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 582
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

12419 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Aug 2014 at 9:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-19 11:03:23 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."


Well, that makes four eyewitnesses who saw the killer cop shooting at the unarmed victims back

"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.""


And yet another witness who saw him shoot the unarmed man with his hands up in a pose of surrender

Sounds like the biggest witness conflict is whether or not Brown was moving toward Wilson when he was shot.
 
2014-08-19 11:03:56 PM  

vudukungfu: 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.


technically the guy with the knife decided he wanted to have an exciting day, not the cops.
 
2014-08-19 11:04:35 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.


I do not know enough to be able to guess if this incident was preventable.
However, a police encounter with a man with a knife -- however deranged -- does not necessarily need to end in violence or even non-lethal incapacitation.
De-escalation should always be the primary method of conflict resolution for police. Just because a man is holding a knife and acting erratically, doesn't mean he is planning to act violently. Police in many jurisdictions are trained to talk out those situations as a first resort. Lucky cops have training in how to deal with mental illness etc. Perhaps de-escalation wasn't possible here, maybe the cops didn't have that kind of training, maybe they did and they couldn't get through to the guy, who knows.
But, my lay impression is that cops are becoming less and less hesitant to resort to using deadly force in encounters that would have ended very differently 20 years ago.
/ If I have a choice between taking a knife wound and a bullet wound, I'd go for a knife wound every time.
 
2014-08-19 11:05:30 PM  

Bugerz: Can we just take the local cops' guns away and give them tasers till this shiat is over? Even if the guy had a knife and was being threatening, shooting people at this point is only making it worse.


that would be really stoopid no? I mean some of the protesters are actually armed with REAL guns and they are not exactly the MLK or Gandhi type.
 
2014-08-19 11:05:46 PM  
I have extensive experience in computer simulations of these events. I know for a fact that a person's perception of time slows dramatically when they draw and aim a firearm; therefore, I demand to know why the police could not have used that moment of temporarily accelerated perception to carefully aim for and shoot out the knife from the suspect's hand.
 
2014-08-19 11:06:13 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.


yes, the stupid here does burn, and that picture was just a visual of how annoyed i get by uninformed, untrained, no idea of real life basement dwellers that have never been a police officer, telling police officers how to do their job while sitting in their armchair eating Cheetos.  Seriously, if you have no idea about how to be a cop, or, have never been one, don't give out stupid ass comments monday morning quarterbacking cops who had seconds to stop a knife wielding asshole, when you have all night to think about "what they should have done".  The guy wanted to die, he charged officers with a knife, and he got lit up.  End of story..next.
 
2014-08-19 11:06:16 PM  

vudukungfu: 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.


Omg, "free candy van" ... updating farky (which is running out of room)
 
2014-08-19 11:06:27 PM  

Yogimus: technically the guy with the knife decided he wanted to have an exciting day, not the cops


 I was sheriff of that county when I was twenty-five years old. Hard to believe. My grandfather was a lawman; father too. Me and him was sheriffs at the same time; him up in Plano and me out here. I think he's pretty proud of that. I know I was. Some of the old time sheriffs never even wore a gun. A lotta folks find that hard to believe. Jim Scarborough'd never carried one; that's the younger Jim. Gaston Boykins wouldn't wear one up in Comanche County. I always liked to hear about the oldtimers. Never missed a chance to do so. You can't help but compare yourself against the oldtimers. Can't help but wonder how they would have operated these times. There was this boy I sent to the 'lectric chair at Huntsville Hill here a while back. My arrest and my testimony. He killt a fourteen-year-old girl. Papers said it was a crime of passion but he told me there wasn't any passion to it. Told me that he'd been planning to kill somebody for about as long as he could remember. Said that if they turned him out he'd do it again. Said he knew he was going to hell. "Be there in about fifteen minutes". I don't know what to make of that. I sure don't. The crime you see now, it's hard to even take its measure. It's not that I'm afraid of it. I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job. But, I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He'd have to say, "O.K., I'll be part of this world."
 
