Black teenager with knife killed by Chicago PD

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH DAMN SHOOTING THAT'S FINE! BUT DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I also said I wasn't taking a side in this situation, I'm simply relaying some information. This won't be a turn on BRI thread, simple as that, so everyone needs to understand that. I've tried time and time again to relay information to some folks just so they can see another perspective or try to wrap their heads around things. Real easy to do a job when you sit behind your keyboard and say how you can do it better, but you're not willing to go pick up an app and show the world how it should be done. Talking how you've been "trained" to do something or would've done something else is real easy when you weren't there. I'm not justifying what was done, but I'm not going to have words put into my mouth either.

Do we know race had nothing to do with it?

 

Why are you assuming it did? Probably because your view of world is filled with race rage. If you can"t see how ridiculous this post is that's not surprising.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with this thread title, it's a little harsh, but I obviously didn't start the thread.

 

Yes, the 21 foot rule is a real thing that cops are taught in the academy. For those that aren't aware of what that means, it means if an individual is 21 feet away from you with a knife, they can close that distance and stab you before you can get your weapon out of the holster and engage the threat. It's been tested time and time again and is a real thing. Bullet proof vests don't protect against sharp objects like a knife.

 

The emptying a magazine thing is not anything I've ever heard of in 14 years of law enforcement, seven of which has been as a firearms instructor. We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, once the threat is no longer a threat you disengage. We don't shoot to kill, obviously that's a byproduct of shootings, but we shoot to stop the threat. We teach shoot center mass because it's the largest target area on the human body and studies have shown when your heart rate is around 200 bpm in a critical incident your shooting skills go way down, you lose fine motor skills, and you resort back to your level of training. The level of training you receive is ingrained into you through thousands and thousands of reps and you will do those things automatically when a critical incident occurs. I say all of this to combat the, "why can't you shoot him in the leg?" theories. It's just NOT realistically possible in deadly force situations to do so.

 

I'd be interested to know what firearms training this officer had through CPD and if he was ever taught through drills to "empty the magazine" as he may have resorted back to his training in this incident.

 

As an officer watching the video you can see this individual take the knife out of his hand and for a split second veer towards the officer in front of the dashcam video, that officer probably can't see that knife in the suspects hand due to his positioning. I'm not sure of the position of the officer who fired in this video, but I imagine he's the only one who has a view of the knife. Being the only officer who fired though is another question and had he only fired once or twice and the suspect goes down and he stops he's probably in the clear. Now if the suspect gets back up and advances on an officer then gets shot several more times then that's probably justified as well. If the suspect has a gun in his hand then there probably aren't any questions in this incident as the suspect can easily shoot someone from the ground. It's also true that people will/can continue to advance even after being shot fatally for several seconds or even a minute after the fatal shot, an aorta shot is an example.

 

I also question the timing of the charges. There has been no new earth shattering evidence that's occurred the past few months that would now thrust the DA into charges. They said they made their minds up weeks ago yet this officer has been on desk duty for a year now. This dash cam video would've been seen the next day by them and the only other evidence would've been interviews with officers on scene or witnesses. Only after a request was made to release the video and that request was granted do charges come down the day before it's release. It's a bad look whether it was intentional or not and gives the appearance of nothing would've happened if the request was never made. Don't know if that's true since he's been on desk duty for so long, but I can see the reason to question things there.

Well, if I understand correctly, the cops are taught to aim for the thoracic(chest) area, which most likely will kill somebody, since, you know, the heart, lungs, aorta, etc, are are in the thorax The say they don't aim for a leg or arm, for e.g.--which would be the safer, saner, more humane way, IMO--since a leg or am is too dificult a target. So they say...

 

You're impossible to talk to, you've obviously never served in the military or had any professional firearms training.

 

Is unloading multiple rounds into a corpse part of pro firearms training? They say--as per policy--that cops have to explain and account for each shot fired. What's the explanation here?

 

Obviously you didn't read my first post, but your view on why we are taught to shoot center mass is all I needed to hear because it's complete B.S.

