New blockade in Minneapolis

[Derec]

Where you draw the line at what "excessive" means is different from where someone we would call a hero would draw the line. A hero is a person who takes some risks, makes some personal sacrifices, shows courage in the face of that risk because of the value they place on something, such as for example, the lives of others.

While police to take on "some risks" as a matter of their jobs, I think "hero" is somebody who goes over and beyond their duty. As such, we should not expect everybody in a particular profession to be a hero.
Also, there is a big difference between incurring additional risk to save say a hostage or another innocent civilian and incurring additional risk to not have to shoot a perp trying to kill you.

One example of a hero would be a person who saves another person from drowning while putting themselves at least some risk of drowning from the same environmental conditions.

Sure. A life guard has a greater expectation to incur some risk than a bystander to save a drowning swimmer, but even for a professional lifeguard there comes a point where risk is too great to be expected for him to incur it. At that point any additional risk is optional and that's where you get heroics - in optional risk.

But time and time again, what we observe from you is the protection of cowardly behavior and even murder as in the case of Derek Chauvin.

While Chauvin did wrong, his conviction and sentence were excessive and politically based. Compare that to 5x shorter sentence given to a black Muslim officer who shot and murdered an innocent white woman. Why is Chauvin public enemy number one while Mohammed Noor is largely forgotten? Because of disgusting racial politics, that's why!

From my perspective, the duty of police officers is to protect and serve the public and part of that job includes the mental and physical capacity to help mentally ill people, even when those people are making terrible decisions that comes with the territory.

That should not include letting yourself be stabbed or shot just because somebody might be having a mental health episode.

It is certainly the job of police to try to rise above treating mentally ill civilians as dangerous criminals and thereby systemically as second-class citizens.

These two things are not mutually exclusive. If mentally ill are being a danger to others, including police officers, they need to be treated as such.

 

[laughing dog]

However, what I observe is Black people (who, based on per capita figures, commit more crimes) being used as convenient targets.

Why are you bringing up race when there is no one tube to suggest race had anything to do with the two very different cases?

I was directly responding to Gospel, who brought up race.

Please try to read the context before running your fingers across the keyboard prematurely.

You brought up the race of Ms Diamond which had nothing to do with black people.
Your double standard is obvious.

 

[laughing dog]

Where did you go, superhero school? Because this isn't within the realm of reasonable combat training. Yes, at a sufficiently high level there is training for unarmed vs knife--but it's a last resort thing, not something to choose.

First, I strongly suspect you have no clue about combat training. Second, if you actually read your response and thought about it,you agreed with me. Trying to disarm should be tried before opening fire whenever possible.

You're grasping for rationales for not shooting.

I have a firm grasp on good rationales for avoiding shooting- as all police and well meaning people should. Furthermore, I find it fascinating that you think police should better trained and equipped to deal with these situations than civilians.

 

[Toni]

Where you draw the line at what "excessive" means is different from where someone we would call a hero would draw the line. A hero is a person who takes some risks, makes some personal sacrifices, shows courage in the face of that risk because of the value they place on something, such as for example, the lives of others.

While police to take on "some risks" as a matter of their jobs, I think "hero" is somebody who goes over and beyond their duty. As such, we should not expect everybody in a particular profession to be a hero.
Also, there is a big difference between incurring additional risk to save say a hostage or another innocent civilian and incurring additional risk to not have to shoot a perp trying to kill you.

One example of a hero would be a person who saves another person from drowning while putting themselves at least some risk of drowning from the same environmental conditions.

Sure. A life guard has a greater expectation to incur some risk than a bystander to save a drowning swimmer, but even for a professional lifeguard there comes a point where risk is too great to be expected for him to incur it. At that point any additional risk is optional and that's where you get heroics - in optional risk.

But time and time again, what we observe from you is the protection of cowardly behavior and even murder as in the case of Derek Chauvin.

While Chauvin did wrong, his conviction and sentence were excessive and politically based. Compare that to 5x shorter sentence given to a black Muslim officer who shot and murdered an innocent white woman. Why is Chauvin public enemy number one while Mohammed Noor is largely forgotten? Because of disgusting racial politics, that's why!

From my perspective, the duty of police officers is to protect and serve the public and part of that job includes the mental and physical capacity to help mentally ill people, even when those people are making terrible decisions that comes with the territory.

That should not include letting yourself be stabbed or shot just because somebody might be having a mental health episode.

It is certainly the job of police to try to rise above treating mentally ill civilians as dangerous criminals and thereby systemically as second-class citizens.

These two things are not mutually exclusive. If mentally ill are being a danger to others, including police officers, they need to be treated as such.

