New blockade in Minneapolis

[laughing dog]

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 backing off a bit. Opening fire should be the last resort.

And if you have to fire so many rounds because you cannot hit your target, that is an indication that maybe you shouldn’t be firing until you are a better shot.

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

The protest was the blockade. Yes, the shooting was ruled justifiable. I disagree with that decision. The blockade was justifiable.

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 one accepts your illogical premise that the only method of self defense against scary black men is to kill them, your argument makes sense.

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?

If one accepts your addled premise that the police and civilians have the same training and duties, your response makes sense.

 

[Toni]

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.

I grew up in a family of hunters, all of whom were extremely good marksmen, but particularly my grandfather, whose exploits were still being told 30+ years after he died. No semi-automatic anything--that was for sissies. My standards may be unrealistic. Myself, I deliberately chose not to learn to shoot. I have, on the other hand, successfully defended myself against physical assault multiple times, all against individuals who were much larger and stronger than I was, by a factor of 50% to >100%. I admit that I had surprise and no small amount of adrenaline on my side. No one expected me to fight back.

Bilby has already described how unarmed officers manage a suspect armed with a knife in civilized nations where police officers are not usually armed with firearms.

In 2022, 59 officers in the US were killed in the line of duty.

FBI Releases 2022 Data on Law Enforcement Officer Deaths - Homeland Security Digital Library

The FBI has released a report on law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, including data on felonious deaths from 2022. The FBI continuously releases this data through the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) Program. The program's statistics provide information that...

www.hsdl.org

Of the 59 officers feloniously killed, six were killed in unprovoked attacks. 49 officers were killed by firearms, three by offenders using vehicles used as weapons, and eight by use of personal weapons (fists, hands, feet, etc.). 10 of the identified offenders had prior criminal arrests, and two were under judicial supervision at the time of the incidents. 35 of the 58 officers killed accidentally were involved in motor vehicle crashes. Other circumstances included being struck by vehicles, aircraft crashes, falls, and firearm-related incidents.

During the same period of time, 1059 civilians were shot to death by police officers. I do not have statistics regarding the number of civilians killed by police by other means, such as beatings. https://www.statista.com/statistics/585159/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-month/

In other news, police pursue higher pay and job security by fostering an atmosphere of fear among students attending college. Gifted article:

Yale Students Got a Terrifying Message. From the Campus Police.

There was anger after the campus police union — which is renegotiating a contract — shared a safety flier with a picture of the Grim Reaper on it.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Toni]

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

Here’s an article about the militarization of police in the USA.

How 9/11 helped to militarize American law enforcement | Brookings

Rashawn Ray writes that in light of 9/11 and America's overseas wars, policy makers should critically re-evaluate the benefits or costs (financial and human costs) associated with military equipment programs for law enforcement.

www.brookings.edu

 

[Derec]

No, I don't remember that.

Selective memory?

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

I did not make Michael Brown "a saint". I have merely been sarcastically referring to him as one to parody how the left-wing media and activists have been treating him.

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

I already linked to one, from St. Louis Post-Dispatcher, in the post you quoted.
Want some more?
The always "fair and balanced" MSNBC comparing Michael Brown to Emmett Till:
From Emmett Till to Michael Brown, a story as old as America itself
CNN was also pushing the "gentle giant" and "he was a good boy" narrative:
Missouri teen shot by police was two days away from starting college
Need even more? I am sure you could plenty more. Google is your friend.

Btw, activist cum politician Cori Bush is still spreading falsehoods about this case.
Cori Bush blasted for ‘hoax’ after blaming Michael Brown death on ‘white supremacy’
Cori is trying to continue the legacy of such dim bulbs in the congressional chandelier as Maxine "Putin Invaded Korea" Waters and Sheila "AR15s weigh as much as 10 moving boxes and shoot .50 cal bullets" Jackson Lee.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, we all know that if anyone says anything that does not dump on the dead black victim of a police shooting, they are portraying him as a saint.


BTW, the St. Louis paper is the Post-Dispatch.

 

[bilby]

Should they have ran away?

YES!

