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

[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

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?

They were never policy he is expressing opinion only

Cops have always been taught not to do that and that is fact.

It is foolish and never done nor should it be

Wrong.
Warning shots were always historically the norm, and only were wrongly stopped in the 1970s for some reason involving litigation.
There was never a good or practical reason for stopping warning shots.
Warning shots were always a good idea when appropriate.

 

[Dragonlady]

I have to say the shooting was NOT justified. Clearly the police should not be risking their careers, nor the safety of their communities to protect black lives that don't matter. Had that girl stabbed and killed the other one, there wouldn't be any riots for the victim, because they only riot and loot for thugs.

There's no question that by far most Americans who post on this board are vile racists and extremists.

Is that representative of Americans in general or is this board an extreme anomaly? What do you think rogue? Do you have the support of the majority of Americans on your vile racism and hate toward people of colour?

What are you talking about? Can you point out when BLM and their insurrectionist friends ever rioted for an innocent person and not a thug? Go on, I'll wait.

The only racism I see is if from the left. Can't even say 'it's ok to be white', but black lives matter. How is that not racist? Oh right, it is, that's the liberal way.

Lots of unarmed kids who committed no crime have been killed, like Tamir Rice, and unarmed women who committed no crime like Breonna Taylor.

Give the circumstances, because otherwise you are lying. That drug dealer Taylor's boyfriend fired on cops, her death was not only justified it the boyfriend's fault, not the police. Was the Rice kid resisting or running from the cops? That's what thugs do. Our overcrowded prison system proves you can actually get arrested in this country without dying.

1. Taylor's boyfriend was not a drug dealer, and he was licensed to own and carry that weapon.

2. The warrant the police were serving was on a former tenant of that apartment, who had not lived at that address is more than a year, and who was already in jail when they tried to serve the warrant.

3. The police failed to identified themselves when they busted down the door, and the residents thought it was a home invasion, causing Taylor's boyfriend to open fire in self defense under the "Castle Doctrine" you loons like to cite.

4. The police officer who filed for that warrant without verifying that the target of the warrant was still at large, and still lived at that address, should have been charged with perjury and negligent homicide. He signed an Affidavit in applying for that warrant saying that he had verified with the post office that the suspect still lived at that address, and the postmaster said that no such verification was asked for or given.

BECAUSE THE COP PERJURED HIMSELF ON THE WARRANT APPLICATION, BREONNA TAYLOR DIED. THERE NEEDS TO BE CHARGES.

 

[Rigby5]

1. How do you know there was no other option? The police didn't even tell her to drop the knife. They just rolled up and opened fire without even trying other options. This is exactly the time to use the taser.

2. The girl dropped the knife when the first shot hit her. Why was it necessary to shoot her 3 more times in the chest? She might have survived one bullet.

3. What if the girl who was shot was the one being attacked and she was defending herself? That's what the bystanders said was happening. The 15 year old girl was being attacked by two adults, and she was defending herself with a KITCHEN knife. Her attackers were in no danger of being killed by that knife.

4. The voters have already decided and it's not a police force that shoots first and asks questions later.

American police shoot and kill more than 1000 people per year. They are more likely to shoot black people without trying to resolve the situation, than white people. A lot more likely. Furthermore, when police shoot white people, they are more likely to survive the shooting than black people. One shot will general stop them. Emptying clips into people generally kills them.

Very well said but it's not going to be received with any understanding by the people on this forum who are here to voice their extremist hating and racism. Most are making no attempt to hide their ugly dispositions.

You've said basically the same as what I tried to tell them, in just a few words. A police officer who attends a crime scene or potential crime scene that ends in a death or deaths, has failed the requirements of his/her job.

Good police officers would agree with that. I know that no Canadian police force would refuse to accept that as a minimum standard. Can it be impressed on America's police forces to accept it too? It's a very low bar to meet.

Exactly.
Not knowing what was actually happening, the police would have been better off doing nothing than to ensure the death of a 16 year old with 4 close range, .40S&W hollow point shots.
They ensured a worse outcome than if they had done nothing.

