Was the Columbus, OH., police officer justified shooting the knife wielding girl? (poll)

[Utilitarian]

Amost certainly NO.

A more proficient police officer would have been able to remedy the situation so that it didn't result in death.

Death was the outcome and that can never be seen as a successful handling of the situation.

Once again it simply boils down to bad policing that's due to a lack of police concern for black lives.

It would be a near certainty that had the knife wielder been a white child and the intended victim a black child, the outcome would have been different and more desirable.

Americans can't understand this and so the fight to reform their police will be long, which will most likely result in police pushing the envelope on their right to kill to even greater heights.

It's a good thing better people than you are the ones who protect society. Thanks to those people you're free to hold your naive and pretentious beliefs.

And even though you're not American, if you are Canadian, British, Australian, or New Zealander, my statement still holds true.

 

[Utilitarian]

Amost certainly NO.

A more proficient police officer would have been able to remedy the situation so that it didn't result in death.

Death was the outcome and that can never be seen as a successful handling of the situation.

Once again it simply boils down to bad policing that's due to a lack of police concern for black lives.

It would be a near certainty that had the knife wielder been a white child and the intended victim a black child, the outcome would have been different and more desirable.

Americans can't understand this and so the fight to reform their police will be long, which will most likely result in police pushing the envelope on their right to kill to even greater heights.

It happened so fast, that he had to shoot the woman who was STABBING the victim.

What is boils down are stupid people stabbing other people that YOU seem to overlook in your attack on the police who come to stop it based on a phone call long after the attacks began.

You didn't watch the video at all.

He's clearly a troll and a POS. That does make him suitable for flamebait, however.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yes. And No. I know. It is I the cop hater. At least that is what the replies from certain people will claim.

Yes. Shooting a weapon wielding individual is justified to save life.

The problem is totality of the situation. Nobody was hearing the commands of the cop. He wasn’t the loudest voice there. The fighting girls didn’t even see him. Not because they were black. Nor because they were girls.

The term is situational awareness. It takes training to avoid the normal human tendency to focus on one thing. The tunnel vision. A vast majority of you will never have experienced it. But with training you can avoid that deadly mistake.

The girls fighting were seeing nothing but their enemies. Totally normal human reaction. They were not hearing anything. Much less the sounds of the cop shouting.

This is where you need something to startle them. Something to get their attention. A shot into the grass as one example. I watched the video once. My mind screamed fire a shot into the ground. It will startle the girls out of the tunnel.

When the cop fired. At that moment he had a choice. Let another person get stabbed. Wounded. Possibly killed. Or shoot.

I don’t find fault with the shooting at the time it happened. But here again is where my often advocated position comes in. A study into the totality of events. Alternatives that can be thought of. Alternatives that may be available to the next cop in the next situation. Alternatives that may save a life later. And there are always alternatives. There are always lessons to be learned.

The biggest thing is think. It is hard to think in a stressful situation. The ability to do so is invaluable. This is where training comes in. Teaching people to think when the stress is on. Teaching them to avoid that tunnel vision.

The more you know. The better you are. We should milk incidents like this for every ounce of information.

It was a justified shooting IMO. It was still regrettable. And I would like to think of ways to avoid it if possible next time. I don’t want to see anyone die. Cop or civilian. If it can possibly be avoided.

You know why you don't fire into the ground? One word: ricochet.

Also, startling someone who's already swinging a knife at someone is an excellent way to make them lurch forward and CONTINUE THE SWING. Ever hear of momentum? Ever get startled by a loud, unexpected sound behind you? Did you freeze, or did you jump? Moron.

Maybe YOU should try thinking before flapping your gob about things you clearly know nothing about.

Unless you hit a boulder, you are not going to get a ricochet from shooting into the ground.
And 99.9999% of ricochets are harmless, not only because the energy is vastly dissipated, but because the odds of it being in a direction to kill, is so extremely tiny.

Any level shot, at someone, is thousands of times more risky because they can over penetrate the target, and are in line with all the other people standing on the ground, in houses, etc.
Almost every shot police fire these days is incredibly risky and stupid, and almost always harms innocent people.

And no, a loud shot flinch NEVER makes them continue a swing.
It causes muscles to contract, pulling in the extremities to shield the body, instinctively.

You think I made this up or something?
No, 50 years ago police were TRAINED to ALWAYS fire warning shots.
Any rational or sane person would ALWAYS do that.

You are a fool

Police were never trained to fire warning shots. A warning shot has to come down somewhere and can kill an innocent.

Ricochets happen without builders and yes they can still hit with more than anough energy to kill.

Few innocents are harmed by cops

Wrong.
Police always used to be trained to fire warning shots.
They just stopped for no good reason.

First of all, it is easy to fire a warning shot into the grass so you don't have to shoot up into the air.
But traditionally people all over the world commonly shoot into the air without injury.
This is even common in LA on the the 4th of July.
The reason for the lack of injury is that air friction prevents the bullet from regaining much velocity on the way down, and there is so much open space that hitting a person is nearly impossible.
Ricochets also are likely too weak and unlikely to hit anything.
And you are not going to get a ricochet off grass.
A ricochet will likely be flattened out and spread out the energy too much.

Normal police in other countries fire warning shots.

Bullshit!

I tried to find evidence that they do that, nope zero. Meanwhile I find this showing that a lot of police DO NOT do it anyway for safety of people in the area.

Should cops be able to fire warning shots in tense situations? Even police sharply disagree

Kevin Johnson
USA TODAY

October 25, 2017

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON— A new policy endorsing the use of warning shots by police to de-escalate potentially deadly confrontations is driving a rift among some law enforcement leaders who believe the practice only heightens risk and should be abandoned.