 

The main reason I played the race card here is the fact that the guy unloaded multiple rounds into the body after he was dead. Maybe he's just batsh#t crazy, or both. But, evidently, 1000s of protestors in Chicago thought it may just be race related, so I'm not alone.

 

 

Just because you're not alone, doesn't mean you're right. Hitler had a pretty big following at one point in time and many individuals were in favor of slavery.... This game is fun!

 

Yeah, and tons of Mur'can fools like Trumpf also. I'm on the side of those protesting police brutality in America, I admit it.

 

 

My point exactly. But back to the original post, are these protesters voicing their concern with police brutality or race? Because those two are fudamentally different, even though they are sometimes one in the same.

 

They're protesting because the cops are killing unarmed black folk at higher % rates and also incarcerating black folk at higher % rates. The Panthers are a self defense organization. They formed because of the same reasons and are back on the scene now for the same reasons.

 

 

And this is where you get to a really grey area and I realize, in my situation, there is no winning there. I could say this is a result of upbringing or personal choices, but that in turn gets thrown in my face as a racists comment. This is also the problem with always putting statistics with arguments, we do not know for sure what is the reason behind this. But I would say that it is an issue that should be addressed, not sure if it'll ever be completely resolved though, because not everyone has the same black-white opinion of right vs. wrong. So with that, you're going to have varying levels of crimes committed.

 

Well,that "broken windows" thing targets poor black communites, putting them in jail for next to nothing--or nothing. In Ferguson, the white cops were targeting the blacks for their dpt revenue, harrassing them with more os less bogus sitations. That goes on all over. Revenue generation. Slave labor in prisons also, private prisons, in particular. More blacks by number in prison today than there were slaves back in the day, so they say. New slavery is what some call it. All the gang crime doesn't help either.

 

 

While I think there is an underlying issue that does need looking at, this stat isn't worth a hot damn. Yeah, maybe there are more blacks in prison today than there were slaves but the world's population is far greater than it was 150 years ago. You could blindly argue that there are more free blacks in America today than there were enslaved and say that they are better off then. Sometimes simply stating stats doesn't get us anywhere.

 

No disrespect, but frankly, it doesn't matter if you or I think about the "underlying issues" and how accurate the stats are. It's a problem, a huge problem, it exists, especially since Clinton expanded the Crime Bill back in the 90s (of which recently he admits to having made a "mistake"), and the Black Communities are all over it and fighting back against this phenomenon for some years now. Books have been written on the subject. The whole issue of privatized prisons and the free slave labor is being looked at by Congress and such.

[HuskerNBigD]

 

 

 

 

 

Using the word thug in the title is just asking to rile up tensions, from all sides. You called the man a perpetrator in the actual post, why not use that? I feel like thug is almost synonymous with the n word at this point, after all the media coverage of the different riots / police brutality debates, and it doesn't do any good to start with it. It is seen as a blanket statement for any black criminal, the way cops are seen as evil doers after reports like this. As for the actual story, I believe the number of shots was a bit excessive, don't disagree with the initial shooting. Also, the use of martial arts as a different means of defending ones self is a bit flawed, IMHO. Yeah, you might be taught that way in martial arts - but the difference is martial arts is contest. The worst thing to happen is you lose your match. Police officers face worse case scenarios of possibly losing ones life and not all suspects are going to respect the authority, or even value a cop's life. So in that case, if I'm an officer I'm going to make sure I have enough protection to reasonably ensure my safety.

The kid wasn't charging the cop. I reiterate, there has got to be a better way to deescalate the situation. This shouldn't have been a death sentence for the young man.

Deescalating situations only works when both parties agree to it. In this instance, that might have been the case or it might not have. We don't know, but I am willing to bet the house that there is no way on god's green earth that every situation between a cop and suspect can be deescalated. There are too many variables to go into interactions between cops and civilians to write a text book response and expect everyone to abide by it. Hell, think about the stories of individuals either on drugs or severely intoxicated that require multiple cops to get under control. You're going to tell me that the cops should just work to deescalate the situation? Just to clarify, I do think the cop is wrong in this situation.

Yeah, I tend to think that if someone is is not wielding a gun, then deescalation/containment must be the an option. How many cops were at this scene, 6 or so? 6-8 cops can't contain a guy with a 3" blade? I don't get it. The police are unrealistically authorized to use lethal force, is my take.

