Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   St. Louis City Police Chief Sam Dotson sadly gives a lesson in how to handle an officer involved shooting with a direct detailed account of another shooting   (nbcnews.com ) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

12463 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Aug 2014 at 9:16 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



582 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-08-19 10:43:49 PM  

*TWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET111111!!!!!!*


End of second Quarter.
Armchair Quarterbacks will retreat to the kitchen for more Mountain Dew and Cheetos..


Half-time show will be a bunch of pre-menopausal, yet hefty mothers  doing Yoga, because they are our new sponsors.

And the hindsight bowl will resume in 5 minutes.
 
2014-08-19 10:43:49 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: El_Perro: jasonvatch: cretinbob: jasonvatch: Don't they have tasers?

I don't know about there, but here, generally no. You'll have one officer/deputy who carries one and the rest just have regular sidearms

Nightsticks? Flashlights?

I admit that I wouldn't want to take on a knife-wielding idiot with a nightstick. But two cops? I suspect they received some training in the past - and the baton has enough reach and mass to break the arm holding the knife.

We use drones to kill 'suspects' in other countries. 'Lethal response' seems to be OK here, since nobody biatched when we did it there.

The next red light you run could be a death sentence.

If you are close enough to "break the arm holding the knife," the guy holding the knife is close enough to kill you  with the knife.

Are you aware there are these things called instructors that can teach you how to disarm somebody?  If not, please refer to your nearest source of internet, go to the Google search engine and in the little box for searching input the words "Krav Maga".  Click on the links, read the information, watch the videos and then return to this thread with an informed opinion.  Otherwise you will lack the necessary words to at least appear slightly more than a moron.

/This message brought to you by the council to mock and ridicule the silly


I hold a belt in Krav Maga, and Krav is not a magic talisman that makes you automatically win fights. Disarms are flashy, Hollywood moves, and risky. You don't willingly go into a knife fight, especially when your tools give you and advantage.

The first defense they teach in Krav is the Nike defense. They do that for a reason.
 
2014-08-19 10:44:22 PM  

SilentStrider: This sounds justified, at least from the facts already out.

The only thing out is what the cops said, so I'm not sure what "facts" you may be referring to.
 
2014-08-19 10:44:26 PM  
Because of this thread, I now know a man with a knife is more dangerous than a man with a gun and that a knife wound is more deadly than a gunshot wound.
This, of course, is the reason we equip our soldiers with se
 
2014-08-19 10:44:39 PM  
Where's this guy when you actually need him?
crooksandliars.com
 
2014-08-19 10:45:11 PM  

jst3p: Caffienatedjedi: There should be no justification using a taser in a situation where lethal force would not be used.

The entire point of a taser is to use it when deadly force is not justified. They were not designed to replace guns, they were designed to replace nightsticks. They are called a "less lethal device" because they are supposed to be used in non-lethal situations, but they sometimes kill.


http://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/164097/do c/ slspublic/tasers.pdf

(from the  Recommendations section of that link, certain points bolded by me):

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Use of Tasers by Police Officers should be limited to circumstances under
which the use of lethal force would also be permitted.

First, here is a snapshot of the established law on the authorized use of force by
police: Police can always use reasonable, non-deadly force to thwart any crime or to 
seize anyone the police officer reasonably believes to be fleeing from the commission of
a crime or attempting to evade a lawful arrest. As for deadly or "lethal" force - usually 
defined to mean force intended to or likely to cause either death or grievous bodily harm
- police can use this to prevent completion or commission of a felony only if the felony
is one that normally poses serious physical danger to victims or bystanders
(robbery,
rape) but not for other, non-violent felonies. In addition, under the Supreme Court rules
established in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), police may only use deadly force
to apprehend or to ensure the arrest of someone fleeing from the commission of a felony
if the office reasonably believes that the fleeing person at the time of flight poses a threat
of death or serious bodily injury to others.
 
2014-08-19 10:45:26 PM  

kaduh: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-man-tased-by-p ol ice-while-resisting-arrest-dies-20140521-story.html

Uh oh!

/Used Chicago for effect


So you're saying that a tazer is as lethal as a gun? You're missing the point.

Tazers have been known to result in death, but so have nightsticks, choke holds, or any other compliance technique you want to argue about. However, a tazer will usually result in little to no permanent injury (the biggest risk is someone hurting themselves when they fall), as opposed to something like a nightstick, which guarantees tissue damage and usually broken/fractured bones. The tazer also works at a much longer range than things like nightsticks.