The controversial issue broke into the open during a weekend gathering of the nation’s police chiefs in Philadelphia where some officials called for removing the provision allowing for warning shots contained in the National Consensus Policy on Use of Force.

The policy paper was approved earlier this month by a coalition of police groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the largest society of top law enforcement officials in the country.

"I'll be real candid, I think it's a stupid idea," said James Varrone, assistant police chief in Wilmington, N.C., who first raised the matter Sunday at a law enforcement town hall event staged to coincide with the IACP conference. "I thought the idea of warning shots and the dangers posed by such a policy went away decades ago or longer than I have been in law enforcement – and that's been 31 years.''

LINK

======

You are wrong so many times, you need to stop the made up B.S.

 

[Snouter]

High speed tranquilizer darts maybe? Tasers are usually too slow and inconsistent. And bullets work, but they result in ghetto lotteries. Tranquilizer darts as used on wild animals might be a reasonable alternative to subdue savages.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes. And No. I know. It is I the cop hater. At least that is what the replies from certain people will claim.

Yes. Shooting a weapon wielding individual is justified to save life.

The problem is totality of the situation. Nobody was hearing the commands of the cop. He wasn’t the loudest voice there. The fighting girls didn’t even see him. Not because they were black. Nor because they were girls.

The term is situational awareness. It takes training to avoid the normal human tendency to focus on one thing. The tunnel vision. A vast majority of you will never have experienced it. But with training you can avoid that deadly mistake.

The girls fighting were seeing nothing but their enemies. Totally normal human reaction. They were not hearing anything. Much less the sounds of the cop shouting.

This is where you need something to startle them. Something to get their attention. A shot into the grass as one example. I watched the video once. My mind screamed fire a shot into the ground. It will startle the girls out of the tunnel.

When the cop fired. At that moment he had a choice. Let another person get stabbed. Wounded. Possibly killed. Or shoot.

I don’t find fault with the shooting at the time it happened. But here again is where my often advocated position comes in. A study into the totality of events. Alternatives that can be thought of. Alternatives that may be available to the next cop in the next situation. Alternatives that may save a life later. And there are always alternatives. There are always lessons to be learned.

The biggest thing is think. It is hard to think in a stressful situation. The ability to do so is invaluable. This is where training comes in. Teaching people to think when the stress is on. Teaching them to avoid that tunnel vision.

The more you know. The better you are. We should milk incidents like this for every ounce of information.

It was a justified shooting IMO. It was still regrettable. And I would like to think of ways to avoid it if possible next time. I don’t want to see anyone die. Cop or civilian. If it can possibly be avoided.

You know why you don't fire into the ground? One word: ricochet.

Also, startling someone who's already swinging a knife at someone is an excellent way to make them lurch forward and CONTINUE THE SWING. Ever hear of momentum? Ever get startled by a loud, unexpected sound behind you? Did you freeze, or did you jump? Moron.

Maybe YOU should try thinking before flapping your gob about things you clearly know nothing about.

Unless you hit a boulder, you are not going to get a ricochet from shooting into the ground.
And 99.9999% of ricochets are harmless, not only because the energy is vastly dissipated, but because the odds of it being in a direction to kill, is so extremely tiny.

Any level shot, at someone, is thousands of times more risky because they can over penetrate the target, and are in line with all the other people standing on the ground, in houses, etc.
Almost every shot police fire these days is incredibly risky and stupid, and almost always harms innocent people.

And no, a loud shot flinch NEVER makes them continue a swing.
It causes muscles to contract, pulling in the extremities to shield the body, instinctively.

You think I made this up or something?
No, 50 years ago police were TRAINED to ALWAYS fire warning shots.
Any rational or sane person would ALWAYS do that.

You are a fool

Police were never trained to fire warning shots. A warning shot has to come down somewhere and can kill an innocent.

Ricochets happen without builders and yes they can still hit with more than anough energy to kill.

Few innocents are harmed by cops

Wrong.
Police always used to be trained to fire warning shots.
They just stopped for no good reason.

First of all, it is easy to fire a warning shot into the grass so you don't have to shoot up into the air.
But traditionally people all over the world commonly shoot into the air without injury.
This is even common in LA on the the 4th of July.
The reason for the lack of injury is that air friction prevents the bullet from regaining much velocity on the way down, and there is so much open space that hitting a person is nearly impossible.
Ricochets also are likely too weak and unlikely to hit anything.
And you are not going to get a ricochet off grass.
A ricochet will likely be flattened out and spread out the energy too much.

Normal police in other countries fire warning shots.

Bullshit!

I tried to find evidence that they do that, nope zero. Meanwhile I find this showing that a lot of police DO NOT do it anyway for safety of people in the area.

Should cops be able to fire warning shots in tense situations? Even police sharply disagree

Kevin Johnson
USA TODAY

October 25, 2017

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON— A new policy endorsing the use of warning shots by police to de-escalate potentially deadly confrontations is driving a rift among some law enforcement leaders who believe the practice only heightens risk and should be abandoned.

The controversial issue broke into the open during a weekend gathering of the nation’s police chiefs in Philadelphia where some officials called for removing the provision allowing for warning shots contained in the National Consensus Policy on Use of Force.

The policy paper was approved earlier this month by a coalition of police groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the largest society of top law enforcement officials in the country.

"I'll be real candid, I think it's a stupid idea," said James Varrone, assistant police chief in Wilmington, N.C., who first raised the matter Sunday at a law enforcement town hall event staged to coincide with the IACP conference. "I thought the idea of warning shots and the dangers posed by such a policy went away decades ago or longer than I have been in law enforcement – and that's been 31 years.''

LINK

======

You are wrong so many times, you need to stop the made up B.S.