If someone is running at you with a knife, that's the appropriate response.

Your unspoken assumption that they should then keep running, in a cowardly rout, is utter drivel though.

The tactical doctrine of never conceding an inch of territory is really, really, stupid.

You get out of the way, running if needed, and let the attacker wear himself out; Then you can intervene with non-lethal force against a tired and heavily outnumbered opponent, and apprehend him with relative ease, and little risk to either police or suspect.

Literally the only obstacle to this ideal outcome, wherein the suspect is apprehended alive, and nobody suffers from any major injuries, is the egoistic stupidity that says that running away is somehow shameful, even as part of a successful strategy to arrest the suspect.

The objective should be to arrest the suspect, without anyone being seriously injured. Maintaining the pride, ego, and machismo of the police officers involved isn't a necessary, or a desirable, goal, and certainly doesn't override that primary objective.

Yes, they should have run away.

It's the best option, to achieve the desired result.

If a few teenage boys feel less inclined to hero worship of cops as a result, that's probably a smaller problem than someone dying.

 

[bilby]

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.

I would.

Use of deadly force, when non-lethal force was an option, is unacceptable - even if it's (stupidly) not unlawful.

That you not only condone this, but are also incapable of believing that anyone would condemn it, says many very unpleasant things about your morality, and that of Second Amendment/Hollywood Action Movie dominated America in general.

Guns aren't a sane person's first resort.

Defensive guns are almost exclusively a fictional concept.

 

[bilby]

Yeah, we all know you do not think police should have firearms, even in the US where many criminals do.

Perhaps you should try not letting many criminals have firearms?

 

[bilby]

Why should police move away?

Because it's a sensible tactic.

Why shouldn't they?

 

[Derec]

Not immediately opening fire and backing off a bit.

They did not open fire immediately. They tried using the taser first.
And why should they back off? Walking backwards increases the chance of stumbling as you can't see where you are going.

Opening fire should be the last resort.

It was the last resort. Officers waited until the assailant was mere 13' (~4m) away from them to open fire.
The problem is that some of you don't want police to use their firearms at all.

And if you have to fire so many rounds because you cannot hit your target, that is an indication that maybe you shouldn’t be firing until you are a better shot.

Again, I do not know what the expected hit rate is under these circumstances. I do know shooting at a moving target that is attacking you is different than shooting at a paper target at a firing range.

The protest was the blockade.

That is an improper way to protest. No matter whether you are protesting against police defending themselves from assault with a deadly weapon, or against abortion or against gay marriage. Blocking interstate highway because you are mad at something is not acceptable and should lead to arrest and criminal charges.

Yes, the shooting was ruled justifiable. I disagree with that decision.

Of course you do. But note, this was not even a case of an "unarmed black man". He was definitely armed with a deadly weapon, and in the process of attacking the officers.

The blockade was justifiable.

No, it definitely wasn't justifiable.

If one accepts your illogical premise that the only method of self defense against scary black men is to kill them, your argument makes sense.

Unlike you, I do not think the skin color of the assailant has any bearing on officers' right to self defense.
And nobody is claiming it is the "only method of self defense" - the illogical premise is of your own invention. Using the firearm to defend yourself is a legitimate form of self defense against an attack with a deadly weapon, and in this case police exercised restraint before resorting to it when the assailant was already very close to them.
Do you also think the policewoman who was attacked with a hammer did wrong by shooting her assailant?

If one accepts your addled premise that the police and civilians have the same training and duties, your response makes sense.

You are long on insults, but short on facts and reasoning.
Police are still human beings, and still have the right to self-defense. As far as greater duties, sure, unlike civilians they have the duty to confront suspects, including dangerous suspects. That makes them more likely to have to use force in defense of themselves or others. As far as training, police successfully used tools at their disposal to stop a threat to themselves without harming any innocent bystanders.

 

[Derec]

I grew up in a family of hunters, all of whom were extremely good marksmen, but particularly my grandfather, whose exploits were still being told 30+ years after he died. No semi-automatic anything--that was for sissies.