Guns, on the other hand, are usually guaranteed to result in death, but work much more reliably, effectively, and at a farther range.

They're two completely different tools for two completely different scenarios.
 
2014-08-19 10:46:02 PM  

TeamEd: Because of this thread, I now know a man with a knife is more dangerous than a man with a gun and that a knife wound is more deadly than a gunshot wound.
This, of course, is the reason we equip our soldiers with se


A man with a gun is more dangerous.

Does not make the man with a knife less dangerous.
 
2014-08-19 10:46:06 PM  

TeamEd: Because of this thread, I now know a man with a knife is more dangerous than a man with a gun and that a knife wound is more deadly than a gunshot wound.
This, of course, is the reason we equip our soldiers with se


Erm... This, of course is the reason we equip our soldiers with swords.
/ Snark fail
 
2014-08-19 10:46:16 PM  

Caffienatedjedi: Daedalus27: If you don't shoot him, he potentially kills the officers or bystanders.  That distance, you can't reliably holster your gun, go for the taser as the suspect approaches and if it doesn't have the effect, you may be dead or someone else may be dead.  A knife is a lethal weapon in nearly all circumstances.  Knives defeat the police bullet resistant vests, if you wait and see how the scene develops you may be dead or someone else may be dead. It is an officers responsibility to take that shot, not try and play hero which could get themselves killed, their partner killed, or a bystander killed.  If you believe the officer should have attempted to disarm them in hand to hand fighting, you have watched too many movies.  There are only losers in a knife fight, some lose more than others.

It was a suicide by cop, pure and simple.  The timing is horrible, but really there is never a good time to kill a suspect.  If the public cannot see this act as justified, chances are they are completely unreasonable and live in a fantasy world where all police officers must act like Chuck Norris  and simply roundhouse their way to a solution.

One officer could of gone for a taser while the other kept his service weapon trained on the guy, that is if either had a taser. But that is hindsight 20/20. I am sure they will regret not managing to take him alive, but their application of lethal force felt justifiable.


Potentially if they went into that situation that way it may have worked, but it is riskier as you only have one officer with the weapon that can definitively stop the situation.  You want as many chances as possible to neutralize the threat given accuracy can be an issue in that situation.  If the shooting occurred within 3-4 feet, it seems like they waited until well after the last possible minute to fire as that put their own lives in jeopardy trying to do everything they could to get this guy to surrender.  He could have lunged inside one second at that range and killed an officer if he hadn't be shot at that moment. It is not the officers fault that they shot him, the knife wielding suspect gave the officer no other choice.

I think many of you lack a little knowledge about tasers and some limitations. Police usually carry a taser gun that shoots two prongs out up to 25-30ft or so. How they operate is two prongs go into a subject and the current is run from one prong, through the target, to the other prong and back to the gun to compete the circuit.   What this means is if the subject targeted is wearing heavy clothes the circuit may not be completed through the skin and it may have minimal to no effect.  Further if one of the prongs fails to hit the subject, the circuit won't be completed and therefore nothing will happen. Even if the circuit is completed (usually if it is also mitigated by the clothing or otherwise poor connection to the body), rarely, usually due to drugs, there may be minimal effect on the subject. If any of these things happen on the subject you are targeting, the officer has to quickly drop the taser and unholster you gun which takes time in which the subject is free to approach and engage you.  Yes, the taser is a wonderful alternative to a firearm, but it is not 100% guaranteed to stop anyone and it's limitations can put you or community at risk.  Tasers are a tool that officers can use, but they are situational based on range, behavior, and other factors.
 
2014-08-19 10:46:22 PM  

CthulhuCalling: The first defense they teach in Krav is the Nike defense. They do that for a reason.


So you can telegraph your best defense?

Mel, the cook on Alice, would not approve.
 
2014-08-19 10:46:43 PM  
Topics like these are morbidly intriguing.  I say morbidly, because of the real hits to my faith in humanity that they deliver, courtesy of people I would think should know better.

I remember last year's Dorner manhunt topics, and how many people were happily cheering an ex-cop on for "taking the fight to the LAPD," so to speak.

OK, I get that, given their reputation and actions, which don't paint them in the best of lights - seen in great detail when two idiot officers opened up on a pair of newspaper delivery women.  Fine.