Warning shots went out after the 1970’s in pretty much all departments. By the 1980’s they were essentially banned.



Comeback means they were used.

My comment was intended this way. Give the police the best training and the most tools possible. The more options available, the more likely the cop can manage the situation without killing someone.

Options. Not requirements.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes. And No. I know. It is I the cop hater. At least that is what the replies from certain people will claim.

Yes. Shooting a weapon wielding individual is justified to save life.

The problem is totality of the situation. Nobody was hearing the commands of the cop. He wasn’t the loudest voice there. The fighting girls didn’t even see him. Not because they were black. Nor because they were girls.

The term is situational awareness. It takes training to avoid the normal human tendency to focus on one thing. The tunnel vision. A vast majority of you will never have experienced it. But with training you can avoid that deadly mistake.

The girls fighting were seeing nothing but their enemies. Totally normal human reaction. They were not hearing anything. Much less the sounds of the cop shouting.

This is where you need something to startle them. Something to get their attention. A shot into the grass as one example. I watched the video once. My mind screamed fire a shot into the ground. It will startle the girls out of the tunnel.

When the cop fired. At that moment he had a choice. Let another person get stabbed. Wounded. Possibly killed. Or shoot.

I don’t find fault with the shooting at the time it happened. But here again is where my often advocated position comes in. A study into the totality of events. Alternatives that can be thought of. Alternatives that may be available to the next cop in the next situation. Alternatives that may save a life later. And there are always alternatives. There are always lessons to be learned.

The biggest thing is think. It is hard to think in a stressful situation. The ability to do so is invaluable. This is where training comes in. Teaching people to think when the stress is on. Teaching them to avoid that tunnel vision.

The more you know. The better you are. We should milk incidents like this for every ounce of information.

It was a justified shooting IMO. It was still regrettable. And I would like to think of ways to avoid it if possible next time. I don’t want to see anyone die. Cop or civilian. If it can possibly be avoided.

You know why you don't fire into the ground? One word: ricochet.

Also, startling someone who's already swinging a knife at someone is an excellent way to make them lurch forward and CONTINUE THE SWING. Ever hear of momentum? Ever get startled by a loud, unexpected sound behind you? Did you freeze, or did you jump? Moron.

Maybe YOU should try thinking before flapping your gob about things you clearly know nothing about.

Unless you hit a boulder, you are not going to get a ricochet from shooting into the ground.
And 99.9999% of ricochets are harmless, not only because the energy is vastly dissipated, but because the odds of it being in a direction to kill, is so extremely tiny.

Any level shot, at someone, is thousands of times more risky because they can over penetrate the target, and are in line with all the other people standing on the ground, in houses, etc.
Almost every shot police fire these days is incredibly risky and stupid, and almost always harms innocent people.

And no, a loud shot flinch NEVER makes them continue a swing.
It causes muscles to contract, pulling in the extremities to shield the body, instinctively.

You think I made this up or something?
No, 50 years ago police were TRAINED to ALWAYS fire warning shots.
Any rational or sane person would ALWAYS do that.

You are a fool

Police were never trained to fire warning shots. A warning shot has to come down somewhere and can kill an innocent.

Ricochets happen without builders and yes they can still hit with more than anough energy to kill.

Few innocents are harmed by cops

Wrong.
Police always used to be trained to fire warning shots.
They just stopped for no good reason.

First of all, it is easy to fire a warning shot into the grass so you don't have to shoot up into the air.
But traditionally people all over the world commonly shoot into the air without injury.
This is even common in LA on the the 4th of July.
The reason for the lack of injury is that air friction prevents the bullet from regaining much velocity on the way down, and there is so much open space that hitting a person is nearly impossible.
Ricochets also are likely too weak and unlikely to hit anything.
And you are not going to get a ricochet off grass.
A ricochet will likely be flattened out and spread out the energy too much.

Normal police in other countries fire warning shots.

They were never trained to fire warning shots for the reasons I already described and for other reasons, Police are not always neaqr GRASS they are ore often on streets or sidewalks whhich can cause ricochets. People shoot in the air without injury and occasionally WITH injury and you are jiust as responsible for shooting someone by accident as you would be if it were deliberately.

They do not and never have been trained to fire warning shots.Ricochets will always hit SOMETHING and they do not lack the energy to kill. You simply now little or nothing about firearms

Police in other countries are not normal and you are compeltely wrong they DO NOT fire warning shots EVER.

 

[Soupnazi630]

IMHO there is no justification for the police to allow anyone to murder an unarmed person.
The girl with the knife is attempting to murder an unarmed girl, totally unacceptable.
Anyone who blames the cop for anything other than doing his job "protecting" the unarmed girl is a racist gaslighting POS.

Police release body cam footage in fatal shooting of teenage girl in Ohio

The victim has been identified as 16-year-old Ma'Khia Bryant.

www.cbsnews.com

View attachment 482782

The Biden admin just can't stop blaming cops instead of blaming criminals!? The GOP has lots of ammo for 2022 and 2024.

The police officer responded appropriately. She also attacked the the first girl who ended up on the ground with the knife. All that happened within a matter of seconds right in front of the police officer.

How is 4 shots appropriate?
And the girl shot was the victim being attacked by the gang, and it was the girl who the police shot who had called the police in the first place.

The girl shot was the one who actually lived there.

She was no victim she was the aggressor and 4 is just as appropriate as one

Why do you say "4 is just as appropriate as one"?
She was a juvenile, and likely would have done better after being an adult.
One bullet would have not only stopped her but put her in a hospital for weeks.
Four bullets is an execution, which is illegal for a juvenile.

Because one fires until the threat is down whether it is 1 or 15.
Age is irrelevant.