Your's is the unrealistic expectation.

 

Two situations, one of which that doesn't end with a criminal being shot;

 

A) Suspect with a knife, 6-8 officers on site, suspect is ordered to drop knife. Instead suspect turns in a threatening manner towards officers. Guess what should happen 100% of the time.

 

B) Suspect with a knife is ordered to drop the knife and he does. No one is shot.

 

Why is this so f'ing hard for you to figure out?

 

How about cops figure out how to capture guys with knives w/o killing them, especially when they are nowhere near them? I know, it's tough, because cops have shown they will kill kids with toy guns and such.

 

 

So you're saying the cops should just figure out how to capture him. What if he takes 3-4 cops out before the "figure out" how to capture him, without escalating the tension?

[HuskerNBigD]

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that privatized prisons are bullsh#t. I'll give you that.

 

EDIT: Not sure where the text all went, I seemed to reach a limit on the number of quotes i could use....damn internet.

Edited November 27, 2015 by huskerfan120889

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using the word thug in the title is just asking to rile up tensions, from all sides. You called the man a perpetrator in the actual post, why not use that? I feel like thug is almost synonymous with the n word at this point, after all the media coverage of the different riots / police brutality debates, and it doesn't do any good to start with it. It is seen as a blanket statement for any black criminal, the way cops are seen as evil doers after reports like this. As for the actual story, I believe the number of shots was a bit excessive, don't disagree with the initial shooting. Also, the use of martial arts as a different means of defending ones self is a bit flawed, IMHO. Yeah, you might be taught that way in martial arts - but the difference is martial arts is contest. The worst thing to happen is you lose your match. Police officers face worse case scenarios of possibly losing ones life and not all suspects are going to respect the authority, or even value a cop's life. So in that case, if I'm an officer I'm going to make sure I have enough protection to reasonably ensure my safety.

The kid wasn't charging the cop. I reiterate, there has got to be a better way to deescalate the situation. This shouldn't have been a death sentence for the young man.

Deescalating situations only works when both parties agree to it. In this instance, that might have been the case or it might not have. We don't know, but I am willing to bet the house that there is no way on god's green earth that every situation between a cop and suspect can be deescalated. There are too many variables to go into interactions between cops and civilians to write a text book response and expect everyone to abide by it. Hell, think about the stories of individuals either on drugs or severely intoxicated that require multiple cops to get under control. You're going to tell me that the cops should just work to deescalate the situation? Just to clarify, I do think the cop is wrong in this situation.

Yeah, I tend to think that if someone is is not wielding a gun, then deescalation/containment must be the an option. How many cops were at this scene, 6 or so? 6-8 cops can't contain a guy with a 3" blade? I don't get it. The police are unrealistically authorized to use lethal force, is my take.

Your's is the unrealistic expectation.

 

Two situations, one of which that doesn't end with a criminal being shot;

 

A) Suspect with a knife, 6-8 officers on site, suspect is ordered to drop knife. Instead suspect turns in a threatening manner towards officers. Guess what should happen 100% of the time.

 

B) Suspect with a knife is ordered to drop the knife and he does. No one is shot.

 

Why is this so f'ing hard for you to figure out?

 

How about cops figure out how to capture guys with knives w/o killing them, especially when they are nowhere near them? I know, it's tough, because cops have shown they will kill kids with toy guns and such.

 

 

So you're saying the cops should just figure out how to capture him. What if he takes 3-4 cops out before the "figure out" how to capture him, without escalating the tension?

 

Uh, this is why they are supposedly looking at their training protocol and use of lethal force.

 

You know, they have bomb suits for those who disable bombs. Maybe cops could where more protective gear in these situations, but that's not really what I'm talking about here.

 

Surround him, deescalate, wait it out, like a hostage situation, nobody gets hurt, hopefully. Shoot him with a tranquilizer, how about that? They even do that for animals in the wild. what a concept. Non lethal, IOW. I'm sure the best and brightest minds can figure this out. This kid was murdered within 30 seconds of the cop showing up. There's got to be a better way of accosting, containing, capturing, there has to be.