2014-08-19 11:06:31 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: 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."

Well, that makes four eyewitnesses who saw the killer cop shooting at the unarmed victims back

"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.""

And yet another witness who saw him shoot the unarmed man with his hands up in a pose of surrender

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


Anonymous source claiming to be part of the investigation claims over a dozen witnesses supporting Wilson's story. So there may be more, but I wouldn't put any credence into it.

No released names, no released statements, and a single anonymous source. Its not much to go on, but there is a slight chance there is more to this.

/Probably not
//and seriously, people who make the basis of their argument off of unverified information are idiots.
 
2014-08-19 11:06:57 PM  
Express one's beef.
 
2014-08-19 11:07:10 PM  

TeamEd: 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.

I do not know enough to be able to guess if this incident was preventable.
However, a police encounter with a man with a knife -- however deranged -- does not necessarily need to end in violence or even non-lethal incapacitation.
De-escalation should always be the primary method of conflict resolution for police. Just because a man is holding a knife and acting erratically, doesn't mean he is planning to act violently. Police in many jurisdictions are trained to talk out those situations as a first resort. Lucky cops have training in how to deal with mental illness etc. Perhaps de-escalation wasn't possible here, maybe the cops didn't have that kind of training, maybe they did and they couldn't get through to the guy, who knows.
But, my lay impression is that cops are becoming less and less hesitant to resort to using deadly force in encounters that would have ended very differently 20 years ago.
/ If I have a choice between taking a knife wound and a bullet wound, I'd go for a knife wound every time.


And you, sir, have raised an outstanding point. Cops are losing valuable police work skills.  Everything is SWAT and Tasers now. This is crap that needs to stop.

Still, talking till the guy is within 3 feet? Pretty above and beyond for a "clean shoot" that could have happened 10 steps ago.
 
2014-08-19 11:07:15 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: moothemagiccow: 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

Do the instructors train on real crackheads with real knives? Otherwise it's farking useless

Yeah, how do people train for combat?  Gee I guess no Marine has ever learned to kill with his hands.  No martial artist in history has ever been capable of taking a blade from a punk.


Anyone who would willfully go unarmed against a man with a knife when he has other options is not a martial artist, he is an idiot.

You've obviously never had any martial arts training, especially not in the mythical "Krav Maga" you mentioned earlier. The Hollywood shiat you imagine martial arts to be is not reality. In the real world, you train to disarm men with knives to give you a higher chance of not dying if a knife-wielding man confronts you while you're unarmed. You would literally never choose to do so if you had any other options.

/has actually trained in Krav Maga
//it's mostly "kick them in the balls and run away to grab your gun"
 
2014-08-19 11:08:34 PM  

AeAe: Consider yourself lucky if you encounter a cop and you survive.  Cops will kill you at any provocation and get away with it.


He even profiled me as having drugs in the car, but then I'm white, so apparently I'm not that lucky.
 
2014-08-19 11:08:47 PM  

RogermcAllen: 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.


I remember it completely the opposite, it was a non-lethal replacement for the nightstick. Then some people died and it became a "less lethal" alternative.


I agree that they use them too often, but I am refuting the contention that they should only be used when facing deadly force, that is not their intended use.
 
2014-08-19 11:08:52 PM  

moonscatter: vudukungfu: 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.

Omg, "free candy van" ... updating farky (which is running out of room)


Who can take a sunrise, sprinkle it with dew
Cover it with choc'late and a miracle or two?
 
2014-08-19 11:09:14 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: 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."

Well, that makes four eyewitnesses who saw the killer cop shooting at the unarmed victims back

"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.""

