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

[Rigby5]

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.

Not likely.
First of all the fight had been going on for over 15 minutes before the police finally arrived, without a drop of blood, so it is unlikely any blood would ever be spilt if not for the shooting.
Second is that it was a wind up to the right, meaning the only strike with the knife could have been a round house slash to the left, which was too low to hit the throat and then unable to kill.
Third is that 4 shots is at least 3 too many.
In fact, I think a warning shot into the sod would have sufficed.

 

[Rigby5]

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....

All of that could be true and so I'll accept it without disputing it.
Except the last sentence which I won't accept.

At the root of the problem, and all of the problems for that matter, is America's failing capitalism of greed. The near revolution against government provided the proof of that.

You are sometimes useful for making my point but now you're of no use anymore.

That last statement is actually true. But the root cause of America's race problem began under British rule when laws banning interracial marriage were introduced in the late 17th century in the slave-holding colonies of Virginia (1691) and Maryland (1692) and subsequently spread to the other colonies and states where slavery did not exist. No where else in the world did this happen. Everywhere else the races were allowed to mix and become assimilated in their culture.

The intention of the founders was that slavery would perish. They wrote into the constitution the earliest date the importation could be abolished, they abolished the importation at the earliest date and they wrote laws that halted the expansion of slavery. It wasn't until the late 1820's when the Democratic Party began to reverse the founders intentions and expanded slavery. You should know the rest of their bad deeds, I would hope. If not let me know and I'll fill you in on the rest.

Yep....the democrat party was founded by slave owners and through it's whole history racism has been its tool..........

Wrong.
While the south eventually became democrat, that was only in opposition to Lincoln, who created the Republican party.
The reality is that Democrats historically were for the common man, against the whigs who were the aristocracy and banks.

{...
The Democratic Party is the oldest voter-based political party in the world and the oldest existing political party in the United States. The party's modern institutions were formed in the 1830s and 1840s.[2][3][4] Known as the party of the "common man," the early Democratic Party stood for individual rights and state sovereignty, but opposed banks and high tariffs. During the Second Party System (from 1832 to the mid-1850s) under Presidents Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren and James K. Polk, the Democrats usually bested the opposition Whig Party by narrow margins.
...}

Originally the Republicans were anti slavery and were progressive liberals. But by 1880, they had been bought out and became the new part of the wealthy elite and banks.

 

[Billy000]

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.

It was justified. But let’s be honest, if she was unarmed, you all would still defend the cop. That’s how narrow minded and unobjective your ilk is when it comes to black people.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

It was justified. But let’s be honest, if she was unarmed, you all would still defend the cop. That’s how narrow minded and unobjective your ilk is when it comes to black people.

If there was no knife, then a taser would the best choice to stop the fighting.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

 

[John T. Ford]

Amost certainly NO.

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

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

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

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

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

Dumbass Leftist ...

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

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

 

[Rigby5]

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.

It was justified. But let’s be honest, if she was unarmed, you all would still defend the cop. That’s how narrow minded and unobjective your ilk is when it comes to black people.

If there was no knife, then a taser would the best choice to stop the fighting.

No, with no knife, a taser is illegal.
Tasers are classified as deadly force, since they sometimes can kill.
Without a weapon, then the police are supposed to go hand to hand or use a club.

 

[Billy000]

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.

It was justified. But let’s be honest, if she was unarmed, you all would still defend the cop. That’s how narrow minded and unobjective your ilk is when it comes to black people.

If there was no knife, then a taser would the best choice to stop the fighting.

Uh yeah but obviously prove they don’t use that common sense lol

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

It was justified. But let’s be honest, if she was unarmed, you all would still defend the cop. That’s how narrow minded and unobjective your ilk is when it comes to black people.

If there was no knife, then a taser would the best choice to stop the fighting.

No, with no knife, a taser is illegal.
Tasers are classified as deadly force, since they sometimes can kill.
Without a weapon, then the police are supposed to go hand to hand or use a club.

FALSE!

Police1

What cops need to know about TASER use, the Fourth Amendment and excessive use of force

Read it and see that if people or the police are endangered it is LEGAL to use the Taser Gun.

Taser use is legal in police work as long as there is actual physical resistance (arrest, being handcuffed, resist being put in the car, attacking people) or danger to the police or the people in the area.

 

[Rigby5]

Amost certainly NO.

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

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

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

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

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

Dumbass Leftist ...

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

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

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

 

[John T. Ford]

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

See the first sentence in comment # 406

 

[Rigby5]

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.

It was justified. But let’s be honest, if she was unarmed, you all would still defend the cop. That’s how narrow minded and unobjective your ilk is when it comes to black people.

If there was no knife, then a taser would the best choice to stop the fighting.