Here's where some of you guys sicken me.  His first two victims were a 28-year-old Cal State coach and her fiancée.  Her only relation to things was that she was the daughter of the man who apparently represented him in a futile effort to save his job.  The fiancée...had no relation, outside of his relationship with her.

Even though it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to do so, I'll grant the other two deaths, because they were cops, and supposedly what he was raging against.  Monica Quan wasn't a cop.

People here and elsewhere cheered her death and the death of her fiancée, and when they were called out on it, made comments that suggested "Well, she shouldn't have been related to the guy he was really angry at."

What.

The.

Actual.

Fark.

You mean to tell me that I should be rooting for a sad-sack waste of cells that couldn't even have had the decency to go after the person he was pissed at, and went after his daughter instead?

That is why I refuse to even entertain the notion of "fark the police".  Because not only are the police more than the asshole cops who need to have their bullshiat called out, but more often than not, the people who are most willing to "fark the police" can't seem to differentiate between actual police and those that they claim to represent when they do so.
 
2014-08-19 10:46:47 PM  

Fubini: They're two completely different tools for two completely different scenarios.


And neither should be used unless deadly force is necessary.
 
2014-08-19 10:47:06 PM  

Yogimus: TeamEd: Because of this thread, I now know a man with a knife is more dangerous than a man with a gun and that a knife wound is more deadly than a gunshot wound.
This, of course, is the reason we equip our soldiers with se

A man with a gun is more dangerous.

Does not make the man with a knife less dangerous.


Of course it does. *You just said it does.*
 
2014-08-19 10:47:10 PM  

jankyboy: Dog Man: If you have a knife within 21 feet of me, you're close enough to kill me because, generally, you can rush me before I can draw and fire accurately. Knife wounds are bad, they can easily server tendons and cause permanent damage and quickly lead to shock. If you're within 21 ft, you're likely to get shot if you don't drop the knife. We don't aim at limbs, we aim at center mass; a nice big target. Even a shot to the arm or leg can bleed you out. Sometimes tasers don't work and OC spray can be resisted or have no effect. Sometimes you have no choice but to shoot.

Yep -- I think it was an officer with the SLC police dept who concluded that an attacker could cover that 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. Not much time to react and defend your self.



When we went through training for correctional officers, we watched this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3439314/

granted I can see why they would want us to be able to defend ourselves in a prison setting since the go to weapon of choice in a prison is whatever you can grab that is sharp and pointy, but if you watch the movie it is clearly aimed at police officers.
/although several women in our training class couldn't watch the entire movie, although, appearing campy, it was pretty graphic.
 
2014-08-19 10:47:40 PM  
Threads like these reinforce the fact that America is raising an entire generation of children that view movies and TV as "science" and "reality".

Why didn't the cops just use ninja skills and disarm the person???

lol...for srs guyz...lol
 
2014-08-19 10:47:44 PM  
CthulhuCalling:

The first defense they teach in Krav is the Nike defense. They do that for a reason.

Did they steal that from French Martial arts?
 
2014-08-19 10:48:19 PM  
The New York Times has an article with a couple of new witness testimonies.

""It was something strange," said Mr. Brady, 32, a janitor. "Something was not right. It was some kind of altercation. I can't say whether he was punching the officer or whatever. But something was going on in that window, and it didn't look right."
Mr. Brady said he had been interviewed by county investigators, but not the F.B.I.
Mr. Brady said he could see Mr. Johnson at the front passenger side of the car when he and Mr. Brown suddenly started running. Mr. Brady did not hear a gunshot or know what caused them to run. But he said he did see a police officer get out of the patrol car and start walking briskly while firing on Mr. Brown as he fled."

"James McKnight, who also said he saw the shooting, said that Mr. Brown's hands were up right after he turned around to face the officer.
"I saw him stumble toward the officer, but not rush at him," Mr. McKnight said in a brief interview. "The officer was about six or seven feet away from him.""


Sounds like the biggest witness conflict is whether or not Brown was moving toward Wilson when he was shot.
 
2014-08-19 10:48:36 PM  
tasers should in general the same restriction and paperwork as pulling a gun. For all I know, they do. The real difference between the two is how armed (and, perhaps, drugged) your opponent is.

It's like rock paper scissors. Taser+Pepper Spray beats knife, large blunt object beats taser, gun beats all, if you're ready to execute a mentally disturbed person.