A bullet is a bullet is a bullet and bullets are bullets are bullets. It makes no diference and four were needed as she posed an immefiate lethal threat,

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes. And No. I know. It is I the cop hater. At least that is what the replies from certain people will claim.

Yes. Shooting a weapon wielding individual is justified to save life.

The problem is totality of the situation. Nobody was hearing the commands of the cop. He wasn’t the loudest voice there. The fighting girls didn’t even see him. Not because they were black. Nor because they were girls.

The term is situational awareness. It takes training to avoid the normal human tendency to focus on one thing. The tunnel vision. A vast majority of you will never have experienced it. But with training you can avoid that deadly mistake.

The girls fighting were seeing nothing but their enemies. Totally normal human reaction. They were not hearing anything. Much less the sounds of the cop shouting.

This is where you need something to startle them. Something to get their attention. A shot into the grass as one example. I watched the video once. My mind screamed fire a shot into the ground. It will startle the girls out of the tunnel.

When the cop fired. At that moment he had a choice. Let another person get stabbed. Wounded. Possibly killed. Or shoot.

I don’t find fault with the shooting at the time it happened. But here again is where my often advocated position comes in. A study into the totality of events. Alternatives that can be thought of. Alternatives that may be available to the next cop in the next situation. Alternatives that may save a life later. And there are always alternatives. There are always lessons to be learned.

The biggest thing is think. It is hard to think in a stressful situation. The ability to do so is invaluable. This is where training comes in. Teaching people to think when the stress is on. Teaching them to avoid that tunnel vision.

The more you know. The better you are. We should milk incidents like this for every ounce of information.

It was a justified shooting IMO. It was still regrettable. And I would like to think of ways to avoid it if possible next time. I don’t want to see anyone die. Cop or civilian. If it can possibly be avoided.

You know why you don't fire into the ground? One word: ricochet.

Also, startling someone who's already swinging a knife at someone is an excellent way to make them lurch forward and CONTINUE THE SWING. Ever hear of momentum? Ever get startled by a loud, unexpected sound behind you? Did you freeze, or did you jump? Moron.

Maybe YOU should try thinking before flapping your gob about things you clearly know nothing about.

Unless you hit a boulder, you are not going to get a ricochet from shooting into the ground.
And 99.9999% of ricochets are harmless, not only because the energy is vastly dissipated, but because the odds of it being in a direction to kill, is so extremely tiny.

Any level shot, at someone, is thousands of times more risky because they can over penetrate the target, and are in line with all the other people standing on the ground, in houses, etc.
Almost every shot police fire these days is incredibly risky and stupid, and almost always harms innocent people.

And no, a loud shot flinch NEVER makes them continue a swing.
It causes muscles to contract, pulling in the extremities to shield the body, instinctively.

You think I made this up or something?
No, 50 years ago police were TRAINED to ALWAYS fire warning shots.
Any rational or sane person would ALWAYS do that.

You are a fool

Police were never trained to fire warning shots. A warning shot has to come down somewhere and can kill an innocent.

Ricochets happen without builders and yes they can still hit with more than anough energy to kill.

Few innocents are harmed by cops

Wrong.
Police always used to be trained to fire warning shots.
They just stopped for no good reason.

First of all, it is easy to fire a warning shot into the grass so you don't have to shoot up into the air.
But traditionally people all over the world commonly shoot into the air without injury.
This is even common in LA on the the 4th of July.
The reason for the lack of injury is that air friction prevents the bullet from regaining much velocity on the way down, and there is so much open space that hitting a person is nearly impossible.
Ricochets also are likely too weak and unlikely to hit anything.
And you are not going to get a ricochet off grass.
A ricochet will likely be flattened out and spread out the energy too much.

Normal police in other countries fire warning shots.

Bullshit!

I tried to find evidence that they do that, nope zero. Meanwhile I find this showing that a lot of police DO NOT do it anyway for safety of people in the area.

Should cops be able to fire warning shots in tense situations? Even police sharply disagree

Kevin Johnson
USA TODAY

October 25, 2017

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON— A new policy endorsing the use of warning shots by police to de-escalate potentially deadly confrontations is driving a rift among some law enforcement leaders who believe the practice only heightens risk and should be abandoned.

The controversial issue broke into the open during a weekend gathering of the nation’s police chiefs in Philadelphia where some officials called for removing the provision allowing for warning shots contained in the National Consensus Policy on Use of Force.

The policy paper was approved earlier this month by a coalition of police groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the largest society of top law enforcement officials in the country.

"I'll be real candid, I think it's a stupid idea," said James Varrone, assistant police chief in Wilmington, N.C., who first raised the matter Sunday at a law enforcement town hall event staged to coincide with the IACP conference. "I thought the idea of warning shots and the dangers posed by such a policy went away decades ago or longer than I have been in law enforcement – and that's been 31 years.''

LINK

======

You are wrong so many times, you need to stop the made up B.S.

Warning shots went out after the 1970’s in pretty much all departments. By the 1980’s they were essentially banned.



Comeback means they were used.

My comment was intended this way. Give the police the best training and the most tools possible. The more options available, the more likely the cop can manage the situation without killing someone.

Options. Not requirements.

It was never used and never will be.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't see how the cop had time to do anything else. Seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I don't see how the cop had time to do anything else. Seems pretty obvious to me.

All reasonable peole agree.

This is far more typical of police shootings than the isolated shootings which go bad. He had no time to do anything else and had to stop a threat.

Several people here are offering alternatives but they are all based on supposition. One person points out that the person shot was a juvenile. The officer had no way of knowing that nor how she would have reacted to any other use of force. Essentially others are demanding that cops use ESP to determine how to react.