No one has forgotten Mohammed Noor or his crime which was one of panic, not murder. A bad impulsive act cost someone her life and him his career and some years of his life. It was clear that he had no intention to shoot an unarmed woman. He has since had his murder conviction overturned and was resentenced for second degree manslaughter, a more reasonable charge and in fact has recently been paroled.

Chauvin, on the other hand, had lots of time to think about what he was doing while he was doing it—in broad daylight and in front of a crowd who urged him to help Floyd rather than to continue killing him using maneuvers that are not allowed in many jurisdictions because of their high rate of inflicting fatal injuries. I don’t know whether Chauvin knowingly and deliberately killed George Floyd or if he was merely indifferent to Mr. Floyd’s life and safety. In any case, his actions were not those of someone who panicked and accidentally shot someone he mistakenly thought was a threat. No, his actions were of someone who deliberately and continuously disregarded the rights and the safety and well being of someone he had in custody. Chauvin deserved his conviction and sentence.

 

[laughing dog]

Where you draw the line at what "excessive" means is different from where someone we would call a hero would draw the line. A hero is a person who takes some risks, makes some personal sacrifices, shows courage in the face of that risk because of the value they place on something, such as for example, the lives of others.

While police to take on "some risks" as a matter of their jobs, I think "hero" is somebody who goes over and beyond their duty. As such, we should not expect everybody in a particular profession to be a hero.
Also, there is a big difference between incurring additional risk to save say a hostage or another innocent civilian and incurring additional risk to not have to shoot a perp trying to kill you.

One example of a hero would be a person who saves another person from drowning while putting themselves at least some risk of drowning from the same environmental conditions.

Sure. A life guard has a greater expectation to incur some risk than a bystander to save a drowning swimmer, but even for a professional lifeguard there comes a point where risk is too great to be expected for him to incur it. At that point any additional risk is optional and that's where you get heroics - in optional risk.

But time and time again, what we observe from you is the protection of cowardly behavior and even murder as in the case of Derek Chauvin.

While Chauvin did wrong, his conviction and sentence were excessive and politically based. Compare that to 5x shorter sentence given to a black Muslim officer who shot and murdered an innocent white woman. Why is Chauvin public enemy number one while Mohammed Noor is largely forgotten? Because of disgusting racial politics, that's why!

From my perspective, the duty of police officers is to protect and serve the public and part of that job includes the mental and physical capacity to help mentally ill people, even when those people are making terrible decisions that comes with the territory.

That should not include letting yourself be stabbed or shot just because somebody might be having a mental health episode.

It is certainly the job of police to try to rise above treating mentally ill civilians as dangerous criminals and thereby systemically as second-class citizens.

These two things are not mutually exclusive. If mentally ill are being a danger to others, including police officers, they need to be treated as such.

No one has forgotten Mohammed Noor or his crime which was one of panic, not murder. A bad impulsive act cost someone her life and him his career and some years of his life. It was clear that he had no intention to shoot an unarmed woman. He has since had his murder conviction overturned and was resentenced for second degree manslaughter, a more reasonable charge and in fact has recently been paroled.

Chauvin, on the other hand, had lots of time to think about what he was doing while he was doing it—in broad daylight and in front of a crowd who urged him to help Floyd rather than to continue killing him using maneuvers that are not allowed in many jurisdictions because of their high rate of inflicting fatal injuries. I don’t know whether Chauvin knowingly and deliberately killed George Floyd or if he was merely indifferent to Mr. Floyd’s life and safety. In any case, his actions were not those of someone who panicked and accidentally shot someone he mistakenly thought was a threat. No, his actions were of someone who deliberately and continuously disregarded the rights and the safety and well being of someone he had in custody. Chauvin deserved his conviction and sentence.

The differences between the Noor and Chauvin cases has been explained to Derec numerous times. Mr. Noor's sentence was reduced on technical grounds by a higher court upon appeal. There is no evidence of racial politics in the Noor or Chauvin charges or convictions.

Yet Derec persists in maintaining there is. Hmmm.

 

[Arctish]

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.

Wrong. I am parodying left-wing media's uncritical treatment of people like Michael Brown, Daunte Wright et al.
I guess the whole thing started with Trayvon Martin and how the media like CNN tried to portray him as a little kid by using old photos.

You are not parodying, you are strawmanning.

The media did not sanctify Brown. It reported what people who knew him said about him, just as they usually do when someone is suddenly in the news. "He was always so quiet", "I talked to him about his garden just yesterday", "They had this creepy way of staring at people walking past their house", "She never met a cat she didn't like", etc., etc.

I don't know why you have a problem accepting the fact that people you don't like can have friends who do like them. Or that news outlets frequently quote people who knew an individual when they are reporting on stories about them.

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.

With that one-sided portrayal of Michael Brown as a "gentle giant" they certainly did sanctify him. Journalism should be more critical in its use of sources, esp. biased sources like friends and family.