Lmao. Why do you think semiauto action is "for sissies"?
Also, it is very different to shoot at a deer with your .308 bolt action rifle from the comfort of your blind, with plenty of time to line up a shot, vs. shooting at an assailant who is running toward you wielding a knife. Esp. when you tried to use less lethal means (like tasers) first. If somebody is going to reach you in 1.2 seconds, you don't have the luxury of carefully aimed shots.

My standards may be unrealistic. Myself, I deliberately chose not to learn to shoot. I have, on the other hand, successfully defended myself against physical assault multiple times, all against individuals who were much larger and stronger than I was, by a factor of 50% to >100%.

I knew there was an anecdote from your past in there somewhere!

Bilby has already described how unarmed officers manage a suspect armed with a knife in civilized nations where police officers are not usually armed with firearms.

1. Bilby did not describe how unarmed officers wrangle knife-wielding subjects. He merely stated that they do.
2. Very few counties don't have routinely armed police, and even those countries have some armed units. UK, Norway and a few other countries, mostly small island nations.

Even most European countries like Italy and Germany routinely arm police.
3. Unarmed police can easily get stabbed by an assailant. This happened in the UK last year.
London police stabbing: Two officers taken to hospital
That link also has a graphic that shows that assaults on police that led to injured officers have been going up in the UK, to almost 12k/a for 2021-22.

In 2022, 59 officers in the US were killed in the line of duty.

And there would be more if police officers were not allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves from assaults with knives and hammers.

During the same period of time, 1059 civilians were shot to death by police officers.

And how many of those were ruled unjustified? How many were so clear-cut that not even #BLM bothered to protest/riot or even make up a hashtag in their honor?

In other news, police pursue higher pay and job security by fostering an atmosphere of fear among students attending college.

Not "police" but the police union. Two separate entities. It's like conflating SAG/WGA with Hollywood studios.
Even the author had to acknowledge that crimes like homicides were up:

The police union flier reported that “murders have doubled, burglaries are up 33 percent and motor vehicle thefts are up 56 percent,” in the first seven months of the year.
The numbers are accurate. But Mayor Justin Elicker called them cherry-picked and misleading. He noted that violent crime has decreased by 29.2 percent since 2020. Although homicides are up, the number of shootings has come down.

So do New Haven killers increasingly use other means to kill their victims (e.g. garroting or bludgeoning) or have they just become better shots?

 

[bilby]

Very few counties don't have routinely armed police

So what? Argumentum ad populum remains a fallacy even when you really want it to be a solid argument.

Countries in which police are routinely armed are de facto countries in which people can be lawfully killed by the authorities without trial, on mere suspicion that they might engage in violent acts.

In fact, it's worse than that - in such countries, people can generally be killed by any individual police officer who feels like doing so, for any reason or none, and his only risk of being punished for such an extrajudicial killing is the slim possibility that his claim to have been fearful of being attacked might be contradicted, by any surviving witnesses. This is a particular concern in the USA, where the prevalence of firearms in society makes contradicting such claims far more difficult.

Perversely, Americans believe that they have the right to bear arms, while simultaneously believing that "I thought he had a gun" is sufficient excuse for a police officer to summarily execute any citizen without trial.

Routinely arming police and giving them the authority to use deadly force creates a police state, in which no person is safe from lethal attacks on them by police officers.

That many people are comfortable with this kind of society is a searing indictment of the woeful state of education with regards to ethics, politics, and history.

Basically, people are happy to live in such conditions as long as they anticipate that the victims will be other people; And they will tell themselves all kinds of comforting stories about how very different they themselves, and their families and friends, are from those others who are at risk of police violence.

I am not in favour of allowing the state to use capital punishment; I am considerably less in favour of giving individual police officers the power to be judge, jury, and executioner.

If lethal force is to be employed by the state, it should at the very least be contained behind a strong bulwark of due process.

 

[Gospel]

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?

It's the police's responsibility to face dangers, but they should do so with caution and intelligence. Opting against tactical retreats to outmaneuver criminals seems counterproductive. While they might not be trained in evasive tactics, I believe there's room for improvement in their strategies. For a police force that often employs military tactics, it's surprising how they sometimes position themselves vulnerably and then resort to using excessive force when in those precarious situations.