The victim BTW was the girl nearly hurt or killed with a knife. Had the officer done ANYTHING else she likely would have been killed or hurt bad. In which case the officer would have been blamed for not doing his duty to protect and serve. Cant have it both ways.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes. And No. I know. It is I the cop hater. At least that is what the replies from certain people will claim.

Yes. Shooting a weapon wielding individual is justified to save life.

The problem is totality of the situation. Nobody was hearing the commands of the cop. He wasn’t the loudest voice there. The fighting girls didn’t even see him. Not because they were black. Nor because they were girls.

The term is situational awareness. It takes training to avoid the normal human tendency to focus on one thing. The tunnel vision. A vast majority of you will never have experienced it. But with training you can avoid that deadly mistake.

The girls fighting were seeing nothing but their enemies. Totally normal human reaction. They were not hearing anything. Much less the sounds of the cop shouting.

This is where you need something to startle them. Something to get their attention. A shot into the grass as one example. I watched the video once. My mind screamed fire a shot into the ground. It will startle the girls out of the tunnel.

When the cop fired. At that moment he had a choice. Let another person get stabbed. Wounded. Possibly killed. Or shoot.

I don’t find fault with the shooting at the time it happened. But here again is where my often advocated position comes in. A study into the totality of events. Alternatives that can be thought of. Alternatives that may be available to the next cop in the next situation. Alternatives that may save a life later. And there are always alternatives. There are always lessons to be learned.

The biggest thing is think. It is hard to think in a stressful situation. The ability to do so is invaluable. This is where training comes in. Teaching people to think when the stress is on. Teaching them to avoid that tunnel vision.

The more you know. The better you are. We should milk incidents like this for every ounce of information.

It was a justified shooting IMO. It was still regrettable. And I would like to think of ways to avoid it if possible next time. I don’t want to see anyone die. Cop or civilian. If it can possibly be avoided.

You know why you don't fire into the ground? One word: ricochet.

Also, startling someone who's already swinging a knife at someone is an excellent way to make them lurch forward and CONTINUE THE SWING. Ever hear of momentum? Ever get startled by a loud, unexpected sound behind you? Did you freeze, or did you jump? Moron.

Maybe YOU should try thinking before flapping your gob about things you clearly know nothing about.

Unless you hit a boulder, you are not going to get a ricochet from shooting into the ground.
And 99.9999% of ricochets are harmless, not only because the energy is vastly dissipated, but because the odds of it being in a direction to kill, is so extremely tiny.

Any level shot, at someone, is thousands of times more risky because they can over penetrate the target, and are in line with all the other people standing on the ground, in houses, etc.
Almost every shot police fire these days is incredibly risky and stupid, and almost always harms innocent people.

And no, a loud shot flinch NEVER makes them continue a swing.
It causes muscles to contract, pulling in the extremities to shield the body, instinctively.

You think I made this up or something?
No, 50 years ago police were TRAINED to ALWAYS fire warning shots.
Any rational or sane person would ALWAYS do that.

You are a fool

Police were never trained to fire warning shots. A warning shot has to come down somewhere and can kill an innocent.

Ricochets happen without builders and yes they can still hit with more than anough energy to kill.

Few innocents are harmed by cops

Wrong.
Police always used to be trained to fire warning shots.
They just stopped for no good reason.

First of all, it is easy to fire a warning shot into the grass so you don't have to shoot up into the air.
But traditionally people all over the world commonly shoot into the air without injury.
This is even common in LA on the the 4th of July.
The reason for the lack of injury is that air friction prevents the bullet from regaining much velocity on the way down, and there is so much open space that hitting a person is nearly impossible.
Ricochets also are likely too weak and unlikely to hit anything.
And you are not going to get a ricochet off grass.
A ricochet will likely be flattened out and spread out the energy too much.

Normal police in other countries fire warning shots.

Bullshit!

I tried to find evidence that they do that, nope zero. Meanwhile I find this showing that a lot of police DO NOT do it anyway for safety of people in the area.

Should cops be able to fire warning shots in tense situations? Even police sharply disagree

Kevin Johnson
USA TODAY

October 25, 2017

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON— A new policy endorsing the use of warning shots by police to de-escalate potentially deadly confrontations is driving a rift among some law enforcement leaders who believe the practice only heightens risk and should be abandoned.

The controversial issue broke into the open during a weekend gathering of the nation’s police chiefs in Philadelphia where some officials called for removing the provision allowing for warning shots contained in the National Consensus Policy on Use of Force.

The policy paper was approved earlier this month by a coalition of police groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the largest society of top law enforcement officials in the country.

"I'll be real candid, I think it's a stupid idea," said James Varrone, assistant police chief in Wilmington, N.C., who first raised the matter Sunday at a law enforcement town hall event staged to coincide with the IACP conference. "I thought the idea of warning shots and the dangers posed by such a policy went away decades ago or longer than I have been in law enforcement – and that's been 31 years.''

LINK

======

You are wrong so many times, you need to stop the made up B.S.

Warning shots went out after the 1970’s in pretty much all departments. By the 1980’s they were essentially banned.



Comeback means they were used.

My comment was intended this way. Give the police the best training and the most tools possible. The more options available, the more likely the cop can manage the situation without killing someone.

Options. Not requirements.

It was never used and never will be.

You must be a young person. The problem with young people is they act as though everything started in the day they were born. History is boring. And they detest hearing all those dates and people who are already dead.

Warning shots were policy decades ago. The link I posted included a quote from a respected firearms trainer and former cop who confirmed they were used decades ago.

I have mentioned this before. Radicals misuse many words. Anything they do not like is a lie. The problem is that things that actually happened are not lies. To a radical no matter what extreme political philosophy they advocate, any information that does not meet the political standard is a lie.