 

[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

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?

They were never policy he is expressing opinion only

Cops have always been taught not to do that and that is fact.

It is foolish and never done nor should it be

Wrong.
Warning shots not only always USED to be police policy, but always make sense, and are less dangerous.
They only stopped teaching warning shots to new police in the 1970s.
A shot aimed at a person is a thousand times more dangerous than a warning shot aimed at the ground, because a miss is always then going to be exactly aimed on a plane of where all the people are.

Wrong.

they were never the norm and never policy. They were sometimes done but not accordiong to policy and always discouraged if not forbidden and for very good reasons.

They never taught warning shots but PRECISELY the opposite

Yes a shot aimed at a person is more dangerous than one randomly aimed somewhere else. Bot that is irrelevant. You do not fire a weapon unless you habve reason to KILL and if you do then you shoot THAT target until that target IS DOWN.

Much like this case which was a perfectly reasonable and justified use of lethal force


That has always been the norm.

 

[Dragonlady]

1. How do you know there was no other option? The police didn't even tell her to drop the knife. They just rolled up and opened fire without even trying other options. This is exactly the time to use the taser.

2. The girl dropped the knife when the first shot hit her. Why was it necessary to shoot her 3 more times in the chest? She might have survived one bullet.

3. What if the girl who was shot was the one being attacked and she was defending herself? That's what the bystanders said was happening. The 15 year old girl was being attacked by two adults, and she was defending herself with a KITCHEN knife. Her attackers were in no danger of being killed by that knife.

4. The voters have already decided and it's not a police force that shoots first and asks questions later.

American police shoot and kill more than 1000 people per year. They are more likely to shoot black people without trying to resolve the situation, than white people. A lot more likely. Furthermore, when police shoot white people, they are more likely to survive the shooting than black people. One shot will general stop them. Emptying clips into people generally kills them.

Very well said but it's not going to be received with any understanding by the people on this forum who are here to voice their extremist hating and racism. Most are making no attempt to hide their ugly dispositions.

You've said basically the same as what I tried to tell them, in just a few words. A police officer who attends a crime scene or potential crime scene that ends in a death or deaths, has failed the requirements of his/her job.

Good police officers would agree with that. I know that no Canadian police force would refuse to accept that as a minimum standard. Can it be impressed on America's police forces to accept it too? It's a very low bar to meet.

It really needs to be driven home to Americans that police forces around the world deal with violent criminals every day without murdering 1000 civilians, a hugely disproportionate number of whom are minorities. Canada doesn't have the best record with the police and indigeonous peoples either, but at least our cops aren't gunning them down by the hundreds.

 

[Donald H]

With the large majority of people who post on this board, their Racism trumps all else. They have no interest in saving human lives when they are stuck with seeing the victims as black people.

There's no possibility of having a discussion with that kind of people.

It only begs the question: How deep does the poisoning of the American mindset reach into the population as a whole?

For these Americans at least, there's no other option other than victory over black people by force. The force of murder being their quite acceptable resolution.

Canada ranked #1 country in the world for Quality of Life | News

For the fifth year in a row, Canada is ranked the #1 country in the world in 2020 for Quality of Life, according to a global ranking from US News.

dailyhive.com

15th. on quality of life already. When will America stop the bleeding?

 

[Donald H]

It really needs to be driven home to Americans that police forces around the world deal with violent criminals every day without murdering 1000 civilians, a hugely disproportionate number of whom are minorities. Canada doesn't have the best record with the police and indigeonous peoples either, but at least our cops aren't gunning them down by the hundreds.

How disheartening to hear that you're not an American!

 

[Dragonlady]

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?

They were never policy he is expressing opinion only

Cops have always been taught not to do that and that is fact.