[HuskerNBigD]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using the word thug in the title is just asking to rile up tensions, from all sides. You called the man a perpetrator in the actual post, why not use that? I feel like thug is almost synonymous with the n word at this point, after all the media coverage of the different riots / police brutality debates, and it doesn't do any good to start with it. It is seen as a blanket statement for any black criminal, the way cops are seen as evil doers after reports like this. As for the actual story, I believe the number of shots was a bit excessive, don't disagree with the initial shooting. Also, the use of martial arts as a different means of defending ones self is a bit flawed, IMHO. Yeah, you might be taught that way in martial arts - but the difference is martial arts is contest. The worst thing to happen is you lose your match. Police officers face worse case scenarios of possibly losing ones life and not all suspects are going to respect the authority, or even value a cop's life. So in that case, if I'm an officer I'm going to make sure I have enough protection to reasonably ensure my safety.

The kid wasn't charging the cop. I reiterate, there has got to be a better way to deescalate the situation. This shouldn't have been a death sentence for the young man.

Deescalating situations only works when both parties agree to it. In this instance, that might have been the case or it might not have. We don't know, but I am willing to bet the house that there is no way on god's green earth that every situation between a cop and suspect can be deescalated. There are too many variables to go into interactions between cops and civilians to write a text book response and expect everyone to abide by it. Hell, think about the stories of individuals either on drugs or severely intoxicated that require multiple cops to get under control. You're going to tell me that the cops should just work to deescalate the situation? Just to clarify, I do think the cop is wrong in this situation.

Yeah, I tend to think that if someone is is not wielding a gun, then deescalation/containment must be the an option. How many cops were at this scene, 6 or so? 6-8 cops can't contain a guy with a 3" blade? I don't get it. The police are unrealistically authorized to use lethal force, is my take.

Your's is the unrealistic expectation.

 

Two situations, one of which that doesn't end with a criminal being shot;

 

A) Suspect with a knife, 6-8 officers on site, suspect is ordered to drop knife. Instead suspect turns in a threatening manner towards officers. Guess what should happen 100% of the time.

 

B) Suspect with a knife is ordered to drop the knife and he does. No one is shot.

 

Why is this so f'ing hard for you to figure out?

 

How about cops figure out how to capture guys with knives w/o killing them, especially when they are nowhere near them? I know, it's tough, because cops have shown they will kill kids with toy guns and such.

 

 

So you're saying the cops should just figure out how to capture him. What if he takes 3-4 cops out before the "figure out" how to capture him, without escalating the tension?

 

Uh, this is why they are supposedly looking at their training protocol and use of lethal force.

 

You know, they have bomb suits for those who disable bombs. Maybe cops could where more protective gear in these situations, but that's not really what I'm talking about here.

 

Surround him, deescalate, wait it out, like a hostage situation, nobody gets hurt, hopefully. Shoot him with a tranquilizer, how about that? They even do that for animals in the wild. what a concept. Non lethal, IOW. I'm sure the best and brightest minds can figure this out. This kid was murdered within 30 seconds of the cop showing up. There's got to be a better way of accosting, containing, capturing, there has to be.

 

 

I've actually never thought about this. Interesting concept, would imagine its sort of the premise behind tasers too.

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using the word thug in the title is just asking to rile up tensions, from all sides. You called the man a perpetrator in the actual post, why not use that? I feel like thug is almost synonymous with the n word at this point, after all the media coverage of the different riots / police brutality debates, and it doesn't do any good to start with it. It is seen as a blanket statement for any black criminal, the way cops are seen as evil doers after reports like this. As for the actual story, I believe the number of shots was a bit excessive, don't disagree with the initial shooting. Also, the use of martial arts as a different means of defending ones self is a bit flawed, IMHO. Yeah, you might be taught that way in martial arts - but the difference is martial arts is contest. The worst thing to happen is you lose your match. Police officers face worse case scenarios of possibly losing ones life and not all suspects are going to respect the authority, or even value a cop's life. So in that case, if I'm an officer I'm going to make sure I have enough protection to reasonably ensure my safety.