And yet another witness who saw him shoot the unarmed man with his hands up in a pose of surrender

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


it is also the second accounting that wilson was persuing while firing
 
2014-08-19 11:10:25 PM  
Open a vein
make it rain
 
2014-08-19 11:10:58 PM  
TeamEd:
However, a police encounter with a man with a knife -- however deranged -- does not necessarily need to end in violence or even non-lethal incapacitation.
De-escalation should always be the primary method of conflict resolution for police. Just because a man is holding a knife and acting erratically, doesn't mean he is planning to act violently. Police in many jurisdictions are trained to talk out those situations as a first resort. Lucky cops have training in how to deal with mental illness etc. Perhaps de-escalation wasn't possible here, maybe the cops didn't have that kind of training, maybe they did and they couldn't get through to the guy, who knows.
But, my lay impression is that cops are becoming less and less hesitant to resort to using deadly force in encounters that would have ended very differently 20 years ago.
/ If I have a choice between taking a knife wound and a bullet wound, I'd go for a knife wound every time.


That reminds me of a story a year back of police doing a really good job de-escalating a kid that had gone violent and was mentally ill. Parents called the police in, they responded, were doing a great job calming him down. Was going great. Then another officer wandered in, tased him, and shot him dead... But the originial responders were awesome. The people who do their job well will do their best to de-escalate. Any smart person who ends up in a potentially dangerous situation will do their best to de-escalate. Violence is a last resort.

And choice between a knife wound and a bullet, I'd choose the bullet if I know its not going anywhere lethal. Knife wounds are a lot less clean, and a lot bigger if they twist.
 
2014-08-19 11:10:59 PM  

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


I haven't read the whole thread, but shouldn't that gun/taser ratio be reversed?
 
2014-08-19 11:11:23 PM  
Caffienatedjedi: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.

This is actually a reasonable response to the situation, unlike all the "shoot him in the leg" or "try to ninja the knife out of his hands" nonsense in the thread. Good on you for not only coming up with that idea, but also for realizing that you can't really expect someone to come up with that plan within the five seconds during which a crazy man with a knife is advancing on them. Seriously, it's refreshing to see some common sense.
 
2014-08-19 11:11:43 PM  

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

And neither should be used unless deadly force is necessary.


Says you.

Tell me, would you rather be tased, or beaten with a baton?

A recent law review and literature survey, one that was published in a real journal, concluded exactly what you would think from common sense. The taser has the potential to seriously injure someone, but that potential is much less than in comparable methods of compliance. There are better outcomes for everyone, in general, when police departments use tasers in lieu of batons and other physical compliance methods. There's been some scaremongering about tasers that has recently subjected them to public criticism, but they've been used successfully for about 30 years now. If there was a serious and widespread problem with their use, it would have surfaced by now.

This paper in particular rejects your claim that tasers should only be used in lieu of deadly force.

http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10 94 &context=jlh

From section VII, page 381. I've bolded some sections of interest. The paper includes citations for all the factual claims they make.

The deployment of Tasers by law enforcement offers promising benefits in 
saving lives and preventing harm. Indeed, almost every law enforcement agency that 
has implemented Tasers into their artillery has seen a dramatic decrease in police and 
suspect injuries.
 In addition, there are numerous documented cases of officers 
using Tasers instead of firearms in life-threatening situations, thereby preventing 
possible fatalities.

There are, however, legitimate concerns about the safety of Tasers. Although the 
evidence is not conclusive, Tasers may have adverse effects on individuals under the 
influence of drugs or with underlying heart conditions. Additional research needs 
to be conducted.206 Furthermore, there are legitimate concerns about the lack of a 
standard policy, training, and regulation on Taser deployment. Taser's unique 
capabilities of incapacitating suspects, without any threat of harm to the police 
officer or identifiable injury to the suspect, make using force more attractive. As
seen in several studies, if this power goes unchecked and unregulated, law 
enforcement officers may increasingly overuse Tasers in situations that do not 
warrant any force, or where traditional, less painful methods, such as dialogue and 
empty hand controls, would suffice.