It is foolish and never done nor should it be

Wrong.
Warning shots not only always USED to be police policy, but always make sense, and are less dangerous.
They only stopped teaching warning shots to new police in the 1970s.
A shot aimed at a person is a thousand times more dangerous than a warning shot aimed at the ground, because a miss is always then going to be exactly aimed on a plane of where all the people are.

Wrong.

they were never the norm and never policy. They were sometimes done but not accordiong to policy and always discouraged if not forbidden and for very good reasons.

They never taught warning shots but PRECISELY the opposite

Yes a shot aimed at a person is more dangerous than one randomly aimed somewhere else. Bot that is irrelevant. You do not fire a weapon unless you habve reason to KILL and if you do then you shoot THAT target until that target IS DOWN.

Much like this case which was a perfectly reasonable and justified use of lethal force


That has always been the norm.

Well if it has always been the norm, then it has always been WRONG. You're treating citizens and civilians as a deadly threat under any circumstances. This is a military response, and completely inappropriate outside of a war setting.

If this is what policing in the USA really is and always has been, then those who want to defund the police are absolutely right. You need to get rid of these killers and start over. They are neither "serving" nor "protecting" their communities, they're terrorizing them.

"Getting shot by a cop" is the 6th leading cause of death for young black males:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/08/police-shootings-are-leading-cause-death-young-american-men-new-research-shows/

 

[Rogue AI]

I have to say the shooting was NOT justified. Clearly the police should not be risking their careers, nor the safety of their communities to protect black lives that don't matter. Had that girl stabbed and killed the other one, there wouldn't be any riots for the victim, because they only riot and loot for thugs.

There's no question that by far most Americans who post on this board are vile racists and extremists.

Is that representative of Americans in general or is this board an extreme anomaly? What do you think rogue? Do you have the support of the majority of Americans on your vile racism and hate toward people of colour?

What are you talking about? Can you point out when BLM and their insurrectionist friends ever rioted for an innocent person and not a thug? Go on, I'll wait.

The only racism I see is if from the left. Can't even say 'it's ok to be white', but black lives matter. How is that not racist? Oh right, it is, that's the liberal way.

Lots of unarmed kids who committed no crime have been killed, like Tamir Rice, and unarmed women who committed no crime like Breonna Taylor.

Give the circumstances, because otherwise you are lying. That drug dealer Taylor's boyfriend fired on cops, her death was not only justified it the boyfriend's fault, not the police. Was the Rice kid resisting or running from the cops? That's what thugs do. Our overcrowded prison system proves you can actually get arrested in this country without dying.

Wrong.
First of all, no one at the Taylor house had dealt any drugs or even violated any law at all.
Second is that the no-knock warrant was illegal since there was no probable cause to even consider a violation of the law was even possible.
Third is that the police entirely caused the situation by smashing down the door in the middle of the night, causing great fear and anxiety.
The boyfriend has the right to shoot all the cops because of his inherent right of defense.
The boyfriend only fired one shot into the ground.
Breonna was not near the boyfriend and was not armed, so there was no justification for even aiming at her, much less shooting.
What you suggest is like the police being called for a bank robbery alarm, and they then be justified in shooting up the innocent customers if they get shot at.
Doesn't work that way.
Breonna Taylor was who the police were supposed to be working for, and it is essentially treason for them to then shoot her for no reason.

No knock warrant means it was sanctioned by the state. That translates to known thugs and legitimate reason for the police to be there. Next...

 

[Donald H]

No knock warrant means it was sanctioned by the state. That translates to known thugs and legitimate reason for the police to be there. Next...

Or it could also mean that those warrants are granted with impunity when there are black people involved.

Either way, the battle lines are drawn.

And either way, the destruction of America by it's own domestic political fighting can't be a negative for world peace and the rapid advancement of other countries rising to take America's place.

Can decent Americans rescue their country soon enough to save it? Not judging by the ugliness displayed on this board by a longshot.

 

[Rogue AI]

No knock warrant means it was sanctioned by the state. That translates to known thugs and legitimate reason for the police to be there. Next...

Or it could also mean that those warrants are granted with impunity when there are black people involved.