This is why totalitarians always rewrite history books. To exclude the information that does not agree with their political philosophy.

Your own actions have exposed yourself as a radical. An extremist. And if you were in power you would first kill all the academics and anyone old enough to know the truth. It is why the majority reject radicals no matter the political stripes they wear.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes. And No. I know. It is I the cop hater. At least that is what the replies from certain people will claim.

Yes. Shooting a weapon wielding individual is justified to save life.

The problem is totality of the situation. Nobody was hearing the commands of the cop. He wasn’t the loudest voice there. The fighting girls didn’t even see him. Not because they were black. Nor because they were girls.

The term is situational awareness. It takes training to avoid the normal human tendency to focus on one thing. The tunnel vision. A vast majority of you will never have experienced it. But with training you can avoid that deadly mistake.

The girls fighting were seeing nothing but their enemies. Totally normal human reaction. They were not hearing anything. Much less the sounds of the cop shouting.

This is where you need something to startle them. Something to get their attention. A shot into the grass as one example. I watched the video once. My mind screamed fire a shot into the ground. It will startle the girls out of the tunnel.

When the cop fired. At that moment he had a choice. Let another person get stabbed. Wounded. Possibly killed. Or shoot.

I don’t find fault with the shooting at the time it happened. But here again is where my often advocated position comes in. A study into the totality of events. Alternatives that can be thought of. Alternatives that may be available to the next cop in the next situation. Alternatives that may save a life later. And there are always alternatives. There are always lessons to be learned.

The biggest thing is think. It is hard to think in a stressful situation. The ability to do so is invaluable. This is where training comes in. Teaching people to think when the stress is on. Teaching them to avoid that tunnel vision.

The more you know. The better you are. We should milk incidents like this for every ounce of information.

It was a justified shooting IMO. It was still regrettable. And I would like to think of ways to avoid it if possible next time. I don’t want to see anyone die. Cop or civilian. If it can possibly be avoided.

You know why you don't fire into the ground? One word: ricochet.

Also, startling someone who's already swinging a knife at someone is an excellent way to make them lurch forward and CONTINUE THE SWING. Ever hear of momentum? Ever get startled by a loud, unexpected sound behind you? Did you freeze, or did you jump? Moron.

Maybe YOU should try thinking before flapping your gob about things you clearly know nothing about.

Unless you hit a boulder, you are not going to get a ricochet from shooting into the ground.
And 99.9999% of ricochets are harmless, not only because the energy is vastly dissipated, but because the odds of it being in a direction to kill, is so extremely tiny.

Any level shot, at someone, is thousands of times more risky because they can over penetrate the target, and are in line with all the other people standing on the ground, in houses, etc.
Almost every shot police fire these days is incredibly risky and stupid, and almost always harms innocent people.

And no, a loud shot flinch NEVER makes them continue a swing.
It causes muscles to contract, pulling in the extremities to shield the body, instinctively.

You think I made this up or something?
No, 50 years ago police were TRAINED to ALWAYS fire warning shots.
Any rational or sane person would ALWAYS do that.

You are a fool

Police were never trained to fire warning shots. A warning shot has to come down somewhere and can kill an innocent.

Ricochets happen without builders and yes they can still hit with more than anough energy to kill.

Few innocents are harmed by cops

Wrong.
Police always used to be trained to fire warning shots.
They just stopped for no good reason.

First of all, it is easy to fire a warning shot into the grass so you don't have to shoot up into the air.
But traditionally people all over the world commonly shoot into the air without injury.
This is even common in LA on the the 4th of July.
The reason for the lack of injury is that air friction prevents the bullet from regaining much velocity on the way down, and there is so much open space that hitting a person is nearly impossible.
Ricochets also are likely too weak and unlikely to hit anything.
And you are not going to get a ricochet off grass.
A ricochet will likely be flattened out and spread out the energy too much.

Normal police in other countries fire warning shots.

Bullshit!

I tried to find evidence that they do that, nope zero. Meanwhile I find this showing that a lot of police DO NOT do it anyway for safety of people in the area.

Should cops be able to fire warning shots in tense situations? Even police sharply disagree

Kevin Johnson
USA TODAY

October 25, 2017

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON— A new policy endorsing the use of warning shots by police to de-escalate potentially deadly confrontations is driving a rift among some law enforcement leaders who believe the practice only heightens risk and should be abandoned.

The controversial issue broke into the open during a weekend gathering of the nation’s police chiefs in Philadelphia where some officials called for removing the provision allowing for warning shots contained in the National Consensus Policy on Use of Force.

The policy paper was approved earlier this month by a coalition of police groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the largest society of top law enforcement officials in the country.

"I'll be real candid, I think it's a stupid idea," said James Varrone, assistant police chief in Wilmington, N.C., who first raised the matter Sunday at a law enforcement town hall event staged to coincide with the IACP conference. "I thought the idea of warning shots and the dangers posed by such a policy went away decades ago or longer than I have been in law enforcement – and that's been 31 years.''

LINK

======

You are wrong so many times, you need to stop the made up B.S.

Warning shots went out after the 1970’s in pretty much all departments. By the 1980’s they were essentially banned.



Comeback means they were used.

My comment was intended this way. Give the police the best training and the most tools possible. The more options available, the more likely the cop can manage the situation without killing someone.

Options. Not requirements.

It was never used and never will be.

You must be a young person. The problem with young people is they act as though everything started in the day they were born. History is boring. And they detest hearing all those dates and people who are already dead.

Warning shots were policy decades ago. The link I posted included a quote from a respected firearms trainer and former cop who confirmed they were used decades ago.

I have mentioned this before. Radicals misuse many words. Anything they do not like is a lie. The problem is that things that actually happened are not lies. To a radical no matter what extreme political philosophy they advocate, any information that does not meet the political standard is a lie.