Really. this guy that got shot is a total asshole - lets be clear - i mean, atomic levels of criminal douche, and i'm also sure those officers are rattled by it. Guy put people in a position to take life. Bastard. But by killing a mental patient instead of going the extra mile, they failed to serve in the motto of their force. It's tough to reconcile i admit.

So i'm not incriminating the police, i'm just shaking my head, wondering if the real issue is that if we had real time crime stats we could tell how rare this is, but the Cloak of Secrecy the PDs maintain means we generally presume the worst.

Again, where are the cameras? Taser/Wood/Live rounds would all make a lot of sense from a 1st person POV. it's unimaginable, now, that cops aren't showing the darn things on their own cable channel. They are proud to serve, im sure, although none want to become public figures for their efforts any more than normal people do. That's another conversation.
 
2014-08-19 10:48:41 PM  
Beyond the sad reality that it was a successful suicide-by-cop, it does look like it was/is being handled in a far more intelligent and sensitive manner. Unfortunately, it probably won't matter to the violent fringe.
 
2014-08-19 10:50:02 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: if you think any of these things are or should have been valid alternatives, check yourself into the nearest reality clinic, i hear they can help now.


I laugh a lot at fark threads. It scares me that there are actually people that have these opinions, but I still laugh.
 
2014-08-19 10:50:11 PM  

Yogimus: kaduh: Yogimus: FloridaFarkTag: Folks also have died being tased, so the liability with tasers is nearly as bad as a gun

This is a lie.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-man-tased-by-p ol ice-while-resisting-arrest-dies-20140521-story.html

Uh oh!

/Used Chicago for effect

http://mjm.luckygunner.com/2010/09/14/interview-with-jurors-at-your- mu rder-trial-after-they-convict-you/comment-page-1/

I can link irrelevant data points, too.


Ouch, you win.  Good night.
 
2014-08-19 10:50:25 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Why Police have non-lethal crowd control options: Exhibit A.
 
2014-08-19 10:50:33 PM  
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2014/01/band/

Gunshots and knife wounds hover around 75% survival rate with medical attention.

To clarify, the only way a man with a gun makes a man with a knife less dangerous is by shooting the man with a knife. When a superior weapon is introduced, it doesn't make the inferior weapon harmless or less dangerous. The inherent lethality of the inferior weapon does not change.
 
2014-08-19 10:51:46 PM  
Bit'O'Gristle: Good lord....here on Fark...

You invoke a fictional character in a non-fictional situation then proceed to tell others how their beliefs are wrong. That's rich.
 
2014-08-19 10:52:27 PM  

rugman11: The New York Times has an article with a couple of new witness testimonies.

""It was something strange," said Mr. Brady, 32, a janitor. "Something was not right. It was some kind of altercation. I can't say whether he was punching the officer or whatever. But something was going on in that window, and it didn't look right."
Mr. Brady said he had been interviewed by county investigators, but not the F.B.I.
Mr. Brady said he could see Mr. Johnson at the front passenger side of the car when he and Mr. Brown suddenly started running. Mr. Brady did not hear a gunshot or know what caused them to run. But he said he did see a police officer get out of the patrol car and start walking briskly while firing on Mr. Brown as he fled."

"James McKnight, who also said he saw the shooting, said that Mr. Brown's hands were up right after he turned around to face the officer.
"I saw him stumble toward the officer, but not rush at him," Mr. McKnight said in a brief interview. "The officer was about six or seven feet away from him.""


Sounds like the biggest witness conflict is whether or not Brown was moving toward Wilson when he was shot.


sounds like the grand jury might get to go home early if this is credible
 
2014-08-19 10:52:41 PM  

nyseattitude: Bit'O'Gristle: Good lord....here on Fark...

You invoke a fictional character in a non-fictional situation then proceed to tell others how their beliefs are wrong. That's rich.


If we can work Jezebel and cycling into this, we might really have something.
 
2014-08-19 10:52:44 PM  

PanicMan: Litterbox: jasonvatch: Don't they have tasers?

What the f*ck is wrong with these cops? Is there an interest on the part of some cops to CREATE a riot? Are they completely stupid, or should we be investigating a conspiracy.

Wielding a knife is deadly force.  Tasers are not used when the officer is facing deadly force.  Thats when the gun comes out.  Didn't they cover that on "CSI" or whatever cop show you were watching?

On Cops I saw them take down a guy with a samurai sword with an aluminum ladder.  They used it to pin him against the wall and then walk up and take his shiat.