Either way, the battle lines are drawn.

And either way, the destruction of America by it's own domestic political fighting can't be a negative for world peace and the rapid advancement of other countries rising to take America's place.

Can decent Americans rescue their country soon enough to save it? Not judging by the ugliness displayed on this board by a longshot.

That's a baseless accusation, you may as well blame the vast right wing conspiracy or whatever other silliness you can dream up.

Destruction of what? The problem is and always was thugs getting themselves killed by resisting arrest. The only systemic problem we are seeing is systemic stupidity that seems rampant in thug life. What's even more stupid is the the white guilt monkeys that are supporting this nonsense. Every case in which there has been rioting all started with legitimate police conduct that only turned sour after the thugs in question resisted, fled, or otherwise instigated trouble.

 

[Donald H]

That's a baseless accusation, you may as well blame the vast right wing conspiracy or whatever other silliness you can dream up.

Destruction of what? The problem is and always was thugs getting themselves killed by resisting arrest. The only systemic problem we are seeing is systemic stupidity that seems rampant in thug life. What's even more stupid is the the white guilt monkeys that are supporting this nonsense. Every case in which there has been rioting all started with legitimate police conduct that only turned sour after the thugs in question resisted, fled, or otherwise instigated trouble.

It looks like the fight is on with America's police. Black America will get some licks in and white supremacists will die too.
Black America has momentum and has come too far to turn back now. It shows promise of long and bloody fight.

White Americans will have to weigh the price when their babies become victims too.

Can a democracy survive a fight on that high a scale?

Maybe we white Canadians can be of some help in reasoning, before it has progressed too far for turning back.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's a baseless accusation, you may as well blame the vast right wing conspiracy or whatever other silliness you can dream up.

Destruction of what? The problem is and always was thugs getting themselves killed by resisting arrest. The only systemic problem we are seeing is systemic stupidity that seems rampant in thug life. What's even more stupid is the the white guilt monkeys that are supporting this nonsense. Every case in which there has been rioting all started with legitimate police conduct that only turned sour after the thugs in question resisted, fled, or otherwise instigated trouble.

It looks like the fight is on with America's police. Black America will get some licks in and white supremacists will die too.
Black America has momentum and has come too far to turn back now. It shows promise of long and bloody fight.

White Americans will have to weigh the price when their babies become victims too.

Can a democracy survive a fight on that high a scale?

Maybe we white Canadians can be of some help in reasoning, before it has progressed too far for turning back.

Black America has momentum and has come too far to turn back now.

You bet!!

Just look what their momentum has done for Ferguson.

 

[22lcidw]

With the large majority of people who post on this board, their Racism trumps all else. They have no interest in saving human lives when they are stuck with seeing the victims as black people.

There's no possibility of having a discussion with that kind of people.

It only begs the question: How deep does the poisoning of the American mindset reach into the population as a whole?

For these Americans at least, there's no other option other than victory over black people by force. The force of murder being their quite acceptable resolution.

Canada ranked #1 country in the world for Quality of Life | News

For the fifth year in a row, Canada is ranked the #1 country in the world in 2020 for Quality of Life, according to a global ranking from US News.

dailyhive.com

15th. on quality of life already. When will America stop the bleeding?

If people will not voluntarily become civil then they will be forced to at some point. Lower the single parent families in the affected areas to start. One way or the other. Then improve the schools throwing out troublemakers who disrupt and affect other students. Lots of bleeding reduced there.

 

[Rogue AI]

That's a baseless accusation, you may as well blame the vast right wing conspiracy or whatever other silliness you can dream up.

Destruction of what? The problem is and always was thugs getting themselves killed by resisting arrest. The only systemic problem we are seeing is systemic stupidity that seems rampant in thug life. What's even more stupid is the the white guilt monkeys that are supporting this nonsense. Every case in which there has been rioting all started with legitimate police conduct that only turned sour after the thugs in question resisted, fled, or otherwise instigated trouble.

