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

[ChemEngineer]

I like dogs, and maybe 3 people.

Like me, please? I'll pay ya.

 

[ChemEngineer]

There's a reason normal thinking people don't take you assholes (Donald H) seriously.

Then why do you keep replying to him, encouraging more trolling and nonsense?
There's an Ignore function for a very good reason.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

Exactly Wrong----the 16 year old thugette was trying to murder people. Shooting her to save another was always the right choice....

If close range--the thugette saw the cops was still hell bent on murder.

Despite the emotional spin---the thugette much larger and armed with a knife was the one attacking with the other two unable to do actual harm to her.

Cops are trained to shoot and keep shooting---If you are shot once--expect more shots coming hence it is always better to not be a stupid criminal and get the cops to shoot you. \

The two women were in danger of being hurt or killed by that butcher knife? WTF is wrong with you two?

 

[John T. Ford]

Then why do you keep replying to him, encouraging more trolling and nonsense?
There's an Ignore function for a very good reason.

Who said my comment was for him?

 

[Donald H]

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.

.

So I'm a lying Canadian?
According to Americans, all shootings are good tex.
I don't disagree as long as it's America's domestic business and not mine.

 

[John T. Ford]

The two women were in danger of being hurt or killed by that butcher knife? WTF is wrong with you two?

Leftism !

It is a horrific mental disorder.

 

[Donald H]

The two women were in danger of being hurt or killed by that butcher knife? WTF is wrong with you two?

What's wrong with me soup is that I've never appreciated your deep concern for black women. Now I do!

If you're a christian and you weren't concerned, you would have to start worrying about your next life.

 

[John T. Ford]

What's wrong with me soup is that I've never appreciated your deep concern for black women. Now I do!

If you're a christian and you weren't concerned, you would have to start worrying about your next life.

More dumbass deflection BS.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Then why do you keep replying to him, encouraging more trolling and nonsense?
There's an Ignore function for a very good reason.

Who said my comment was for him?

You replied to nonsense, thereby encouraging more nonsense.

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."

 

[OKTexas]

Truth

So I'm a lying Canadian?

LIE

According to Americans, all shootings are good tex.

Yet you have inserted yourself all through this thread, so I guess this is the second LIE

I don't disagree as long as it's America's domestic business and not mine.

.

 

[gmeyers1944]

This all goes to show that, for the most part, journalism in America is DEAD!

 

[John T. Ford]

You replied to nonsense, thereby encouraging more nonsense.

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."

If I wanted to:

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."

I wouldn't be here.

 

[dannyboys]

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.

You are a fucking LIAR!
There is NO police force on the fucking planet that uses "warning shots'!

 

[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.

You are a fucking LIAR!
There is NO police force on the fucking planet that uses "warning shots'!

And you would be wrong:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/firing-warning-shots-ok-in-some-cases-minister-says-1.1147477

Then there is this, from the United Nations about "use of force" in policing, and notice all of the things that police forces around the world do to minimize the use of force, and the consequences of using force. All things that are NOT happening in police forces all over the USA, when it comes American police forces and minority communities.

Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials

Whereas the work of law enforcement officials 1 is a social service of great importance and there is, therefore, a need to maintain and, whenever necessary, to improve the working conditions and status of these officials, Whereas a threat to the life and safety of law enforcement officials must...

www.ohchr.org

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Except the "knife wielding girl" was not attacking ANYONE when they shot and killed her. She was on her back, on the ground, being kicked by a large man. And they shot her 4 times in the chest.

The police didn't even try to find out what was going on in this picture, they just pulled up and shot this girl 4 times in the chest. As the story is coming out, it appears that this girl may have been defending herself against the people who were attacking her. This was a 15 year old girl, and the people attacking her were adults.

THE POLICE DIDN'T BOTHER TO ASSESS THE SITUATION, OR ASK ANYONE WHAT WAS GOING ON, THEY JUST PULLED UP, JUMPED OUT AND SHOT THE GIRL ON HER BACK, ON THE GROUND IN LESS THAN 5 SECONDS.

HOW DID THE POLICE MANAGE TO ARREST THE PARKLAND SHOOTER WHO WAS ARMED AND DANGEROUS WITHOUT SHOOTING AND KILLING HIM ON SIGHT? OR DYLAN ROOFF? OR THE ATLANTA SPA SHOOTER? THEY HELPED KYLE RITTENHOUSE UP AND DIDN'T EVEN TAKE HIS GUN, AFTER HE THEY WATCHED HIM SHOOT 3 PEOPLE.

HOW COME ALL OF THESE ARMED AND DANGEROUS WHITE KILLERS GET ARRESTED WITHOUT BEING SHOT ON SIGHT BY POLICE.

retard alert the cop did not shoot the girl on the ground

 

[John T. Ford]

And you would be wrong:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/firing-warning-shots-ok-in-some-cases-minister-says-1.1147477

Then there is this, from the United Nations about "use of force" in policing, and notice all of the things that police forces around the world do to minimize the use of force, and the consequences of using force. All things that are NOT happening in police forces all over the USA, when it comes American police forces and minority communities.

Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials

Whereas the work of law enforcement officials 1 is a social service of great importance and there is, therefore, a need to maintain and, whenever necessary, to improve the working conditions and status of these officials, Whereas a threat to the life and safety of law enforcement officials must...

www.ohchr.org

Who gives a rip what some minister in Canada thinks ...

And, even he came under fire for making such a ridiculous suggestion.

 

[kyzr]

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.

Why even use the word "stab"?
That wind up to the right shows it was going to be a slash if anything at all.
Odds are it was only theatrics, since no blood had been spilled in the 15 minutes of knife wielding before the cops arrived.

Look stupid. This is the 2nd time I'm posting this. Its a stab in-progress. NOT A SLASH!

Look at the position of the knife again, it would have been:
stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, stab.........

 

[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.

You are a fucking LIAR!
There is NO police force on the fucking planet that uses "warning shots'!

And you would be wrong:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/firing-warning-shots-ok-in-some-cases-minister-says-1.1147477

Then there is this, from the United Nations about "use of force" in policing, and notice all of the things that police forces around the world do to minimize the use of force, and the consequences of using force. All things that are NOT happening in police forces all over the USA, when it comes American police forces and minority communities.

Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials

Whereas the work of law enforcement officials 1 is a social service of great importance and there is, therefore, a need to maintain and, whenever necessary, to improve the working conditions and status of these officials, Whereas a threat to the life and safety of law enforcement officials must...

www.ohchr.org

Both worthless sources

 

[Soupnazi630]

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.

Driving home fallacies does nothing. They are not murder.

 

[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.

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/

Wrong

It is a law enforcement response to treat a person who is a deadly threat as a deadly threat. A person using a deadly weapon to attack another IS BY DEFINITION a deadly threat.