This is why totalitarians always rewrite history books. To exclude the information that does not agree with their political philosophy.

Your own actions have exposed yourself as a radical. An extremist. And if you were in power you would first kill all the academics and anyone old enough to know the truth. It is why the majority reject radicals no matter the political stripes they wear.

Im probably older than you and they were never policy.

You are not old enough or smart enough to know the truth.

The facts about firearms have been true for centuries and warning shots are not used and never were. They are unpredictable dangerous and only serve to escalate situations and create more legal problems.

You are simply wrong and projecting it is YOU spinning and attempting to write revisionist fiction as history
Grow up BOY

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes. And No. I know. It is I the cop hater. At least that is what the replies from certain people will claim.

Yes. Shooting a weapon wielding individual is justified to save life.

The problem is totality of the situation. Nobody was hearing the commands of the cop. He wasn’t the loudest voice there. The fighting girls didn’t even see him. Not because they were black. Nor because they were girls.

The term is situational awareness. It takes training to avoid the normal human tendency to focus on one thing. The tunnel vision. A vast majority of you will never have experienced it. But with training you can avoid that deadly mistake.

The girls fighting were seeing nothing but their enemies. Totally normal human reaction. They were not hearing anything. Much less the sounds of the cop shouting.

This is where you need something to startle them. Something to get their attention. A shot into the grass as one example. I watched the video once. My mind screamed fire a shot into the ground. It will startle the girls out of the tunnel.

When the cop fired. At that moment he had a choice. Let another person get stabbed. Wounded. Possibly killed. Or shoot.

I don’t find fault with the shooting at the time it happened. But here again is where my often advocated position comes in. A study into the totality of events. Alternatives that can be thought of. Alternatives that may be available to the next cop in the next situation. Alternatives that may save a life later. And there are always alternatives. There are always lessons to be learned.

The biggest thing is think. It is hard to think in a stressful situation. The ability to do so is invaluable. This is where training comes in. Teaching people to think when the stress is on. Teaching them to avoid that tunnel vision.

The more you know. The better you are. We should milk incidents like this for every ounce of information.

It was a justified shooting IMO. It was still regrettable. And I would like to think of ways to avoid it if possible next time. I don’t want to see anyone die. Cop or civilian. If it can possibly be avoided.

You know why you don't fire into the ground? One word: ricochet.

Also, startling someone who's already swinging a knife at someone is an excellent way to make them lurch forward and CONTINUE THE SWING. Ever hear of momentum? Ever get startled by a loud, unexpected sound behind you? Did you freeze, or did you jump? Moron.

Maybe YOU should try thinking before flapping your gob about things you clearly know nothing about.

Unless you hit a boulder, you are not going to get a ricochet from shooting into the ground.
And 99.9999% of ricochets are harmless, not only because the energy is vastly dissipated, but because the odds of it being in a direction to kill, is so extremely tiny.

Any level shot, at someone, is thousands of times more risky because they can over penetrate the target, and are in line with all the other people standing on the ground, in houses, etc.
Almost every shot police fire these days is incredibly risky and stupid, and almost always harms innocent people.

And no, a loud shot flinch NEVER makes them continue a swing.
It causes muscles to contract, pulling in the extremities to shield the body, instinctively.

You think I made this up or something?
No, 50 years ago police were TRAINED to ALWAYS fire warning shots.
Any rational or sane person would ALWAYS do that.

You are a fool

Police were never trained to fire warning shots. A warning shot has to come down somewhere and can kill an innocent.

Ricochets happen without builders and yes they can still hit with more than anough energy to kill.

Few innocents are harmed by cops

Wrong.
Police always used to be trained to fire warning shots.
They just stopped for no good reason.

First of all, it is easy to fire a warning shot into the grass so you don't have to shoot up into the air.
But traditionally people all over the world commonly shoot into the air without injury.
This is even common in LA on the the 4th of July.
The reason for the lack of injury is that air friction prevents the bullet from regaining much velocity on the way down, and there is so much open space that hitting a person is nearly impossible.
Ricochets also are likely too weak and unlikely to hit anything.
And you are not going to get a ricochet off grass.
A ricochet will likely be flattened out and spread out the energy too much.

Normal police in other countries fire warning shots.

Bullshit!

I tried to find evidence that they do that, nope zero. Meanwhile I find this showing that a lot of police DO NOT do it anyway for safety of people in the area.

Should cops be able to fire warning shots in tense situations? Even police sharply disagree

Kevin Johnson
USA TODAY

October 25, 2017

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON— A new policy endorsing the use of warning shots by police to de-escalate potentially deadly confrontations is driving a rift among some law enforcement leaders who believe the practice only heightens risk and should be abandoned.

The controversial issue broke into the open during a weekend gathering of the nation’s police chiefs in Philadelphia where some officials called for removing the provision allowing for warning shots contained in the National Consensus Policy on Use of Force.

The policy paper was approved earlier this month by a coalition of police groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the largest society of top law enforcement officials in the country.

"I'll be real candid, I think it's a stupid idea," said James Varrone, assistant police chief in Wilmington, N.C., who first raised the matter Sunday at a law enforcement town hall event staged to coincide with the IACP conference. "I thought the idea of warning shots and the dangers posed by such a policy went away decades ago or longer than I have been in law enforcement – and that's been 31 years.''

LINK

======

You are wrong so many times, you need to stop the made up B.S.

Warning shots went out after the 1970’s in pretty much all departments. By the 1980’s they were essentially banned.



Comeback means they were used.

My comment was intended this way. Give the police the best training and the most tools possible. The more options available, the more likely the cop can manage the situation without killing someone.