Not saying that would work here, but sometimes you don't need to shoot people, even when they're armed.


You never bring a ninja sword to a ladder fight.
 
2014-08-19 10:52:54 PM  

jst3p: Caffienatedjedi: There should be no justification using a taser in a situation where lethal force would not be used.

The entire point of a taser is to use it when deadly force is not justified. They were not designed to replace guns, they were designed to replace nightsticks. They are called a "less lethal device" because they are supposed to be used in non-lethal situations, but they sometimes kill.


I may be coming from a point where preventing bodily injure justifies lethal force. and my view is that even a night stick is less lethal due to people dying to it. Verbal compliance or physical subduement are the only ones I think of being 100% non-lethal, as when used as they are supposed to should not result in death. Tasers and nightsticks can result in death even when correctly used.

So any force escalation charts, I'm okay with where intermediate weapons are used. Less lethal is justified there, and if they did not have those tools may have to threaten use of lethal. I do have an issue with less lethal being used for compliance though. Physical subduement should be adequate if they have not shown aggression.
 
2014-08-19 10:53:32 PM  

Cyclometh: jst3p: Caffienatedjedi: There should be no justification using a taser in a situation where lethal force would not be used.

The entire point of a taser is to use it when deadly force is not justified. They were not designed to replace guns, they were designed to replace nightsticks. They are called a "less lethal device" because they are supposed to be used in non-lethal situations, but they sometimes kill.

http://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/164097/do c/ slspublic/tasers.pdf

(from the  Recommendations section of that link, certain points bolded by me):

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Use of Tasers by Police Officers should be limited to circumstances under
which the use of lethal force would also be permitted.
First, here is a snapshot of the established law on the authorized use of force by
police: Police can always use reasonable, non-deadly force to thwart any crime or to
seize anyone the police officer reasonably believes to be fleeing from the commission of
a crime or attempting to evade a lawful arrest. As for deadly or "lethal" force - usually
defined to mean force intended to or likely to cause either death or grievous bodily harm
- police can use this to prevent completion or commission of a felony only if the felony
is one that normally poses serious physical danger to victims or bystanders (robbery,
rape) but not for other, non-violent felonies. In addition, under the Supreme Court rules
established in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), police may only use deadly force
to apprehend or to ensure the arrest of someone fleeing from the commission of a felony
if the office reasonably believes that the fleeing person at the time of flight poses a threat
of death or serious bodily injury to others.


That's nice.

Here is actual policy recommendations:

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=dis pl ay_arch&article_id=2204&issue_id=92010

Table 1: Use-of-Force Continuum
Suspect resistance                                 Officer use of force

1. No resistance                                           1. Officer presence
2. Verbal noncompliance                              2. Verbal commands
3. Passive resistance                                   3. Hands-on tactics, chemical spray
4. Active resistance                                      4. Intermediate weapons: baton, Taser, strikes, nondeadly force
5. Aggressive resistance                              5. Intermediate weapons, intensified techniques, nondeadly force
6. Deadly-force resistance                           6. Deadly force


Notice Taser shows up well before "deadly force" and the only response to deadly force is deadly force.
 
2014-08-19 10:53:34 PM  

steamingpile: Also was the whole cop had a broken eye socket bullshiat or are people ignoring that point?


Well seeing as it comes from the same people who cropped a video of the kid buying something and then arguing, for character assisnation purposes most people think it's bullshiat.
/Why did it take a week before they mentioned that?
//Willing to bet that even if he does have one it's less than a week old.
 
2014-08-19 10:54:10 PM  

AngryDragon: jasonvatch: cretinbob: jasonvatch: Don't they have tasers?

I don't know about there, but here, generally no. You'll have one officer/deputy who carries one and the rest just have regular sidearms

Nightsticks? Flashlights?

I admit that I wouldn't want to take on a knife-wielding idiot with a nightstick. But two cops? I suspect they received some training in the past - and the baton has enough reach and mass to break the arm holding the knife.

We use drones to kill 'suspects' in other countries. 'Lethal response' seems to be OK here, since nobody biatched when we did it there.

The next red light you run could be a death sentence.

WTF?  The guy charge a cop armed with a knife.  Is there any question that lethal force was justified?  Are you people really so disconnected from reality?