The kid wasn't charging the cop. I reiterate, there has got to be a better way to deescalate the situation. This shouldn't have been a death sentence for the young man.

Deescalating situations only works when both parties agree to it. In this instance, that might have been the case or it might not have. We don't know, but I am willing to bet the house that there is no way on god's green earth that every situation between a cop and suspect can be deescalated. There are too many variables to go into interactions between cops and civilians to write a text book response and expect everyone to abide by it. Hell, think about the stories of individuals either on drugs or severely intoxicated that require multiple cops to get under control. You're going to tell me that the cops should just work to deescalate the situation? Just to clarify, I do think the cop is wrong in this situation.

Yeah, I tend to think that if someone is is not wielding a gun, then deescalation/containment must be the an option. How many cops were at this scene, 6 or so? 6-8 cops can't contain a guy with a 3" blade? I don't get it. The police are unrealistically authorized to use lethal force, is my take.

Your's is the unrealistic expectation.

 

Two situations, one of which that doesn't end with a criminal being shot;

 

A) Suspect with a knife, 6-8 officers on site, suspect is ordered to drop knife. Instead suspect turns in a threatening manner towards officers. Guess what should happen 100% of the time.

 

B) Suspect with a knife is ordered to drop the knife and he does. No one is shot.

 

Why is this so f'ing hard for you to figure out?

 

How about cops figure out how to capture guys with knives w/o killing them, especially when they are nowhere near them? I know, it's tough, because cops have shown they will kill kids with toy guns and such.

 

 

So you're saying the cops should just figure out how to capture him. What if he takes 3-4 cops out before the "figure out" how to capture him, without escalating the tension?

 

Uh, this is why they are supposedly looking at their training protocol and use of lethal force.

 

You know, they have bomb suits for those who disable bombs. Maybe cops could where more protective gear in these situations, but that's not really what I'm talking about here.

 

Surround him, deescalate, wait it out, like a hostage situation, nobody gets hurt, hopefully. Shoot him with a tranquilizer, how about that? They even do that for animals in the wild. what a concept. Non lethal, IOW. I'm sure the best and brightest minds can figure this out. This kid was murdered within 30 seconds of the cop showing up. There's got to be a better way of accosting, containing, capturing, there has to be.

 

 

I've actually never thought about this. Interesting concept, would imagine its sort of the premise behind tasers too.

 

Well, tasers have been shown to be lethal as well, especially when the "well trained" cop tases someone over and over again(in the news a week ago). Not a fan of tasers either.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

You're using the term "cops" as a blanket statement and I take offense to that. Whether you like it or not 99% of the cops out there are good cops, but you're basically saying we're all bad in my mind. That's not a surprise to me though at this point. It's obvious to me you just hate cops.

[cornographic]

You're using the term "cops" as a blanket statement and I take offense to that. Whether you like it or not 99% of the cops out there are good cops, but you're basically saying we're all bad in my mind. That's not a surprise to me though at this point. It's obvious to me you just hate cops.

Originally I was referring to rogue cops, in the minority, but I don't want to keep typing "rogue" whenever I talk about cops. Assume I'm talking about "rogue" cops. But I also believe the authority and use of lethal force in the hands of all cops is an issue that has to be redressed.

[HuskerNBigD]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using the word thug in the title is just asking to rile up tensions, from all sides. You called the man a perpetrator in the actual post, why not use that? I feel like thug is almost synonymous with the n word at this point, after all the media coverage of the different riots / police brutality debates, and it doesn't do any good to start with it. It is seen as a blanket statement for any black criminal, the way cops are seen as evil doers after reports like this. As for the actual story, I believe the number of shots was a bit excessive, don't disagree with the initial shooting. Also, the use of martial arts as a different means of defending ones self is a bit flawed, IMHO. Yeah, you might be taught that way in martial arts - but the difference is martial arts is contest. The worst thing to happen is you lose your match. Police officers face worse case scenarios of possibly losing ones life and not all suspects are going to respect the authority, or even value a cop's life. So in that case, if I'm an officer I'm going to make sure I have enough protection to reasonably ensure my safety.

The kid wasn't charging the cop. I reiterate, there has got to be a better way to deescalate the situation. This shouldn't have been a death sentence for the young man.