Options. Not requirements.

It was never used and never will be.

You must be a young person. The problem with young people is they act as though everything started in the day they were born. History is boring. And they detest hearing all those dates and people who are already dead.

Warning shots were policy decades ago. The link I posted included a quote from a respected firearms trainer and former cop who confirmed they were used decades ago.

I have mentioned this before. Radicals misuse many words. Anything they do not like is a lie. The problem is that things that actually happened are not lies. To a radical no matter what extreme political philosophy they advocate, any information that does not meet the political standard is a lie.

This is why totalitarians always rewrite history books. To exclude the information that does not agree with their political philosophy.

Your own actions have exposed yourself as a radical. An extremist. And if you were in power you would first kill all the academics and anyone old enough to know the truth. It is why the majority reject radicals no matter the political stripes they wear.

Im probably older than you and they were never policy.

You are not old enough or smart enough to know the truth.

The facts about firearms have been true for centuries and warning shots are not used and never were. They are unpredictable dangerous and only serve to escalate situations and create more legal problems.

You are simply wrong and projecting it is YOU spinning and attempting to write revisionist fiction as history
Grow up BOY

From the article.

Ayoob says fear of mishaps drove warning shots out of policing by the time he started as a cop in the 1970s. But now it may be making a comeback.

"There was a lot of discussion," says the IACP's Terry Cunningham, describing the process that led the 11 law enforcement organizations to include warning shots in the new consensus use of force policy. Cunningham was struck by the anecdotes of situations in which warning shots saved a life — or might have, had they been allowed.

He knows they were permitted and even policy. But hey. What does a cop know about what the police used to do?

 

[eddiew37]

IMHO there is no justification for the police to allow anyone to murder an unarmed person.
The girl with the knife is attempting to murder an unarmed girl, totally unacceptable.
Anyone who blames the cop for anything other than doing his job "protecting" the unarmed girl is a racist gaslighting POS.

Police release body cam footage in fatal shooting of teenage girl in Ohio

The victim has been identified as 16-year-old Ma'Khia Bryant.

www.cbsnews.com

View attachment 482782

The Biden admin just can't stop blaming cops instead of blaming criminals!? The GOP has lots of ammo for 2022 and 2024.

Repubs vote against the covid bill will damn republicans for many elections Republicans are dead men walking

 

[TheParser]

Yes, it was justified.

The cop's action made sure that the perp would not attack another person in the future.

Just heard on the news that the perp's mother is planning a lawsuit.

 

[dannyboys]

Amost certainly NO.

A more proficient police officer would have been able to remedy the situation so that it didn't result in death.

Death was the outcome and that can never be seen as a successful handling of the situation.

Once again it simply boils down to bad policing that's due to a lack of police concern for black lives.

It would be a near certainty that had the knife wielder been a white child and the intended victim a black child, the outcome would have been different and more desirable.

Americans can't understand this and so the fight to reform their police will be long, which will most likely result in police pushing the envelope on their right to kill to even greater heights.

This is idiotic. The girl was a second away from stabbing another girl. It's called saving a life. The police officer acted correctly, and luckily he acted he quickly.

In this instance a life may or may not have been saved.
It's more complicated than just that.

The real issue is of course the high incidence of police attending a crime scene or just a 'potential' crime scene and it ending in death. That's clearly saying that America's policing is failing.

I don't recognize you name mike so maybe I haven't talked to you before?

I'll offer this as an attempt at having a rational conversation.

btw, I'm a Canadian.

If YOUR daughter was the one wearing all pink would YOU have suggested the LEO "fire a warning shot" at the primate with the knife? Let's have a "rational conversation" about that REALITY! ASSHOLE!
Even CNN's 'Primate Prince' Don Lemon says the shooting was justified.

 

[there4eyeM]

I don't see how the cop had time to do anything else. Seems pretty obvious to me.

The only thing needed to be said in this thread.

 

[dannyboys]

"Failure" is kids using knives on other kids, like in Ohio, or guns on other kids, like in Chicago.
If kids use guns or knives, then the cops can and should kill them as a deterrent.
Whose fault is it when kids use knives and guns? Ans: not ours or the cops.

Yeah, failure is American kids using knives (or guns) on other American kids, like in ...........................

And the cops should come and kill as many American kids as possible as a deterrent.

When American kids use knives and guns it's those American kids' fault.

Not Canada's or Canadian cops. We value human lives but we're all commies and far less likely to be Christians.

I do understand the reason for your anger and frustration and so I make no attempt to disagree with your analysis of the situation with America's children. Dead ones won't become killers in foreign lands.

That's enough out of you asshole.
Move into any inner city shithole and take your daughter and wife with you.
Permanent ignore.

 

[dannyboys]

Amost certainly NO.

A more proficient police officer would have been able to remedy the situation so that it didn't result in death.

Death was the outcome and that can never be seen as a successful handling of the situation.

Once again it simply boils down to bad policing that's due to a lack of police concern for black lives.

It would be a near certainty that had the knife wielder been a white child and the intended victim a black child, the outcome would have been different and more desirable.

Americans can't understand this and so the fight to reform their police will be long, which will most likely result in police pushing the envelope on their right to kill to even greater heights.

Dumbass Leftist ...

If that was you daughter about to be stabbed would you have been so eager to depend on "a more proficient police office" ...

You may be fooling yourself but, no other normal thinking person.

We don't know that blood was assured.
The woman with the knife just pushed the one woman down, and she could have used the knife instead then, if she had wanted to.
And there still is not reason for no warning shot, or not stopping after 1 shot.

I think all LEO's should attend the 'Roy Roger's How to shoot a knife out of a person's hand' class'.

 

[LordBrownTrout]