Some individuals on Fark have seriously argued that being pinned down to the ground and struck in the face repeatedly is not a legitimate justification for the use of deadly force, as the attacker's unarmed status obligates the victim to respond with no more than an unarmed defense.
 
2014-08-19 10:54:18 PM  

Lordserb: Bit'O'Gristle: if you think any of these things are or should have been valid alternatives, check yourself into the nearest reality clinic, i hear they can help now.

I laugh a lot at fark threads. It scares me that there are actually people that have these opinions, but I still laugh.


Same, but some things I'm finding myself increasingly unable to even snicker at.  See my Boobies in this topic.
 
2014-08-19 10:54:34 PM  

parasol: rugman11: The New York Times has an article with a couple of new witness testimonies.

""It was something strange," said Mr. Brady, 32, a janitor. "Something was not right. It was some kind of altercation. I can't say whether he was punching the officer or whatever. But something was going on in that window, and it didn't look right."
Mr. Brady said he had been interviewed by county investigators, but not the F.B.I.
Mr. Brady said he could see Mr. Johnson at the front passenger side of the car when he and Mr. Brown suddenly started running. Mr. Brady did not hear a gunshot or know what caused them to run. But he said he did see a police officer get out of the patrol car and start walking briskly while firing on Mr. Brown as he fled."

"James McKnight, who also said he saw the shooting, said that Mr. Brown's hands were up right after he turned around to face the officer.
"I saw him stumble toward the officer, but not rush at him," Mr. McKnight said in a brief interview. "The officer was about six or seven feet away from him.""


Sounds like the biggest witness conflict is whether or not Brown was moving toward Wilson when he was shot.

sounds like the grand jury might get to go home early if this is credible


Wait for the forensics.
 
2014-08-19 10:54:51 PM  

parasol: jasonvatch: cretinbob: jasonvatch: Don't they have tasers?

I don't know about there, but here, generally no. You'll have one officer/deputy who carries one and the rest just have regular sidearms

Nightsticks? Flashlights?

I admit that I wouldn't want to take on a knife-wielding idiot with a nightstick. But two cops? I suspect they received some training in the past - and the baton has enough reach and mass to break the arm holding the knife.

We use drones to kill 'suspects' in other countries. 'Lethal response' seems to be OK here, since nobody biatched when we did it there.

The next red light you run could be a death sentence.

lassos
the answer is more rodeo time and mandatory calf roping classes for all LEOs

sure, it isn't dignified but everyone gets to live and, afterwards? clowns!


Yeeeaaaah....a cop stringing a rope around a black person is not going to upset anyone. Nope...
 
2014-08-19 10:55:56 PM  

nyseattitude: You invoke a fictional character in a non-fictional situation then proceed to tell others how their beliefs are wrong. That's rich.


It's called social interaction with concepts and ideas...

/i'm out
 
2014-08-19 10:55:58 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Boo_Guy: jasonvatch:

They are doing this so very wrong, and only digging the hole deeper with every action they take.


As opposed to the Obama-voters who swagger around and steal with impunity? Correct?
 
2014-08-19 10:56:19 PM  

Cyclometh: http://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/164097/do c/ slspublic/tasers.pdf


The crux of that report is that a law enforcement agency subjects itself to potential liability by using tasers, not that they're bad tools. At the heart of their analysis is simply the fact that tasers haven't been used for very long, so there is no proven track record of case law that shows police departments that it's safe to do so.

Like others have said, other methods of gaining compliance are comparatively more violent and much riskier for both the subject and the officer, and your report fails to address that second issue at all. If an officer breaks his leg or gets stabbed in a physical altercation with someone, that police department is going to be making unemployment and disability payments that easily meet or exceed the excessive use of force settlements cited in the report.
 
2014-08-19 10:57:00 PM  

Big Ramifications: The My Little Pony Killer: Boo_Guy: jasonvatch:

They are doing this so very wrong, and only digging the hole deeper with every action they take.

As opposed to the Obama-voters who swagger around and steal with impunity? Correct?


...is Obama Voters the new euphemism for Black?
 