Deescalating situations only works when both parties agree to it. In this instance, that might have been the case or it might not have. We don't know, but I am willing to bet the house that there is no way on god's green earth that every situation between a cop and suspect can be deescalated. There are too many variables to go into interactions between cops and civilians to write a text book response and expect everyone to abide by it. Hell, think about the stories of individuals either on drugs or severely intoxicated that require multiple cops to get under control. You're going to tell me that the cops should just work to deescalate the situation? Just to clarify, I do think the cop is wrong in this situation.

Yeah, I tend to think that if someone is is not wielding a gun, then deescalation/containment must be the an option. How many cops were at this scene, 6 or so? 6-8 cops can't contain a guy with a 3" blade? I don't get it. The police are unrealistically authorized to use lethal force, is my take.

Your's is the unrealistic expectation.

 

Two situations, one of which that doesn't end with a criminal being shot;

 

A) Suspect with a knife, 6-8 officers on site, suspect is ordered to drop knife. Instead suspect turns in a threatening manner towards officers. Guess what should happen 100% of the time.

 

B) Suspect with a knife is ordered to drop the knife and he does. No one is shot.

 

Why is this so f'ing hard for you to figure out?

 

How about cops figure out how to capture guys with knives w/o killing them, especially when they are nowhere near them? I know, it's tough, because cops have shown they will kill kids with toy guns and such.

 

 

So you're saying the cops should just figure out how to capture him. What if he takes 3-4 cops out before the "figure out" how to capture him, without escalating the tension?

 

Uh, this is why they are supposedly looking at their training protocol and use of lethal force.

 

You know, they have bomb suits for those who disable bombs. Maybe cops could where more protective gear in these situations, but that's not really what I'm talking about here.

 

Surround him, deescalate, wait it out, like a hostage situation, nobody gets hurt, hopefully. Shoot him with a tranquilizer, how about that? They even do that for animals in the wild. what a concept. Non lethal, IOW. I'm sure the best and brightest minds can figure this out. This kid was murdered within 30 seconds of the cop showing up. There's got to be a better way of accosting, containing, capturing, there has to be.

 

 

I've actually never thought about this. Interesting concept, would imagine its sort of the premise behind tasers too.

 

Well, tasers have been shown to be lethal as well, especially when the "well trained" cop tases someone over and over again(in the news a week ago). Not a fan of tasers either.

 

 

Its taken a couple of pages for me to finally understand, Next time, just come out and say it on page one so I don't fall into the trap of thinking I was actually getting somewhere.... you're not a fan of cops in general.

 

Its a darn shame that citizens of this fine country don't instinctively know the difference of right and wrong and choose to follow the former.

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using the word thug in the title is just asking to rile up tensions, from all sides. You called the man a perpetrator in the actual post, why not use that? I feel like thug is almost synonymous with the n word at this point, after all the media coverage of the different riots / police brutality debates, and it doesn't do any good to start with it. It is seen as a blanket statement for any black criminal, the way cops are seen as evil doers after reports like this. As for the actual story, I believe the number of shots was a bit excessive, don't disagree with the initial shooting. Also, the use of martial arts as a different means of defending ones self is a bit flawed, IMHO. Yeah, you might be taught that way in martial arts - but the difference is martial arts is contest. The worst thing to happen is you lose your match. Police officers face worse case scenarios of possibly losing ones life and not all suspects are going to respect the authority, or even value a cop's life. So in that case, if I'm an officer I'm going to make sure I have enough protection to reasonably ensure my safety.

The kid wasn't charging the cop. I reiterate, there has got to be a better way to deescalate the situation. This shouldn't have been a death sentence for the young man.

Deescalating situations only works when both parties agree to it. In this instance, that might have been the case or it might not have. We don't know, but I am willing to bet the house that there is no way on god's green earth that every situation between a cop and suspect can be deescalated. There are too many variables to go into interactions between cops and civilians to write a text book response and expect everyone to abide by it. Hell, think about the stories of individuals either on drugs or severely intoxicated that require multiple cops to get under control. You're going to tell me that the cops should just work to deescalate the situation? Just to clarify, I do think the cop is wrong in this situation.