 

[Arctish]

No, I don't remember that.

Selective memory?

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

I did not make Michael Brown "a saint". I have merely been sarcastically referring to him as one to parody how the left-wing media and activists have been treating him.

You didn't parody anything. You made it up, or at the very least were mindlessly repeating what others made up about his alleged sainthood.

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

I already linked to one, from St. Louis Post-Dispatcher, in the post you quoted.

That article quoted Brown's friends and family 2 days after he was killed, when they were going through the initial stages of grief (denial and anger). It did not sanctify him, it reported what people who knew him said about him.

You, who did not know him, decided they were wrong and that news articles quoting people who liked the guy were the exact same thing as publicly declaring him a saint.

You found an article that humanizes Brown. Find an article that sanctifies him, or don't find one and admit that you can't.

 

[Gospel]

Unlike you, I do not think the skin color of the assailant has any bearing on officers' right to self defense.

I certainly do. Your misconception is that you assume I only advocate for justice for the so-called "saintly" Black individuals you reference. In reality, I believe that everyone deserves a police force that enforces laws and protects the public equitably. The flawed tactics and behaviors they sometimes exhibit towards Black individuals can and has affected every American. The same flawed tactics you endorse when used against others could very well be used against you too. I don't know about your perspective, but I'd prefer you to stay active on this forum rather than lose you to a tragic outcome of a police encounter, because they're trained to choose the swiftest and most forceful approach.

 

[Toni]

I grew up in a family of hunters, all of whom were extremely good marksmen, but particularly my grandfather, whose exploits were still being told 30+ years after he died. No semi-automatic anything--that was for sissies.

Lmao. Why do you think semiauto action is "for sissies"?
Also, it is very different to shoot at a deer with your .308 bolt action rifle from the comfort of your blind, with plenty of time to line up a shot, vs. shooting at an assailant who is running toward you wielding a knife. Esp. when you tried to use less lethal means (like tasers) first. If somebody is going to reach you in 1.2 seconds, you don't have the luxury of carefully aimed shots.

My standards may be unrealistic. Myself, I deliberately chose not to learn to shoot. I have, on the other hand, successfully defended myself against physical assault multiple times, all against individuals who were much larger and stronger than I was, by a factor of 50% to >100%.

I knew there was an anecdote from your past in there somewhere!

Bilby has already described how unarmed officers manage a suspect armed with a knife in civilized nations where police officers are not usually armed with firearms.

1. Bilby did not describe how unarmed officers wrangle knife-wielding subjects. He merely stated that they do.
2. Very few counties don't have routinely armed police, and even those countries have some armed units. UK, Norway and a few other countries, mostly small island nations.

Even most European countries like Italy and Germany routinely arm police.
3. Unarmed police can easily get stabbed by an assailant. This happened in the UK last year.
London police stabbing: Two officers taken to hospital
That link also has a graphic that shows that assaults on police that led to injured officers have been going up in the UK, to almost 12k/a for 2021-22.

In 2022, 59 officers in the US were killed in the line of duty.

And there would be more if police officers were not allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves from assaults with knives and hammers.

During the same period of time, 1059 civilians were shot to death by police officers.

And how many of those were ruled unjustified? How many were so clear-cut that not even #BLM bothered to protest/riot or even make up a hashtag in their honor?

In other news, police pursue higher pay and job security by fostering an atmosphere of fear among students attending college.

Not "police" but the police union. Two separate entities. It's like conflating SAG/WGA with Hollywood studios.
Even the author had to acknowledge that crimes like homicides were up:

The police union flier reported that “murders have doubled, burglaries are up 33 percent and motor vehicle thefts are up 56 percent,” in the first seven months of the year.
The numbers are accurate. But Mayor Justin Elicker called them cherry-picked and misleading. He noted that violent crime has decreased by 29.2 percent since 2020. Although homicides are up, the number of shootings has come down.

So do New Haven killers increasingly use other means to kill their victims (e.g. garroting or bludgeoning) or have they just become better shots?