Nevertheless, these unknown risks and concerns weighed against the clear 
benefits of Tasers do no justify the wholesale rejection of Tasers, or the strict 
mandate that Tasers act only as an alterative to deadly force.
The majority of the 
risks and concerns can be mitigated by increased training, detailed use-of-force 
polices, and government regulated standards.  For instance, in 2003, following high 
profile trials of Miami police officers and an ongoing Department of Justice 
investigation into alleged patterns of excessive force, the Miami Police Department 
redesigned their use-of-force policies to include a more stringent use-of-force 
continuum and increased oversight. Since the new policies were implemented, 
there has been a decrease in police shootings and allegations of excessive force.

Moreover, there are no other forms of non-lethal force that compare to the safety 
and effectiveness of Tasers.
 If law enforcement eliminated or restricted Tasers to 
only life-threatening situations, police officers would have to resort to chemical 
sprays, batons, punches, kicks, and restraint holds to neutralize an actively resistant 
suspect. Numerous studies have shown that these force options often result in 
escalated amounts of violence towards police officers and increased injuries to all 
parties involved.
 
2014-08-19 11:12:37 PM  
Anyone watching the IAMB feed? Camera guy had his camera fixed on one spot for a while watching people walk. Looks like a local (black) in a suit stopped and started to talk to a white cop. Apparently, they knew each other in that gave the all to familiar straight guy hug. And they both started talking and laughing getting along swimmingly. Seems like this was not want the camera guy wanted and turned the camera around without hesitation. Can't show cops getting along with the locals. That doesn't get ratings and clicks as much as looters and angry rioters throwing projectiles at the cops.
 
2014-08-19 11:13:31 PM  

Caffienatedjedi: Ctrl-Alt-Del: 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."

Well, that makes four eyewitnesses who saw the killer cop shooting at the unarmed victims back

"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.""

And yet another witness who saw him shoot the unarmed man with his hands up in a pose of surrender

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

Anonymous source claiming to be part of the investigation claims over a dozen witnesses supporting Wilson's story. So there may be more, but I wouldn't put any credence into it.

No released names, no released statements, and a single anonymous source. Its not much to go on, but there is a slight chance there is more to this.

/Probably not
//and seriously, people who make the basis of their argument off of unverified information are idiots.


that reporter is already backtracked on the claim of 10 witnesses. I will just copy and paste since such a short article

A St. Louis-area reporter who said on Monday that police told her several witnesses backed up Darren Wilson's claim that Michael Brown acted aggressively backtracked on Tuesday.
"On FMLA from paper. Earlier tweets did not meet standards for publication," she said.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, where Byers works, told Business Insider that "she is not involved in the Ferguson coverage while she is on leave. Her tweets are personal."
 
2014-08-19 11:13:48 PM  
Fubini:

FARK YOUR FACTS! TASERS ARE DEATH BEAMS THAT HAVE KILLED OVER 550 PEOPLE IN THE PAST 13 YEARS! YOU'RE WORSE THAN HITLER!

Get it? I'm doing an impression of Cyclo.
 
2014-08-19 11:13:50 PM  

Boon23834: 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

I haven't read the whole thread, but shouldn't that gun/taser ratio be reversed?


tasers are much more expensive and, in order to carry one,officers have be tased - some of them decline
 
2014-08-19 11:13:56 PM  
On New Years Eve about 2005 during early evening in my home town. Some guy gave chase from the cops. It was a busy evening on the streets for obvious reasons. I believe it was a car chase. Anyway

cops drew their weapons opened fire and killed an innocent bystander. Suspect lived. So, yes always use lethal force, center mass of course. True story in a nutshell.
 
2014-08-19 11:14:00 PM  

DrExplosion: Caffienatedjedi: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.

This is actually a reasonable response to the situation, unlike all the "shoot him in the leg" or "try to ninja the knife out of his hands" nonsense in the thread. Good on you for not only coming up with that idea, but also for realizing that you can't really expect someone to come up with that plan within the five seconds during which a crazy man with a knife is advancing on them. Seriously, it's refreshing to see some common sense.


