"Whatever you say, Billy. But, I could never pull a gun on and shoot another person, let alone a teenager." - Jenee and you were briefly in the army? That's part of the job description. So you would not kill a person who is in a position and has intentions on taking your life or the life of others? I must be of limited imagination, because I can't wrap my mind around that concept.
I don't remember which season/episode this was in, but it went something like this: Richard Castle shoots gun out of perp's hand Kate Beckett: Nice shot. Castle: I was aiming for his head! Point is, even with marksman training, in the heat of the moment in a situation like this, the idea that four shots to the chest seems/is excessive doesn't hold. Policy seems to be to fire until the threat is neutralized. In such a situation, it's not fire, see if threat still is a threat, then fire again. I haven't watched the video. I have no desire to. I don't know if only four shots were fired or if there were more, but I'm going to assume and hope only four were fired and they all found their mark. Given the situation, based on what I've read, the officer made the correct decision based on what information he immediately had on hand. I don't like the outcome, but that outcome is a consequence of attempting to attack an unarmed, unattacking party with a knife, regardless of age or race. I want to see the bacon in the frying pan as much as anyone else until they get their act together and stop thinking they are more equal than everyone else, but in this case, this looks like the appropriate action. I'll echo what was said upthread: If the cop then taunted the witnesses with Blue Lives Matter after the fact, he needs to face the music for that bit.
Yeah, I was thinking the same. I haven't seen the video of her actually being shot, but did she go down with the first shot, and then he walked over to her prone body and fired three more? Because THAT would be excessive.
That is a compelling argument. Still, in that situation, gun in my hand, gun in hand of someone else, my child is in harm's way; I'd definitely be hard pressed not to defend my child. I'd like to think I could pull the trigger. But, even if I did, I'm old. My eyesight isn't what it used to be, my steady hands are not as steady as they used to be, my reflexes are not what they used to be. Hell, I actually drive like an old lady after a year of barely driving at all. So, yea, I'd like to think I could pull the trigger. But, it would be an absolute last possible resort. I'd definitely vehemently attempt to talk my way out first.
I (gratefully) realize that. But how can somebody unwilling to kill ever join in the first place? Not singling you out, I have ran across quite a few people in the military that share your view. I'm not saying you have go all Rambo, but to say you would never shoot another person if you had to blows me away (no pun intended).
"Teenagers have been having fights including fights involving knives for eons. We do not need police to address these situations by showing up to the scene & using a weapon against one of the teenagers. Y’all need help. I mean that sincerely." wow - talk about "damned if you do, damned if you don't" for the cops! Columbus Shooting: Cops Can Justifiably Intervene In Knife Fights | National Review But I have mentioned this before - if the cops get called and the situation involves minorities you know what they should do? A fucking 180 degree turn and get the fuck out of Dodge. If they are going to be seen as racists no matter what they do, then fuck it - don't get involved. Call your civilian de-escalation clipboard warriors to handle it if you have trouble in your neighborhood.
Well, if she was still standing with a knife in her hand after the third bang, the fourth bang was not excessive. Actually a police shooting where only 4 shots were fired seems pretty damn controlled. Usually you hear about them emptying their magazines, reloading, and emptying again.
To be fair, I was never asked that type of question when I was joining the marines. It was kind of expected for recruits to understand that possibility. Boot camp was used for weeding people out who couldn't cut it. Usually it was people who couldn't take being yelled at, didn't like being told what to do or wasn't physically fit enough.
“And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy."
Just a silly point, but perhaps we should hjave multiple threads for each police killing. Each of the ones that has happened in the past week or so has different points. we are barely on the second day of stupid comments regarding the floyd trial and now we are onto another incident. I am not done doing my happy dance that we actually convicted a murdering scumbag in blue, and I am lost in the next discussion.
I'd guess if the person is literally 1/4 second from plunging a knife into another person, the shooter's instinct would be to do whatever it takes to stop the impending murder from happening. One bang, then wait to see if the stabber has stopped stabbing the stabbee, might not work out well for the stabbee. So bangbangbangbang it is.
when I went through both the Air Force and Army basic trainings they never asked my opinions on anything controversial or political. I guess it was assumed that if you didn't believe in what they were all about (their mission) you wouldn't have joined up in the first place.
I mean, I guess the issue would be why it would be deemed worrisome. It seems like many/most people think that Chauvin should have been found guilty of something. But a lot of people ALSO think that there was no way the jury would acquit for fear of launching riots. I don't see it as an unreasonable fear that even if you think the Chauvin verdict was just that it suggests a future where juries will convict innocent cops for fear of sparking riots. Or that the public will conflate clearly wrong murders like the one Chauvin committed with debatable killings or even justified killings.
I mean maybe they should be. Japanese police are all trained in Taiho-jitsu. Maybe ours should be too. That this might have been an acceptable outcome doesn’t mean it’s ideal, that there’s no room for improvement in situations like this in the future.
Not a legitimate concern. What are we supposed to do? Should we let cops murder people by kneeling on their neck for 9 minutes while taking them into custody because a jury might convict them of an actual murder because they afraid to do jury nullification for the police? I do not see much of a problem with Juries finding a person like chauvin guilty for murder when he murdered someone if it is because they are worried about the consequnces of letting him off because they are racists who like cops killing black people. There was never any good reason to do what chauvin did with a handcuffed man who was already in custody. That was murder. Cops do not get to murder people. We barely even let our judicial system murder people when they do first degree murder. Floyd passed a counterfeit 20. That was what he was murdered for. There is no death penalty for counterfeit 20s. There is no death penalty for having a freak out over getting in the back of a police car. There is no what if. This was what the jury should have come up with. The other side is for the jury to purposefully have nullified the charges when they knew he was guilty. Just because the right wing wishes our laws mean nothing when you kill a black man does not mean that we should go back to the days of lynching in public. What chauvin did was lynching a black man in front of witnesses. The only difference is he used his knee and not a rope and tree.
Many years ago, before the age of the cell phone, we got a call from a passer-by in a car that a man was standing over two men with a gun. A man was standing in the grass in front of a house pointing a gun at two men laying down in the grass. We, obviously, rolled in hard. When the first unit locked up the brakes in front of the house and officers started bailing out, the man with the gun immediately dropped it and raised his hands. That diffused the immediate threat. We hooked all three people and put them in three different cars. Only then did we start sorting out what happened. As it turns out, remember, it was before the age of the cell phone, these two guys were robbing the man with the gun. He pulled up at his house from work and caught these two guys as they were walking out of the front door with his TV. So, he held them at gunpoint until help arrived. We obviously had no way of knowing that as we approached the scene since it was just a short call from a passer-by. Had he not dropped the gun, I think we can all guess what would have happened. Point being, the victim in this case had the sense to not doing anything stupid, like try to kill someone after the police arrived.