No, with no knife, a taser is illegal.
Tasers are classified as deadly force, since they sometimes can kill.
Without a weapon, then the police are supposed to go hand to hand or use a club.

FALSE!

Police1

What cops need to know about TASER use, the Fourth Amendment and excessive use of force

Read it and see that if people or the police are endangered it is LEGAL to use the Taser Gun.

Taser use is legal in police work as long as there is actual physical resistance (arrest, being handcuffed, resist being put in the car, attacking people) or danger to the police or the people in the area.

Wrong.
Taser are less likely to kill, but have killed and randomly are known to be capable of killing, so are ILLEGAL to use unless there is weapon involved that you need to defense against.
{...
The use of a Taser can be considered "deadly force," a Michigan State Police Taser expert testified Wednesday during the trial for a former trooper charged in the death of a Detroit teen last year during a chase.
...}

Taser use can be considered deadly force, expert testifies at ATV trial

State police Lt. Barry Schrader, who trained Mark Bessner in Taser use, testified at the former state trooper's trial for second-degree murder

www.detroitnews.com

Physical resistance is not sufficient justification for the use of a taser.
If they have no weapon, a taser is illegal to use.
The exception might be if the cop was a woman and the attacker was large.
But even then, the taser can't be use to force compliance, only defense from a harmful attack.

 

[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

 

[Soupnazi630]

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

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

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

www.cbsnews.com

View attachment 482782

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

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

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

The girl shot was the one who actually lived there.

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

 

[Rigby5]

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.

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

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

www.cbsnews.com

View attachment 482782

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

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

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

The girl shot was the one who actually lived there.

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

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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

www.cbsnews.com

View attachment 482782

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

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

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

The girl shot was the one who actually lived there.

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

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

She was a juvenile,

And the cop was supposed to know her age.......how?

 

[John T. Ford]

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

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

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

www.cbsnews.com

View attachment 482782

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

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

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

The girl shot was the one who actually lived there.

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

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

Sick FvCK ....

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

It was justified. But let’s be honest, if she was unarmed, you all would still defend the cop. That’s how narrow minded and unobjective your ilk is when it comes to black people.

If there was no knife, then a taser would the best choice to stop the fighting.

No, with no knife, a taser is illegal.
Tasers are classified as deadly force, since they sometimes can kill.
Without a weapon, then the police are supposed to go hand to hand or use a club.

FALSE!

Police1

What cops need to know about TASER use, the Fourth Amendment and excessive use of force

Read it and see that if people or the police are endangered it is LEGAL to use the Taser Gun.

Taser use is legal in police work as long as there is actual physical resistance (arrest, being handcuffed, resist being put in the car, attacking people) or danger to the police or the people in the area.

Wrong.
Taser are less likely to kill, but have killed and randomly are known to be capable of killing, so are ILLEGAL to use unless there is weapon involved that you need to defense against.
{...
The use of a Taser can be considered "deadly force," a Michigan State Police Taser expert testified Wednesday during the trial for a former trooper charged in the death of a Detroit teen last year during a chase.
...}

Taser use can be considered deadly force, expert testifies at ATV trial

State police Lt. Barry Schrader, who trained Mark Bessner in Taser use, testified at the former state trooper's trial for second-degree murder

www.detroitnews.com

Physical resistance is not sufficient justification for the use of a taser.
If they have no weapon, a taser is illegal to use.
The exception might be if the cop was a woman and the attacker was large.
But even then, the taser can't be use to force compliance, only defense from a harmful attack.

My link showed state district and supreme court rulings on Taser use, you apparently ignored it. They are LEGAL for use.

The Police1 blog owner:

About the author
John Michael Callahan served in law enforcement for 44 years. His career began as a special agent with NCIS. He became an FBI agent and served in the FBI for 30 years, retiring in the position of supervisory special agent/chief division counsel. He taught criminal law/procedure at the FBI Academy. After the FBI, he served as a Massachusetts Deputy Inspector General and is currently a deputy sheriff for Plymouth County, Massachusetts. He is the author of two published books on deadly force and an upcoming book on supervisory and municipal liability in law enforcement.


From the link you never read

"SCENARIO 2: TASER USE, MINOR OFFENSE, ACTIVE RESISTANCE
In Lash v. Lemke, U.S. Park Police entered an encampment of the so-called “Occupy D.C.” movement in Washington D.C. to warn protestors that they would be enforcing anti-camping regulations the next day. Their entrance was met with hostility. Ryan Lash, a protestor, challenged the officers’ right to enter; used profanity and tore down signs the officers had posted. Lash walked away and the officers followed. Lash loudly protested the fact that officers were following him and continued to walk away and proclaim his innocence.