Yeah, I tend to think that if someone is is not wielding a gun, then deescalation/containment must be the an option. How many cops were at this scene, 6 or so? 6-8 cops can't contain a guy with a 3" blade? I don't get it. The police are unrealistically authorized to use lethal force, is my take.

Your's is the unrealistic expectation.

 

Two situations, one of which that doesn't end with a criminal being shot;

 

A) Suspect with a knife, 6-8 officers on site, suspect is ordered to drop knife. Instead suspect turns in a threatening manner towards officers. Guess what should happen 100% of the time.

 

B) Suspect with a knife is ordered to drop the knife and he does. No one is shot.

 

Why is this so f'ing hard for you to figure out?

 

How about cops figure out how to capture guys with knives w/o killing them, especially when they are nowhere near them? I know, it's tough, because cops have shown they will kill kids with toy guns and such.

 

 

So you're saying the cops should just figure out how to capture him. What if he takes 3-4 cops out before the "figure out" how to capture him, without escalating the tension?

 

Uh, this is why they are supposedly looking at their training protocol and use of lethal force.

 

You know, they have bomb suits for those who disable bombs. Maybe cops could where more protective gear in these situations, but that's not really what I'm talking about here.

 

Surround him, deescalate, wait it out, like a hostage situation, nobody gets hurt, hopefully. Shoot him with a tranquilizer, how about that? They even do that for animals in the wild. what a concept. Non lethal, IOW. I'm sure the best and brightest minds can figure this out. This kid was murdered within 30 seconds of the cop showing up. There's got to be a better way of accosting, containing, capturing, there has to be.

 

 

I've actually never thought about this. Interesting concept, would imagine its sort of the premise behind tasers too.

 

Well, tasers have been shown to be lethal as well, especially when the "well trained" cop tases someone over and over again(in the news a week ago). Not a fan of tasers either.

 

 

Its taken a couple of pages for me to finally understand, Next time, just come out and say it on page one so I don't fall into the trap of thinking I was actually getting somewhere.... you're not a fan of cops in general.

 

Its a darn shame that citizens of this fine country don't instinctively know the difference of right and wrong and choose to follow the former.

 

I'm not a fan of cops who kill unarmed, unthreatening people with guns or tasers or clubs or whatever. Call me "radical". I'm also not a fan of private prison slave labor and the targeting of commuinties for revenue generation via bogus citation writing. I'm also not a fan of Sheriffs dpts doing hiway robbery of migrant farm workers paychecks. I'm also not a fan of the various "seisure" practices(legalized theft) practiced by police dpts. These are things that I consider "wrong", I call it "corruption", "malpractice", and it's not the citizens doing them. If you support these things, then that's on you.

 

As far as the honest cops go, I'm good with that.

[commando]

 

You're using the term "cops" as a blanket statement and I take offense to that. Whether you like it or not 99% of the cops out there are good cops, but you're basically saying we're all bad in my mind. That's not a surprise to me though at this point. It's obvious to me you just hate cops.

Originally I was referring to rogue cops, in the minority, but I don't want to keep typing "rogue" whenever I talk about cops. Assume I'm talking about "rogue" cops. But I also believe the authority and use of lethal force in the hands of all cops is an issue that has to be redressed.

 

maybe if they criminal element didn't exercise their authority to shoot, stab,slash, run over, or use any other deadly force available to them the cops wouldn't need to have such authority

[I AM FOOT FOOT]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using the word thug in the title is just asking to rile up tensions, from all sides. You called the man a perpetrator in the actual post, why not use that? I feel like thug is almost synonymous with the n word at this point, after all the media coverage of the different riots / police brutality debates, and it doesn't do any good to start with it. It is seen as a blanket statement for any black criminal, the way cops are seen as evil doers after reports like this. As for the actual story, I believe the number of shots was a bit excessive, don't disagree with the initial shooting. Also, the use of martial arts as a different means of defending ones self is a bit flawed, IMHO. Yeah, you might be taught that way in martial arts - but the difference is martial arts is contest. The worst thing to happen is you lose your match. Police officers face worse case scenarios of possibly losing ones life and not all suspects are going to respect the authority, or even value a cop's life. So in that case, if I'm an officer I'm going to make sure I have enough protection to reasonably ensure my safety.