I would assume I am going for the gun and partner is going for taser. I would expect my partner, if he were smart, to assume he (or she) was the one going for the gun. There are other actions they could have taken. But given the circumstances I think the ones they took were justified.
 
2014-08-19 11:14:18 PM  

Gyrfalcon: 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.


Actually, studies have shown that police departments that user tasers have less overall injury to both suspects and officers.
 
2014-08-19 11:14:45 PM  
*backtracking.
 
2014-08-19 11:14:49 PM  

Boo_Guy: 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?

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 My Little Pony Killer: Just because somebody is telling you to shoot them doesn't make that the correct choice. You could have taken him, alive, and with minimal injuries to your own force had you not been so damn lazy.

I'd like to know what size the knife is.

But 4 feet isn't much space for the officers,  and if they didn't have tasers well then bullets it is then because that's pretty close for someone to a cop with a knife.


21 feet is the rule of thumb for a knife.  7 steps to hit you.  A quick lunging rush is all that takes.

99% of people cannot realistically engage and stop (from a holstered pistol) an armed attacker within 21 feet.  This isn't Hollywood, it's real life.  A man armed with a knife can easily kill you once they are within 21 feet, and you have almost not chance against a determined attacker.  It's not one slash versus one shot, it's one slash then many, many slashes and stabs.  You are simply not going to be able to defend yourself once major muscle groups are severed and quarts of blood are gushing.

Good for the officers who stopped him so close.

True, the timing sucks, but it's righteous.
 
2014-08-19 11:15:29 PM  

Fubini: Gyrfalcon: 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.

Actually, studies have shown that police departments that user tasers have less overall injury to both suspects and officers.


Immediate ceasing of hostilities.
 
2014-08-19 11:15:30 PM  

Yogimus: TeamEd: 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.

I do not know enough to be able to guess if this incident was preventable.
However, a police encounter with a man with a knife -- however deranged -- does not necessarily need to end in violence or even non-lethal incapacitation.
De-escalation should always be the primary method of conflict resolution for police. Just because a man is holding a knife and acting erratically, doesn't mean he is planning to act violently. Police in many jurisdictions are trained to talk out those situations as a first resort. Lucky cops have training in how to deal with mental illness etc. Perhaps de-escalation wasn't possible here, maybe the cops didn't have that kind of training, maybe they did and they couldn't get through to the guy, who knows.
But, my lay impression is that cops are becoming less and less hesitant to resort to using deadly force in encounters that would have ended very differently 20 years ago.
/ If I have a choice between taking a knife wound and a bullet wound, I'd go for a knife wound every time.

And you, sir, have raised an outstanding point. Cops are losing valuable police work skills.  Everything is SWAT and Tasers now. This is crap that needs to stop.

Still, talking till the guy is within 3 feet? Pretty above and beyond for a "clean shoot" that could have happened 10 steps ago.


Sure, but there are many steps that they may have taken that could have provoked the man into 'suicide by cop.'
Again, I do not know how this went down. But, these are some things that can escalate a situation.
Did they immediately draw their guns?
Did the cops have their guns trained on the guy, or ready at their sides?
Did they tell him, '... Or we will shoot you,' and implant the idea in the guy's head?
Were they using a loud, agitated tone of voice?
Were they closing ground on him in an aggressive stance?
Etc.
 
2014-08-19 11:15:39 PM  

vudukungfu: moonscatter: vudukungfu: 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.

Omg, "free candy van" ... updating farky (which is running out of room)

Who can take a sunrise, sprinkle it with dew
Cover it with choc'late and a miracle or two?


*sings* vudu can... he's the candyman... talk about your childhood wishes..."
 
2014-08-19 11:15:54 PM  

MadeInDetroit: Caffienatedjedi: Ctrl-Alt-Del: 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."

Well, that makes four eyewitnesses who saw the killer cop shooting at the unarmed victims back

"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.""