And you have no comment about MSNBC comparing Michael Brown with Emmett Till?

Did you read the article? I ask because it sounds like you didn't.

The article was about the long history of black people in this country being killed following minor infractions or transgressions against 'order'. Till allegedly whistled at a white woman, Brown was stopped by Officer Wilson for jaywalking, Crawford was talking on a cell phone while holding an unboxed pellet gun, etc.

Just because you loathe Brown for some reason doesn't make comparisons between the circumstances surrounding his death and that of others, inappropriate.

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.

It was glaring in how uncritical and one-sided the portrayal was, but it was proven wrong when a more accurate picture of St. Michael of the Blessed Swisher Sweets emerged.

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

I guess we disagree what these articles signify. In any case, it is one-sided, uncritical and biased portrayals like these that I parody with the "Saint" moniker.

If it was a genuine parody you would be able to point to the original material that does what you say it does: sanctifies Brown.

You are attacking a strawman. There is no original material for you to find.

 

[Gospel]

Those aren't mere strawman arguments. Rather, they are calculated efforts to highlight exceptions as a means to undermine the recognition of systemic and historical patterns.


George Floyd - Dismissing his death as solely drug-induced overlooks the crucial minutes during which an officer's knee was pressed onto his neck even after he became unresponsive.

Eric Garner - Referring to him merely as a "uncooperative cigarette seller" diminishes the fact that he died from a prohibited chokehold following a confrontation over minor infractions.

Philando Castile - Died as a result of an unjustified fear held by an officer that was ultimately justified by our courts.

Breonna Taylor - Associating her with the actions of a former partner detracts from the grave missteps that led to her death in her own home.

Tamir Rice - Mistaking a child with a toy for a dangerous threat underscores the urgent need for better police training and judgment.

Laquan McDonald - He carried a knife, yet this does not justify the misleading statements issued by some officers post-incident.

Freddie Gray - Focusing solely on his possession of a switchblade sidesteps the grave injury he sustained in police custody, leading to his death.

Botham Jean - Jean was in his own home when he was fatally mistaken as an intruder.

Atatiana Jefferson - In this deeply unfortunate event, an officer acted before fully assessing the situation, leading to a tragic outcome.

No way around it.

 

[Gospel]

There are about ~10 million arrests per year in the US, and ~1000 killings. So vast majority of time, police manage to apprehend individuals just fine. Sometimes that is not feasible, like when being charged by a knife-wielding perp.

So you believe that we shouldn't address and rectify the instances where law enforcement's response was disproportionate or unwarranted, but let them commit crimes as long as [insert percentages here]?

At least you acknowledge the differences in crime rates. I disagree about "convenient targets" though. These days, police face far more scrutiny when they kill somebody black vs. somebody white. The police officer who merely watched George Floyd getting killed (Tou Thao) got the same sentence (five years) as the officer (Mohammed Noor) who murdered the innocent white woman Justine Damond.

I've always recognized the crime rates in my community and believe in addressing them openly. I've also argued for delving into the root causes rather than merely concentrating on the outcomes, which have historically perpetuated unwarranted prejudice against our entire community.

Furthermore, comparing two distinct cases necessitates a deep understanding of the nuances in each situation. You may assert certain claims, I'm just not inclined to engage in order to lay out those nuances for you.

Lastly recent heightened scrutiny on police actions, particularly in high-profile incidents, stems from the communities response to persistent systemic biases that's been around long before you were born.

 

[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.

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 if he were charging Jabba the Huts, this could be a serious problem. The point is that he was not sprinting and the officers aren't incapable of movement.

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.

And as I noted, the issue is you never consider whether apprehension is possible. You just assume it is impossible. Just plop data points into your Hypotheticulator and pass judgement. You've done it in dozens of cases. You treat these shootings as officers in corners with no way out. When in reality, there are options. It won't be easy, but these people are supposed to be protecting.

 

[laughing dog]

There are about ~10 million arrests per year in the US, and ~1000 killings. So vast majority of time, police manage to apprehend individuals just fine. Sometimes that is not feasible, like when being charged by a knife-wielding perp.

So you believe that we shouldn't address and rectify the instances where law enforcement's response was disproportionate or unwarranted, but let them commit crimes as long as [insert percentages here]

Good question. After all, Mr. Noor was simply one instance, yet the persistent outrage over the single death of an innocent white woman over 5 years ago seems a bit disproportionate in comparison to 10 million arrests and about 1000 killings.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Where you draw the line at what "excessive" means is different from where someone we would call a hero would draw the line. A hero is a person who takes some risks, makes some personal sacrifices, shows courage in the face of that risk because of the value they place on something, such as for example, the lives of others.

While police to take on "some risks" as a matter of their jobs, I think "hero" is somebody who goes over and beyond their duty. As such, we should not expect everybody in a particular profession to be a hero.

