Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Dormie]

No one liners? No calling me bigoted? I’ll let you figure out what just happened...

Sorry I don't argue with children/ideologues.

[announced]

Literally 5 seconds youtube search:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOTLP9rDiN4

Trick is you have to include "UK" or another developed country name in your search.

Question. What if he stabbed the police officer in the eye with the knife? or the throat? I mean should it be a requirement that if someone comes at you with a deadly weapon such as a butcher knife that you try and physically restrain them and thus risk injury or death to yourself in the process, before being allowed to use your weapon?

Use a taser! If the suspect is wearing baggy clothing a taser often doesn't work.

What about their partner? What about them? Depending on the physical strength of the attacker and their chemical state they could potentially overpower two cops.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7424380/p...er-wallace-jr/

From the story link above, you can see in the photograph the suspect is clearly wielding a knife. that fact isn't in dispute.



Luckily the Peaceful protesters/rioters took out their anger on a known symbol of white supremacy. Foot locker.

Perhaps we could just shoot them in the leg as Joe Biden suggested?

Here's an article explaining that https://reason.com/2020/10/15/joe-bi...ot-in-the-leg/

[Edge-]

Question. What if he stabbed the police officer in the eye with the knife? or the throat? I mean should it be a requirement that if someone comes at you with a deadly weapon such as a butcher knife that you try and physically restrain them and thus risk injury or death to yourself in the process, before being allowed to use your weapon?

But he didn't, that's the point. You can talk all you want about hypotheticals, and that's not to say that the officers were in no danger or that these incidents don't turn out with officers injured, but you're proposing a hypothetical in the face of a real world example disproving your hypothetical.

I mean, how little it apparently takes for some people to be alright with police killing someone, which is literally not what they're supposed to do, when we have examples of officers in other countries and even locally here that show that you can resolve potentially dangerous situations without shooting someone, is kinda scary to me.

We shouldn't be alright with police killing people at the rate they do in the US, and for such little cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ers_by_country

If this is remotely accurate, our police are in the same company as Iran, Uraguay, Angola, Colombia, and Mali, at 34.8 people killed per 10 million.

The closest developed western (not including LATAM) comparisons are Canada at a whopping 9.7, and France with a monstrous 3.8.

For the richest, most powerful developed nation in the world, that's frankly pretty fuckin pathetic.

[Endus]

Question. What if he stabbed the police officer in the eye with the knife? or the throat? I mean should it be a requirement that if someone comes at you with a deadly weapon such as a butcher knife that you try and physically restrain them and thus risk injury or death to yourself in the process, before being allowed to use your weapon?

The usual measure is that they have to express intent to actually attack you with that weapon.

Walking towards you while armed doesn't amount to such a threat. Unless you're suggesting that someone can wander the streets shooting every single person they see openly carrying a weapon, even police officers. Obviously, that's insane, right? So why does that rationale get used by officers?

Use a taser!

If the suspect is wearing baggy clothing a taser often doesn't work.

There's two officers there. One can keep their sidearm on the guy while the other tases him, in case things escalate from there.

What about their partner? What about them?

Depending on the physical strength of the attacker and their chemical state they could potentially overpower two cops.

Not if they're not complete morons. If they're not standing side by side, he has to pick who to attack, and the other can cover his partner.

But these two questions all presume there's an attack, and there was never even an attempt at an assault in this case. Literally nothing other than that the guy was holding a knife. His family's concern was that he'd self-harm, which is why they asked for mental health and an ambulance, not police response.

From the story link above, you can see in the photograph the suspect is clearly wielding a knife. that fact isn't in dispute.

Yes, but, right to bear arms and all that. You can't use the bearing of arms as justification for shooting them. Even outside the US without the second amendment, you'd still have to justify the use of force, and just "having a knife" isn't going to amount to that anywhere. Reminder that the police were not called and there was no suspicion of assault or violence, here.

[Antiganon]

This shit is going to keep happening until we stop selecting police officers from a pool of people who are intentionally racist and uneducated, and start sending social workers and/or psychologists on 911 calls.

Biden has the right idea. The right wing has no ideas except "moar guns".

[Crispin]

It's weird how the far right is all about personal freedom and "screw you goverment". But it's ok for the Police who's part of the executive branch, to show up at your front lawn when you're obviously mentally ill and kill you.

It's so hypocritical it's unlreal. When they want "freedom", it really does not matter if the goverment controls all aspects of life, as long as they kill people they dislike.

[cface]

"Walking towards someone" is "super aggressive"?

Hey, guys, he's actually trying the South Park "it's comin' right for us!" argument. He seriously thinks that's a defense.

Some people shouldn't watch south park if you actually compare the two. Who the fuck is so dumb they fast walk towards two police with their guns out like that? What happened to put your hands up and stand still?