It looks like the fight is on with America's police. Black America will get some licks in and white supremacists will die too.
Black America has momentum and has come too far to turn back now. It shows promise of long and bloody fight.

White Americans will have to weigh the price when their babies become victims too.

Can a democracy survive a fight on that high a scale?

Maybe we white Canadians can be of some help in reasoning, before it has progressed too far for turning back.

Not really, this is an urban/near suburb problem, not an American problem. It's actually like so many idiotic liberal themes. A relatively small number of people/cases being so overblown by the whiny liberal press to make it seem like something of national importance. People are starting to get it though, all these cases start with resisting arrest, and more and more people are deciding that's not something people should riot for.

 

[Donald H]

If people will not voluntarily become civil then they will be forced to at some point. Lower the single parent families in the affected areas to start. One way or the other. Then improve the schools throwing out troublemakers who disrupt and affect other students. Lots of bleeding reduced there.

I like your idea of 'lowering the single parent families in affected areas!'

In Canada the way we would face trying to achieve that goal could become a good topic for discussion.

I won't ask you how you would imagine achieving that goal because it's an issue on which America has failed, shows no signs of success being possible.

In Canada for example: We would begin by looking for reasons why the situation exists to an extreme in an area so inflicted.

It's obviously a very deep social problem for America, while it's not nearly so critical in Canada.

Canada ranked #1 country in the world for Quality of Life | News

For the fifth year in a row, Canada is ranked the #1 country in the world in 2020 for Quality of Life, according to a global ranking from US News.

dailyhive.com

Americans are closer to the problem and so I'll bow to any offer of solutions coming from you. If asked with any sincerity, I might be able to offer help?

 

[John T. Ford]

With the large majority of people who post on this board, their Racism trumps all else. They have no interest in saving human lives when they are stuck with seeing the victims as black people.

There's no possibility of having a discussion with that kind of people.

It only begs the question: How deep does the poisoning of the American mindset reach into the population as a whole?

For these Americans at least, there's no other option other than victory over black people by force. The force of murder being their quite acceptable resolution.

Canada ranked #1 country in the world for Quality of Life | News

For the fifth year in a row, Canada is ranked the #1 country in the world in 2020 for Quality of Life, according to a global ranking from US News.

dailyhive.com

15th. on quality of life already. When will America stop the bleeding?

When dumbass Leftist run out of psycho bullshit to post .... they always play the race card.

And, here is something else genius .....

A life was saved when that LEO shot the woman who was attempting to stabbed the other woman to death.

There's a reason normal thinking people don't take you assholes seriously.

 

[westwall]

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.

No, you're a Chinese stooge. You are also angry, angry, ANGRY, that a bad p

 

[OKTexas]

Wow.....that was one of the dumbest posts of the week.......

The 16 year old was in mid swing when he shot her...you idiot.....

What lack of concern for black lives? None of the statistics on policing actually show this.........blacks in America are 15% of the population but make up over 50% of all violent crime....and the victims of that crime are other blacks, just like in this attempted murder.....

Over 40 million police interactions with citizens.....few deaths, and of those deaths, the criminals are the ones escalating to the point where lethal force has to be used....you moron.

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

A life saved is the measure, you idiot.


And as Andrew Klavan pointed out on his podcast on friday....blacks are 15% of the population.....black men are only 7% of the population but account for that 50% of murder....and they are also the highest number of victims of black killers...

He also pointed out that going into the 1960s, Blacks in America were rocketing into the middle class and their fatherless homes percentage were 25%......today, it is now over 75%...that is why there is the crime and violence in black communities and why there are so many black men murdered by black men......

And that 75% is owed to the democrat party and their policies....

I think you just said something meaningful, but I might have misinterpreted your meaning.

The rest is just you voicing your frustration over America's race problem. None of which I would even attempt to rebut without first researching it thoroughly. I won't be doing that here because it's not speaking 'directly' to the issue. It's a somewhat jilted explanation of why there's an issue.
[/QUOTE]


The only problem the US has is political and for profit race baiters and a media that gives them a platform to spread their lies. And you're stupid enough to buy into it.

