issues and traffic stop can be very dangerous too.

And neither scenario is mutually exclusive with perps being armed. I recall a case of a guy with severe mental health issues who was armed with a "semiautomatic weapon". During a traffic stop, he opened fire wounding a police officer in the legs. Officers fired back, killing him.
Keaton Otis

 

[Arctish]

There are protests because there is no trust. We saw with the Brown killing, how the Police typically cover up the stuff inner city folk are complaining about.

As we have seen with St. Michael Brown of the Blessed Swisher Sweets, there will be a lot of lies that fuel these #BLM riots.
Remember media sanctifying him as a "Gentle Giant" who had no reason to attack a police officer, but then it came out that he robbed a convenience store and did attack the cop?

No, I don't remember that.

I remember you claiming it happened, over and over again. Just like you made Brown a saint and then claimed liberals had done it.

Perhaps it would help your argument if you backed it up with evidence. Can you link to some articles that sanctified Brown?