[Yadryonych]

It's weird how the far right is all about personal freedom and "screw you goverment". But it's ok for the Police who's part of the executive branch, to show up at your front lawn when you're obviously mentally ill and kill you.

It's so hypocritical it's unlreal. When they want "freedom", it really does not matter if the goverment controls all aspects of life, as long as they kill people they dislike.

People who are about "screw your government" mean that they dont need government's help in taking down armed asailants but if government is there to help, that's fine for them I guess

[cface]

It's been very clear for a long time now that when most people say they care about freedom, that they only care about their own freedoms and have not really interrogated the concept much outside of "i do what i want".

- - - Updated - - -



You've illustrated that you can not get south park and still watch it. the statement about gun culture in the US is pretty blatant. I dunno why it stops applying because it makes police brutality look as mindless and pointless as it actually is.

So I can't get the episode since I'm not from US and don't get the gun culture? The police were screaming with guns out, yet the black man came at them fast with hands down and some say he had a knife. How can that be ok in any country? Is that seriously ok in america?
There is a bunch of things police could probably do, but with 3 months training, and an america on edge with police cars on fire, looting and killing each other, I just don't see how you can really blame the officers.

[Kiri]

It's weird how the far right is all about personal freedom and "screw you goverment". But it's ok for the Police who's part of the executive branch, to show up at your front lawn when you're obviously mentally ill and kill you.

It's so hypocritical it's unlreal. When they want "freedom", it really does not matter if the goverment controls all aspects of life, as long as they kill people they dislike.

Actually, that wouldn't be completely correct. These people probably would mind the government being too intrusive to their own lives (in obvious ways at least, not in the subtle ways that are already missed). The thing is more that their idea of freedom is only for 'the right people'. That's why some people can run around armed, even pointing their guns at civilians and police and not even get bothered, while others will get shot and the shooters defended. It is not the act itself that is being judged, but more the one doing it. And, usually, the further removed a person is from their self-perception, the less a 'right person' they are. And that is certainly not limited to race. Mental health status, (perceived) socio-economic status and even political preferences all play a role there.

[announced]

The usual measure is that they have to express intent to actually attack you with that weapon.

Check the video
at 1:06 you can see the knife is in his hand (pointing at the officer) and he is demonstrating an intent to stab the officer who is backing away). That is a very clear case of intent.

Walking towards you while armed doesn't amount to such a threat. Unless you're suggesting that someone can wander the streets shooting every single person they see openly carrying a weapon, even police officers. Obviously, that's insane, right? So why does that rationale get used by officers?

comparing apples to oranges. When people open carry typically their gun is in either in a holster or pointed away from anyone so they aren't considered in a threatening manner.


There's two officers there. One can keep their sidearm on the guy while the other tases him, in case things escalate from there.

Also a Fyi. according to this article and officer data https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2...en-tasers-fail the success rate of tasers is around 55%. Would you trust your life to a 55% chance? That's hardly better than a coin flip.


Not if they're not complete morons. If they're not standing side by side, he has to pick who to attack, and the other can cover his partner.

But these two questions all presume there's an attack, and there was never even an attempt at an assault in this case. Literally nothing other than that the guy was holding a knife. His family's concern was that he'd self-harm, which is why they asked for mental health and an ambulance, not police response.

Do you think an ambulance worker wants to deal with a knife wielding individual? Are they equipped with the proper tools to deal with one? Probably not.

Yes, but, right to bear arms and all that. You can't use the bearing of arms as justification for shooting them. Even outside the US without the second amendment, you'd still have to justify the use of force, and just "having a knife" isn't going to amount to that anywhere. Reminder that the police were not called and there was no suspicion of assault or violence, here.

answers in red. Also you have a right to bear arms, a knife is not considered an arm.

Oh also according to this article https://www.inquirer.com/news/walter...-20201027.html the police didn't have tasers on them anyway since their budget is a work in progress.

One final point. According to https://www.phila.gov/2018-03-20-gun-control-policies/ You can open carry everywhere in PA aside in Philadelphia. Maybe he should have put the knife down instead of charging toward the officers with it?

[Twdft]

Question. What if he stabbed the police officer in the eye with the knife? or the throat? I mean should it be a requirement that if someone comes at you with a deadly weapon such as a butcher knife that you try and physically restrain them and thus risk injury or death to yourself in the process, before being allowed to use your weapon?

But he didn't, now did he?

There is a fundamental difference between how US cops see their jobs and those in other countries. US cops see deadly violence as a valid and way too often first and only problem solving strategy. Real cops are trained to counter threats with an appropriate amount of force. And that does include killing as a very last resort when all other methods are exhausted.

As hard as it is for you to understand, police are there to protect everyone and that includes criminals. Police are not judge and executioner. Police job is to apprehend criminals and let an actual judge do the judging and sentencing. Yes it is a hard and dangerous job. But if you are so afraid of everything that your first thought is "kill kill kill" maybe you should apply for another job.