.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm not really worried about whether or not that you are satisfied that I have an open mind.
1st, there was no intended revolution. Voices wanted to be heard and some people took it a bit too far. Rioting is the voice of the unheard, or so I've been told.

Agreed, and that's why I referred to it as a fantasy revolution. However, we can agree that it was a demonstration of the people's disrest.

The penal system in America started becoming less effective when death sentencing and methods of execution were beginning to see widespread criticism. Liberals decried the treatment of killers and child molesters and soon the treatment of those individuals became nearly the same as the treatment of a bank robber. If you murder someone in cold blood, it is common these days that you won't get as much prison time as some who are convicted of drug crimes. Prison isnt terrible hell like it used to be. Its nor a deterrent at all for those desperate individuals who decide that their wants are more important than others.

You're not showing any indication that you are capable of a discussion and the reason is because you are obsessing on revenge and punitive punishment of offenders. That's failure.

"You're not showing any indication that you are capable of a discussion" Quite sanctimonious aren't you?

I don't think I will be capable of having intelligent discourse with you until perhaps you learn the proper usage of the word punitive. Punitive means to inflict punishment, So "punitive punishment" would imply that i want to inflict punishing punishment.

Did you have a disagreement with the substance of my argument that liberal policies reduced the punitive measures that society could take against criminals and therefore the deterrent to commit crime is less than in years past?

No punitive does not mean punishment exactly. It means to try to deter a behavior by inflicting some sort of punishment.
Since there are many ways that can be done, is not really wrong to talk about punitive punishment.
There are other forms of punishment.
For example, a sadist might employ punishment because they enjoyed it and not as a deterrent.
So punishment is wider range and does not imply an attempt to reinforce better behavior as puni

The only thing I have a problem with is always, no matter the reason, shooting to kill....why can't cops be trained to shoot to maime in certain cases like with an attacker yielding a knife?

Actually, police are trained to aim for center mass. I don't believe they are shooting to kill, they are shooting to stop the target. Center mass being the place where a lot of vital organs are located.

You'd really have a hard time trying to shoot to maim. Trying to shoot for the legs or arms is difficult. You'd end up missing a lot of shots.

I'm sure those with more knowledge will correct me, but I'm thinking this is accurate.

He shot her FOUR TIMES, center mass. 4 shots...not 1 or even twice, or even thrice, but 4 shots?? Why was that necessary?

I don't know. That will be answered in the coming weeks.

I don't necessarily want him to get in trouble....he likely was following procedure or training...

But it is something that should be discussed, out in the open, imo. Is this what we want our law enforcement to continue to do? Is there a way to make it better, so cops are still safe, and fewer perps are killed before their trial and convictions? Is their training the right training, making a traffic ticket, or warrant being served or 20 $ counterfeit used, or a knife wielding person vs a gun pointing at you person, all the same....shoot to kill????

That's just hard to stomach for me......

I don't know. He had seconds to read the situation and a split second to make a decision.

Again, officers are not trying to shoot to kill, they are shooting to stop. That's why you don't see head shots from police. One, because it's harder to hit and also, their goal is not to kill, but to stop the threat.

I know, you are right, it was fast, seconds at most.... hindsight is 20/20 as the saying goes...

I just can't stand to see a person killed, even a bad guy.... and especially a good cop killed.

But it still seems different than most policing, say... 40 to 50 years ago....seemed like, or at least the way cops were portrayed, that they were more willing to put some muscle in to the job, vs just pulling a trigger....

Of course, there was no cell phone video at everyone's finger tips back then, and I could have been living in a fairy tale LaLa land....

That was before the left got woke and decided that enforcing the law was racist.

Shooting a girl 4 times is what is racist.
If the girl looked like Shirly Temple, I doubt any shots would have been fired.

Numerically more whites are shot by police than blacks, so that proves you a liar.

.