2014-08-19 10:57:14 PM  
I had a PR- 24 when i was a cop, and i have to tell you, you swing it by the upright handle like a baseball bat. The force you can get from this swing, will crush bones, skulls, shatter elbows, knees, it would be VERY easy to kill someone with one. That is why the course to carry one is so intensive. it is NOT like a regular nightstick. I would much rather tase someone than smack them with my PR-24. First of all...they would be WAY too close for comfort if they were within nightstick range. Second of all, the odds are i might miss one of the green or yellow zones "zones you can hit without causing possible death" by a bad swing, or the suspect moving as they won't just stand there and let you smack them in the knee or arm. The chances of accidentally hitting a suspect in the head are great as he jinks around, and that, would possibly kill him. The taser is a non lethal (yes there have been deaths, but many many more successes) means to gain compliance, but it is in no way, none, meant to take the place of lethal force when lethal force is called for. If you think for one second that any cop anywhere would choose to use a taser on a guy who is charging at him with a knife, you are totally misguided and incorrect. Suspect using a lethal weapon? I'm going for my gun. He is the asshole that left me no choice. I'm going home in one piece.
 
2014-08-19 10:57:31 PM  
i306.photobucket.com
 
2014-08-19 10:57:36 PM  

mekki: parasol: jasonvatch: cretinbob: jasonvatch: Don't they have tasers?

I don't know about there, but here, generally no. You'll have one officer/deputy who carries one and the rest just have regular sidearms

Nightsticks? Flashlights?

I admit that I wouldn't want to take on a knife-wielding idiot with a nightstick. But two cops? I suspect they received some training in the past - and the baton has enough reach and mass to break the arm holding the knife.

We use drones to kill 'suspects' in other countries. 'Lethal response' seems to be OK here, since nobody biatched when we did it there.

The next red light you run could be a death sentence.

lassos
the answer is more rodeo time and mandatory calf roping classes for all LEOs

sure, it isn't dignified but everyone gets to live and, afterwards? clowns!

Yeeeaaaah....a cop stringing a rope around a black person is not going to upset anyone. Nope...


oh - that didn't even occur to me - must be more tired that i thought
ah well
 
2014-08-19 10:58:31 PM  

Yogimus: Big Ramifications: The My Little Pony Killer: Boo_Guy: jasonvatch:

They are doing this so very wrong, and only digging the hole deeper with every action they take.

As opposed to the Obama-voters who swagger around and steal with impunity? Correct?

...is Obama Voters the new euphemism for Black?


I voted for him twice and I still have this white guy penis. I was robbed!
 
2014-08-19 10:59:19 PM  

Yogimus: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2014/01/band/

Gunshots and knife wounds hover around 75% survival rate with medical attention.

To clarify, the only way a man with a gun makes a man with a knife less dangerous is by shooting the man with a knife. When a superior weapon is introduced, it doesn't make the inferior weapon harmless or less dangerous. The inherent lethality of the inferior weapon does not change.


If you need an example of how lethal knives can be, look at what the Uighur terrorists/freedom fighters are doing in China with large scale knife attacks.  The scary part about knife attacks in crowded areas is you don't have the gunshots to give warning, merely screaming of people already being stabbed or those running for the lives without a clear idea of what is happening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2014_%C3%9Cr%C3%BCmqi_attack
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/almost-100-killed-during-a tt acks-in-chinas-xinjiang-last-week/article19900534/
 
2014-08-19 10:59:38 PM  

jasonvatch: cretinbob: jasonvatch: Don't they have tasers?

I don't know about there, but here, generally no. You'll have one officer/deputy who carries one and the rest just have regular sidearms

Nightsticks? Flashlights?

I admit that I wouldn't want to take on a knife-wielding idiot with a nightstick. But two cops? I suspect they received some training in the past - and the baton has enough reach and mass to break the arm holding the knife.

We use drones to kill 'suspects' in other countries. 'Lethal response' seems to be OK here, since nobody biatched when we did it there.

The next red light you run could be a death sentence.


The reason cops have Tasers and pepper spray is partially due to the fact that, in the 60's and early 70's, people became disgusted and alarmed at the visible bruising created when cops used batons to effect a takedown of a combative suspect. That, and the fact that the PR-24 sidehandle baton was insanely lethal, even (or especially) in the hands of a trained user. So cops were gradually switched over to the "less-lethal" Mace, pepper spray and Taser, which are not particularly "less" lethal, but leave pleasingly fewer visible marks on a suspect. Nobody saw a suspect on his knees gagging from a liberal dose of pepper spray, and once in holding he cleaned right up; and in the early days, Tasers were finicky and had a limited range and were easily blocked by heavy clothing (and both prongs had to make contact for the current to be effective) and were only used in lieu of pulling a gun and blowing the suspect away.