An officer seized Lash’s arms from the rear. Lash pulled his arms away and held them in front of his body. He continued to walk away. The officer once again sought to restrain Lash from behind. Lash again pulled his arms away. Two officers grabbed each of his arms, but Lash resisted and continued to struggle. A third officer deployed her TASER. Lash fell to the ground and was handcuffed. He was subsequently charged with disorderly conduct.

Lash sued the officer who deployed the TASER for excessive force and her supervisor for failure to supervise. The Federal District Court ruled in favor of the officers and the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed. In reaching its decision, the Circuit Court had the advantage of viewing videotape of Lash’s arrest. With the help of the videotape, the court quickly rejected Lash’s claims that he submitted to arrest as soon as he understood that the officers were trying to arrest him. The court observed, “No matter what Lash claims now, we know to a certainty that he resisted arrest because we can see him doing so.”

The court examined existing case law and concluded that the TASER use in this instance did not violate clearly established Fourth Amendment law. The court explained that “there is no clearly established right for a suspect who actively resists and refuses to be handcuffed to be free from a Taser application,” (Goodwin v. City of Painesville, 781 F.3d 314, 325 (6th Cir. 2015)). The court cited numerous other Federal Circuit opinions to support its conclusion, specifically, Abbott v. Sangamon County, Ill., 705 F.3d 706, 727 (7th Cir. 2013); Hagans v. Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, 695 F.3d 505, 509-510 (6th Cir. 2012); DeBoise v. Taser International Inc., 760 F.3d 892, 897 (8th Cir. 2014); Buchanan v. Gulfport Police Dept., 530 Fed. Appx 307, 314 (5th Cir. 2013)."

bolding mine
=====

It is LEGAL according to MULTIPLE court decisions.

I never said they were not lethal, but they ARE legal for use.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

It was justified. But let’s be honest, if she was unarmed, you all would still defend the cop. That’s how narrow minded and unobjective your ilk is when it comes to black people.

If there was no knife, then a taser would the best choice to stop the fighting.

No, with no knife, a taser is illegal.
Tasers are classified as deadly force, since they sometimes can kill.
Without a weapon, then the police are supposed to go hand to hand or use a club.

FALSE!

Police1

What cops need to know about TASER use, the Fourth Amendment and excessive use of force

Read it and see that if people or the police are endangered it is LEGAL to use the Taser Gun.

Taser use is legal in police work as long as there is actual physical resistance (arrest, being handcuffed, resist being put in the car, attacking people) or danger to the police or the people in the area.

Wrong.
Taser are less likely to kill, but have killed and randomly are known to be capable of killing, so are ILLEGAL to use unless there is weapon involved that you need to defense against.
{...
The use of a Taser can be considered "deadly force," a Michigan State Police Taser expert testified Wednesday during the trial for a former trooper charged in the death of a Detroit teen last year during a chase.
...}

Taser use can be considered deadly force, expert testifies at ATV trial

State police Lt. Barry Schrader, who trained Mark Bessner in Taser use, testified at the former state trooper's trial for second-degree murder

www.detroitnews.com

Physical resistance is not sufficient justification for the use of a taser.
If they have no weapon, a taser is illegal to use.
The exception might be if the cop was a woman and the attacker was large.
But even then, the taser can't be use to force compliance, only defense from a harmful attack.

You can't even read your link!

"Schrader is the training instructor for Michigan State Police troopers on defensive tactics and Tasers. He trained Bessner on the use of Tasers, the law enforcement official testified Wednesday.

A civil infraction, Schrader testified, is a "very low" priority for using a weapon. Under cross-examination by Bessner's defense attorney Richard Convertino, Schrader said the use of a Taser is justifiable when in the "totality of the circumstances," a suspect is believed to have a weapon or is showing aggression or if there is a danger to public safety."

bolding mine

=======

Give it up Tasers are a legal enforcement tool, even YOUR link makes that clear.

The first two paragraphs in YOUR link:

"The use of a Taser can be considered "deadly force," a Michigan State Police Taser expert testified Wednesday during the trial for a former trooper charged in the death of a Detroit teen last year during a chase.

"You have to consider the crime and whether the force you’re going to use equals the need to take them into custody," said Michigan State Police First Lt. Barry Schrader during his testimony in the trial of Mark Bessner. "Once you choose to use the Taser, you have to take into totality of circumstances when to use (it), such as the crime. Use of the Taser could be considered deadly force depending on circumstances."

The same man who trains law enforcement in the use of Tasers, yes they are legal for use.

Never disputed that sometimes Tasers can be deadly force, but they ARE legal for use when the situation warrants it.

You were wrong, I showed you the court rulings that they can be used, I showed here that people are trained in using them, they are legal!