And yet another witness who saw him shoot the unarmed man with his hands up in a pose of surrender

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

Anonymous source claiming to be part of the investigation claims over a dozen witnesses supporting Wilson's story. So there may be more, but I wouldn't put any credence into it.

No released names, no released statements, and a single anonymous source. Its not much to go on, but there is a slight chance there is more to this.

/Probably not
//and seriously, people who make the basis of their argument off of unverified information are idiots.

that reporter is already backtracked on the claim of 10 witnesses. I will just copy and paste since such a short article

A St. Louis-area reporter who said on Monday that po ...


Awesome, didn't hear that. Doesn't get much mention when people who use that argument conveniently cover up anything contradicting it.
 
2014-08-19 11:16:30 PM  
Look, im as anti-everything-in-ferguson as the next guy at the moment.

That being said, if you keep paging Dr.Darwin, eventually hes gonna show up.

Fark this guy.
 
2014-08-19 11:17:38 PM  

parasol: Boon23834: 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

I haven't read the whole thread, but shouldn't that gun/taser ratio be reversed?

tasers are much more expensive and, in order to carry one,officers have be tased - some of them decline


Remember that scene in Exit Wounds, where Steven Seagal and some random muscled white guy have a testosterone-fueled face-off by zapping each other with a taser?

Every time I see that scene, I immediately think, "Why the hell would you volunteer for something like that?"

Actually, when I was younger, my first thought was, "They keep that up, and one of them's going to light up like a candle."

/this is what happens when you play too much Syphon Filter
//God, that taser was fun
///and just wrong
 
2014-08-19 11:18:05 PM  
TeamEd:

All valid questions.  Once folks are out of the danger zone, and there is a barrier between you and man with the knife, options open up.  Man sees cops show up, and thinks "fark it I am going to end it all" leaves less options.

All around, I think this was a net gain for society, but a shiatty situation.
 
2014-08-19 11:18:19 PM  

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


If you think that

1. Cops should ...or should be trained to grapple, fence, tase, attempt to disarm, or otherwise let a knife wielding asshole within 10 feet of them, have a cat scan, i think you have lost connection with natural realty.

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.


WAT?

I don't expect them to be Walker Texas Ranger, or Jackie Chan, but aren't they trained in common self defense and takedown  techniques?

WTF do they expect to do if they lose their weapon, or it malfunctions in an emergency? Run away?
 
2014-08-19 11:18:20 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: 1. Cops should ...or should be trained to grapple, fence, tase, attempt to disarm, or otherwise let a knife wielding asshole within 10 feet of them, have a cat scan, i think you have lost connection with natural realty.


Seems to work fine in the rest of the world:

i.dailymail.co.uk

i.dailymail.co.uk

i.dailymail.co.uk

And those countries have lower crime rates to boot, so the cops apparently are doing their jobs despite not shooting everyone who seems mildly threatening. So are cops in the US incompetent, or are they just a bunch of scared little pussies wearing big-boy uniforms?
 
2014-08-19 11:18:21 PM  
Hmmm....I wonder how they would've handled this in Great Britain?

Of course if you are a wall paper hanger and live in Pakistan it would be also I'll advised to be caught shop lifting.
 
2014-08-19 11:18:33 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: 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.

I'm a primitive, close minded know it all and I'm part of the problem. yes, the stupid here does burn, and that picture was just a visual of how annoyed i get by uninformed, untrained, no idea of real life basement dwellers that have never been a police officer, telling police officers how to do their job while sitting in their armchair eating Cheetos.  Seriously, if you have no idea about how to be a cop, or, have never been one, don't give out stupid ass comments monday morning quarterbacking cops who had seconds to stop a knife wielding asshole, when you have all night to think about "what they should have done".  The guy wanted to die, he charged officers with a knife, and he got lit up.End of story..next.