Nowadays, of course, people have video cameras on their cell phones, so we can see people retching in agony from having pepper spray schpritzed down the gullet, or dying from multiple shocks from the much improved Tasers we have today; plus, both are being used not for last-resort-before-shooting methods of takedown as they were intended, but for first-level compliance ("Get out of the car or I'll Tase you").

In a better world, where the general public didn't believe that criminals deserve what they get up to and including a bullet in the back merely for property damage (and if you don't believe that, peruse some past threads right here on Fark), and where the public didn't screech about higher taxes for training police, AND about actually applying stringent hiring requirements to police same as everyone else AND about holding those actually responsible for policing the cops for wrongdoing (the District Attorney's office, not the cops, just so you know)...in that world, police would be properly trained in crisis management, verbal methods of personal and crowd control, and other ways of managing a situation besides TASER TASER TASER.

Too bad we don't live in that world, but there you go. It's completely doable, but neither the right nor the left wants to do it.
 
2014-08-19 11:00:24 PM  

jst3p: Table 1: Use-of-Force Continuum
Suspect resistance Officer use of force
1. No resistance 1. Officer presence
2. Verbal noncompliance 2. Verbal commands
3. Passive resistance 3. Hands-on tactics, chemical spray
4. Active resistance 4. Intermediate weapons: baton, Taser, strikes, nondeadly force
5. Aggressive resistance 5. Intermediate weapons, intensified techniques, nondeadly force
6. Deadly-force resistance 6. Deadly force


That is what the cops say.  If I remember correctly when tasers first gained widespread use it was pitched to the public as a tool to only be used only where you would otherwise have to kill with a gun such as someone on PCP or an aggressive suspect with a knife.  Now it seems like an easy button they like to pull out willy nilly.
 
2014-08-19 11:00:44 PM  

Caffienatedjedi: CthulhuCalling:

The first defense they teach in Krav is the Nike defense. They do that for a reason.

Did they steal that from French Martial arts?


Difference between retreat and surviving the encounter, and surrender as you are implying.
 
2014-08-19 11:01:00 PM  

Fubini: Cyclometh: http://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/164097/do c/ slspublic/tasers.pdf

The crux of that report is that a law enforcement agency subjects itself to potential liability by using tasers, not that they're bad tools. At the heart of their analysis is simply the fact that tasers haven't been used for very long, so there is no proven track record of case law that shows police departments that it's safe to do so.

Like others have said, other methods of gaining compliance are comparatively more violent and much riskier for both the subject and the officer, and your report fails to address that second issue at all. If an officer breaks his leg or gets stabbed in a physical altercation with someone, that police department is going to be making unemployment and disability payments that easily meet or exceed the excessive use of force settlements cited in the report.


Here is the number one benefit of tasers:

They don't look violent on film.

Here is the real benefit of tasers:

When used successfully, the conflict is immediately over. A baton, gas, a FLASHLIGHT (What farking idiot said this? I mean really? I can't be bothered to look, but if this was you, you are a farking moron and should feel bad) when used on a suspect DO NOT guarantee compliance, and the situation can escalate to lethal force in a rapid manner. A Taser stops the escalation. Right or wrong, (and I am against them, mind you) a taser is an "I SAID SO" switch.

It i also a courtesy. A tool that CAN be used, not one that must be used instead of lethal force.
 
2014-08-19 11:01:30 PM  
Take a breath here.
Does it really take a degree in psychology to not escalate any situation?
Say, bro? Can you steip back on the curb? If I had be an OUI, I may have hit you.
Just  park it in the shade of the moonlight, a'right?

Hey, bro? You got a light?

But, NOOOooooooooooooo.
You gotta go Barky Fife of 'roids and try to drag the kid in the car like the free candy van is enacting involuntary conscription.

You deal the cards.
You bought the ticket.
 
2014-08-19 11:02:38 PM  

CthulhuCalling: Caffienatedjedi: CthulhuCalling:

The first defense they teach in Krav is the Nike defense. They do that for a reason.

Did they steal that from French Martial arts?

Difference between retreat and surviving the encounter, and surrender as you are implying.


I keed. Krav looks cool as hell. I just have that image of a guy sprinting on a track and titles French Martial Arts stuck in my head.

Besides, violence should always be a last resort. Should always try to de-escalate, then remove yourself from the situation, and if neither of those works then you go violent and if safe after they have.
 
Displayed 50 of 582 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report