Some professions are called heroic, like soldiers, fire fighters, police. If you are doing the minimum and so people are getting hurt, you are doing it wrong. They give you an axe and a mask as a fire fighter for a reason, not so you never take risks on behalf of the public you serve...but to take on personal risk and save people. Likewise, a police officer is entrusted with a gun in public, not to adhere to minimum standards, but to be a hero when it is needed. If they cannot handle that high standard of expectation, they can get a desk job or dispatcher job in the building, rather than out on the street.

Also, there is a big difference between incurring additional risk to save say a hostage or another innocent civilian and incurring additional risk to not have to shoot a perp trying to kill you.

We are talking about the appropriate response to a mentally ill person, regardless of how you want to re-frame it.

One example of a hero would be a person who saves another person from drowning while putting themselves at least some risk of drowning from the same environmental conditions.

Sure. A life guard has a greater expectation to incur some risk than a bystander to save a drowning swimmer, but even for a professional lifeguard there comes a point where risk is too great to be expected for him to incur it. At that point any additional risk is optional and that's where you get heroics - in optional risk.

But time and time again, what we observe from you is the protection of cowardly behavior and even murder as in the case of Derek Chauvin.

While Chauvin did wrong, his conviction and sentence were excessive and politically based. Compare that to 5x shorter sentence given to a black Muslim officer who shot and murdered an innocent white woman. Why is Chauvin public enemy number one while Mohammed Noor is largely forgotten? Because of disgusting racial politics, that's why!

You are comparing apples and oranges, and in the case of Noor, focusing on race when it is not applicable. You might as well be ranting about Black Fridays, "why are there Black Fridays, but no White Fridays?! Because of disgusting racial politics, that's why!"

From my perspective, the duty of police officers is to protect and serve the public and part of that job includes the mental and physical capacity to help mentally ill people, even when those people are making terrible decisions that comes with the territory.

That should not include letting yourself be stabbed or shot just because somebody might be having a mental health episode.

There are many ways not to get stabbed, including de-escalation prior to a physical altercation. When things appear to be becoming physical, they can be avoided. Once physical, less than lethal means can be applied. We already know you do not support de-escalation from your posting history and make any manner of excuse, so it is rather pointless to accept your limited view of what options are available to police at all stages of a confrontation.

It is certainly the job of police to try to rise above treating mentally ill civilians as dangerous criminals and thereby systemically as second-class citizens.

These two things are not mutually exclusive. If mentally ill are being a danger to others, including police officers, they need to be treated as such.

If someone is mentally ill, procedures that tend to compliance and safety of those mentally ill persons ought to be followed.

 

[Shadowy Man]

No one has forgotten Mohammed Noor or his crime which was one of panic, not murder. A bad impulsive act cost someone her life and him his career and some years of his life. It was clear that he had no intention to shoot an unarmed woman. He has since had his murder conviction overturned and was resentenced for second degree manslaughter, a more reasonable charge and in fact has recently been paroled.

Chauvin, on the other hand, had lots of time to think about what he was doing while he was doing it—in broad daylight and in front of a crowd who urged him to help Floyd rather than to continue killing him using maneuvers that are not allowed in many jurisdictions because of their high rate of inflicting fatal injuries. I don’t know whether Chauvin knowingly and deliberately killed George Floyd or if he was merely indifferent to Mr. Floyd’s life and safety. In any case, his actions were not those of someone who panicked and accidentally shot someone he mistakenly thought was a threat. No, his actions were of someone who deliberately and continuously disregarded the rights and the safety and well being of someone he had in custody. Chauvin deserved his conviction and sentence.

Clearly, then, it would have been in Chauvin's best interests to quickly shoot Floyd rather than slowly suffocate him.

 

[Gospel]

There are about ~10 million arrests per year in the US, and ~1000 killings. So vast majority of time, police manage to apprehend individuals just fine. Sometimes that is not feasible, like when being charged by a knife-wielding perp.

So you believe that we shouldn't address and rectify the instances where law enforcement's response was disproportionate or unwarranted, but let them commit crimes as long as [insert percentages here]

Good question. After all, Mr. Noor was simply one instance, yet the persistent outrage over the single death of an innocent white woman over 5 years ago seems a bit disproportionate in comparison to 10 million arrests and about 1000 killings.

I don't necessarily agree with neither Derec's nor similar comparison. But if I had to, considering the numerous officers who've faced no repercussions after unjustifiably ending a life out of professed fear, it's surprising that he takes issue with the few who are indeed held to account.

 

[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.

 

[Toni]

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.

 

[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'?"

 

[Arctish]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.


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!!!!!!

 

[Gospel]

And wearing a badge and fearing for their life.

~Edited for Tom~