The kid wasn't charging the cop. I reiterate, there has got to be a better way to deescalate the situation. This shouldn't have been a death sentence for the young man.

Deescalating situations only works when both parties agree to it. In this instance, that might have been the case or it might not have. We don't know, but I am willing to bet the house that there is no way on god's green earth that every situation between a cop and suspect can be deescalated. There are too many variables to go into interactions between cops and civilians to write a text book response and expect everyone to abide by it. Hell, think about the stories of individuals either on drugs or severely intoxicated that require multiple cops to get under control. You're going to tell me that the cops should just work to deescalate the situation? Just to clarify, I do think the cop is wrong in this situation.

Yeah, I tend to think that if someone is is not wielding a gun, then deescalation/containment must be the an option. How many cops were at this scene, 6 or so? 6-8 cops can't contain a guy with a 3" blade? I don't get it. The police are unrealistically authorized to use lethal force, is my take.

Your's is the unrealistic expectation.

 

Two situations, one of which that doesn't end with a criminal being shot;

 

A) Suspect with a knife, 6-8 officers on site, suspect is ordered to drop knife. Instead suspect turns in a threatening manner towards officers. Guess what should happen 100% of the time.

 

B) Suspect with a knife is ordered to drop the knife and he does. No one is shot.

 

Why is this so f'ing hard for you to figure out?

 

How about cops figure out how to capture guys with knives w/o killing them, especially when they are nowhere near them? I know, it's tough, because cops have shown they will kill kids with toy guns and such.

 

 

So you're saying the cops should just figure out how to capture him. What if he takes 3-4 cops out before the "figure out" how to capture him, without escalating the tension?

 

Uh, this is why they are supposedly looking at their training protocol and use of lethal force.

 

You know, they have bomb suits for those who disable bombs. Maybe cops could where more protective gear in these situations, but that's not really what I'm talking about here.

 

Surround him, deescalate, wait it out, like a hostage situation, nobody gets hurt, hopefully. Shoot him with a tranquilizer, how about that? They even do that for animals in the wild. what a concept. Non lethal, IOW. I'm sure the best and brightest minds can figure this out. This kid was murdered within 30 seconds of the cop showing up. There's got to be a better way of accosting, containing, capturing, there has to be.

 

 

I've actually never thought about this. Interesting concept, would imagine its sort of the premise behind tasers too.

 

Well, tasers have been shown to be lethal as well, especially when the "well trained" cop tases someone over and over again(in the news a week ago). Not a fan of tasers either.

 

 

Its taken a couple of pages for me to finally understand, Next time, just come out and say it on page one so I don't fall into the trap of thinking I was actually getting somewhere.... you're not a fan of cops in general.

 

Its a darn shame that citizens of this fine country don't instinctively know the difference of right and wrong and choose to follow the former.

 

I'm not a fan of cops who kill unarmed, unthreatening people with guns or tasers or clubs or whatever. Call me "radical". I'm also not a fan of private prison slave labor and the targeting of commuinties for revenue generation via bogus citation writing. I'm also not a fan of Sheriffs dpts doing hiway robbery of migrant farm workers paychecks. I'm also not a fan of the various "seisure" practices(legalized theft) practiced by police dpts. These are things that I consider "wrong", I call it "corruption", "malpractice", and it's not the citizens doing them. If you support these things, then that's on you.

 

As far as the honest cops go, I'm good with that.

 

so if you have an inmate in prison, it costs money to keep this trash in a dumpster understand? why not put them to work? if the state or prison and make some money back great . its not like they are busy. as far as prisoners getting in house jobs in a state prison, they EARN it by good behavior. Jobs are not given to anyone who doesn't put effort into getting it. just like we do out side.

[huskers15]

Mods, why did the title of the thread get changed?

[Moiraine]

Mods, why did the title of the thread get changed?

 

Because it was stupid.

[HuskerNBigD]

Mods, why did the title of the thread get changed?

LOL, u phuckin serious?