Lol. No. Sounds like you’ve never been hunting. It’s not like on tv or those places where they put disabled people in blinds on a deer farm and let them shoot deer grazing.

 

[laughing dog]

They did not open fire immediately. They tried using the taser first.
And why should they back off? Walking backwards increases the chance of stumbling as you can't see where you are going.

Backing off need not require literally moving backward.

It was the last resort. Officers waited until the assailant was mere 13' (~4m) away from them to open fire.

And still managed to mostly miss him.

That is an improper way to protest. No matter whether you are protesting against police defending themselves from assault with a deadly weapon, or against abortion or against gay marriage. Blocking interstate highway because you are mad at something is not acceptable and should lead to arrest and criminal charges.

Perhaps you should write “The Etiquette of Protest”.

Unlike you, I do not think the skin color of the assailant has any bearing on officers' right to self defense.
And nobody is claiming it is the "only method of self defense" - the illogical premise is of your own invention. Using the firearm to defend yourself is a legitimate form of self defense against an attack with a deadly weapon, and in this case police exercised restraint before resorting to it when the assailant was already very close to them.

Your response is internally inconsistent. The only attack with a deadly weapon was done by the police

You are long on insults, but short on facts and reasoning.

True irony.

Police are still human beings, and still have the right to self-defense. As far as greater duties, sure, unlike civilians they have the duty to confront suspects, including dangerous suspects. That makes them more likely to have to use force in defense of themselves or others. As far as training, police successfully used tools at their disposal to stop a threat to themselves without harming any innocent bystanders.

Self defense does not mandate killing.
Given the police’s lousy shooting, they were lucky no one else was killed.

 

[Politesse]

The number of shots fired is not related to the threat level. Once the threshold to shoot has been crossed (which coming at the cops with a knife certainly would be unless the range was long) the cops are going to shoot until he's not coming at them anymore

Thugs in uniforms.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

There are protests because the leaders need to keep their followers riled up--same thing we see with Faux.

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?"

7.4 miles per hour is 3.3 m/s. Range was 4 meters. That means they fired about one second before he got to them.

And the threat to the officers is severe--suicide by cop cases are likely to up the ante if they don't get what they want. In this case it would mean stabbing a cop.

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.

There is usually nothing a cop can do to avoid a suicide by cop. Training won't help--even if the cop understands it's a suicide by cop doesn't mean the threat to them isn't very real.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Should they have ran away?

YES!

If someone is running at you with a knife, that's the appropriate response.

Hint: Anarchy is an unstable state that quickly devolves into warlords.

Cops are weighted down with quite a bit of equipment and thus would be unlikely to be able to outrun somebody unencumbered. Thus you're asking them to die. You're also making them almost totally ineffective.

Knife wielders can be dealt with non-lethally in standoff situations, but in dynamic ones it's taser or bullet and tasers are iffy.

Your unspoken assumption that they should then keep running, in a cowardly rout, is utter drivel though.

That's what you're asking them to do.

The tactical doctrine of never conceding an inch of territory is really, really, stupid.

You get out of the way, running if needed, and let the attacker wear himself out; Then you can intervene with non-lethal force against a tired and heavily outnumbered opponent, and apprehend him with relative ease, and little risk to either police or suspect.

1) The attacker likely wins.

2) In a suicide by cop they'll likely go for innocents to force the cop to act.

Literally the only obstacle to this ideal outcome, wherein the suspect is apprehended alive, and nobody suffers from any major injuries, is the egoistic stupidity that says that running away is somehow shameful, even as part of a successful strategy to arrest the suspect.

Reality would like to have a word with you.

The objective should be to arrest the suspect, without anyone being seriously injured. Maintaining the pride, ego, and machismo of the police officers involved isn't a necessary, or a desirable, goal, and certainly doesn't override that primary objective.

Yes, they should have run away.

It's the best option, to achieve the desired result.

If a few teenage boys feel less inclined to hero worship of cops as a result, that's probably a smaller problem than someone dying.

And the best outcome is for the patient not to die. We had better get rid of every doctor because they're utterly incompetent and eventually have a 100% failure rate.