[draynay]

Question. What if he stabbed the police officer in the eye with the knife? or the throat?

What if he built a giant death-ray and held the world hostage? Who cares about lousy hypotheticals?

[Felya]

Question. What if he stabbed the police officer in the eye with the knife? or the throat?

This is funny... how about... what if he had a gun and pulled a trigger? Instead of the knife stabbing in the eye or throat... he just clicked a button? That’s what the cops did... clicked a button... no stabbing in the eye or throat... just clicked a button...

[Tabrotar]

I come back from a break and all i see is the same apologists trying to "explain" why pointing a weapon at a cop is the right thing to do and wonder why a cop will shoot you if you walk at them with a weapon (whatever weapon that might be) in your hand.

Fucking pathetic little fuckers.

[Felya]

I come back from a break and all i see is the same apologists trying to "explain" why pointing a weapon at a cop is the right thing to do and wonder why a cop will shoot you if you walk at them with a weapon (whatever weapon that might be) in your hand.

Fucking pathetic little fuckers.

Can you even quote anyone saying it’s the right thing to do? Because if you are lying to defend someone being killed, who exactly is pathetic?

As a civilian, and someone who isn’t a “Fucking pathetic little fuckers”, shouldn’t you advocate for none lethal force? Isn’t that the rational path here, instead of making shit up?

You know what, I think I found a point of agreement:

CEOs ar eoverpaid stupid fucks who more then often fuck things up which then will cost hundred if not thausands of normal workers their jobs while these little fuckers will get paid millions if they leave...

Vote the mother fucker out!!! Get anyone else in, so calls for none lethal force stop being argued as supporting knife wielding maniacs... Once that orange pile of dong is out of office, there will no longer be a need to convince the public that none lethal force by police is a wedge issue... to cover up his incompetence.

[Specialka]

But he didn't, now did he?

There is a fundamental difference between how US cops see their jobs and those in other countries. US cops see deadly violence as a valid and way too often first and only problem solving strategy. Real cops are trained to counter threats with an appropriate amount of force. And that does include killing as a very last resort when all other methods are exhausted.

As hard as it is for you to understand, police are there to protect everyone and that includes criminals. Police are not judge and executioner. Police job is to apprehend criminals and let an actual judge do the judging and sentencing. Yes it is a hard and dangerous job. But if you are so afraid of everything that your first thought is "kill kill kill" maybe you should apply for another job.

So maybe they should have waited to get stab once before firing ? Though in honesty, they fired a little faster, I would have personnaly wait for 1 or 2 more meters before firing just to be sure to confirm intent.

[Themius]

So maybe they should have waited to get stab once before firing ? Though in honesty, they fired a little faster, I would have personnaly wait for 1 or 2 more meters before firing just to be sure to confirm intent.

Does America have unique people who are extra deadly?

[omeomorfismo]

So maybe they should have waited to get stab once before firing ? Though in honesty, they fired a little faster, I would have personnaly wait for 1 or 2 more meters before firing just to be sure to confirm intent.

they could ask how in the other side of the ocean their colleagues work? its basically free nowadays

[Endus]

at 1:06 you can see the knife is in his hand (pointing at the officer) and he is demonstrating an intent to stab the officer who is backing away). That is a very clear case of intent.

That's not how intent is defined, like, anywhere. I've pointed at family members with a knife I was using to chop veggies, while cooking, to point something I wanted them to grab me. Wasn't a lethal threat, obviously. Knives don't work by pointing them at people, unlike firearms.

Besides that, the timestamp you gave does not show what you describe. The shot from another angle shown at 1:12 seems to be at nearly the exact same moment, and it's clear he's not pointing a knife at anything; one arm's across his chest, the other is straight down at his side.

Do you think an ambulance worker wants to deal with a knife wielding individual? Are they equipped with the proper tools to deal with one? Probably not.

Of course they are. I've worked as a teacher, and we've had to handle students armed with knives, too. Talking does a hell of a lot, if you make literally any effort at all.

answers in red. Also you have a right to bear arms, a knife is not considered an arm.

Well, that's fucking silly. Also, near as I can tell, absolutely false.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ing-180957718/
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi...7&context=mjlr
https://blog.knife-depot.com/court-s...2nd-amendment/

Oh also according to this article https://www.inquirer.com/news/walter...-20201027.html the police didn't have tasers on them anyway since their budget is a work in progress.

Which just means there's more assheaded responsibility for Wallace's death than just the two officers who shot him. This is not in any manner a defense of their actions.

One final point. According to https://www.phila.gov/2018-03-20-gun-control-policies/ You can open carry everywhere in PA aside in Philadelphia. Maybe he should have put the knife down instead of charging toward the officers with it?

He wasn't "charging" by any reasonable description. You're using weighted language to beg the question.

Your argument still, fundamentally, boils down to the idea that you should be entitled to kill any armed individual walking towards you.