 
2014-08-19 11:20:28 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: 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.

yes, the stupid here does burn, and that picture was just a visual of how annoyed i get by uninformed, untrained, no idea of real life basement dwellers that have never been a police officer, telling police officers how to do their job while sitting in their armchair eating Cheetos.  Seriously, if you have no idea about how to be a cop, or, have never been one, don't give out stupid ass comments monday morning quarterbacking cops who had seconds to stop a knife wielding asshole, when you have all night to think about "what they should have done".  The guy wanted to die, he charged officers with a knife, and he got lit up.  End of story..next.


i212.photobucket.com

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."
 
2014-08-19 11:21:02 PM  

Fubini: This paper in particular rejects your claim that tasers should only be used in lieu of deadly force.


You need to look up the definition of "deadly force". Because every use of force you cited in that post was, in fact- deadly force.

Tasers should not be (and are not intended to be) used in lieu of deadly force. They  are a type of deadly force. Just because they tend to not be lethal as often as firearms, does not mean they are not deadly force.
 
2014-08-19 11:21:27 PM  

WhyKnot: I have played Double Dragon enough to know the cops really only needed to do a jump kick on the suspect. Such an attack is enough to cause said suspect to drop his weapon...the officer will land in a crouching position, but he will be able to stand before the suspect does and thus be the first to retrieve the weapon.

Just saying...


Thank you for the hardest laughing fit I've had in about a year. I was getting so pissed off at the complete ignorance of some of these people, and that post hit me right in the funny bone.

/tingley
//as good for you as it was for me?
 
2014-08-19 11:22:01 PM  
Cyclometh:

You really don't understand how words work.
 
2014-08-19 11:22:36 PM  

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


If you think that

1. Cops should ...or should be trained to grapple, fence, tase, attempt to disarm, or otherwise let a knife wielding asshole within 10 feet of them, have a cat scan, i think you have lost connection with natural realty.

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.

WAT?

I don't expect them to be Walker Texas Ranger, or Jackie Chan, but aren't they trained in common self defense and takedown  techniques?

WTF do they expect to do if they lose their weapon, or it malfunctions in an emergency? Run away?


/yes they are, and handgun retention, that does not vitiate their right to defend themselves against a lethal weapon with lethal force.  WTH would you let someone like that...get close enough to grapple with you? Come on man, use some sense.
 
2014-08-19 11:23:06 PM  
I read this and now know why so few people go into law enforcement.  In one split second your are either dead or a murderer and second guessed by just about everyone.   Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.
 
2014-08-19 11:23:20 PM  
Guy had a knife threatening the cops.

As much as i haaaate the police....its a legit shoot.
 
2014-08-19 11:24:03 PM  

jst3p: RogermcAllen: 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.

I remember it completely the opposite, it was a non-lethal replacement for the nightstick. Then some people died and it became a "less lethal" alternative.


I agree that they use them too often, but I am refuting the contention that they should only be used when facing deadly force, that is not their intended use.


The Taser was initially sold to cops as an alternative to the gun, not the nightstick. It was NEVER intended to be used in place of the baton, and never thought to be "non-lethal" by police or military personnel (from whom it initially descended) but always less-lethal.

As I said above, it was sold to the public as a replacement to the nightstick in the post-riotous 60's and 70's, when people were tired of seeing beaten-up young protestors showing up on the news all the time; the supposedly clean, bruiseless and instantaneous effect of the Taser vs. the prolonged pain of a beating made it appealing to the lefty public; while the 50K volt punishment made it friendly to the right who approved of giving criminals a good what-for.

At about the same time, the PR-24 was introduced, and was so incredibly deadly in the hands of a skilled officer (see Bit o'Gristle's remarks, above), that both the left and the right became alarmed and were looking for anything to replace an 18" piece of steel that could cave in a charging suspect's skull with one twirl. Enter the Taser, a post-military piece of less-lethal hardware that was NEVER meant to replace the baton, but ONLY to replace a bullet--which should have told people how deadly it really was, but nobody ever put two and two together.

Unfortunately, the younger generation of cops has grown up with two intersecting realities: That the Taser is a replacement for other less-lethal methods of compliance; at the same time as the unreliable Tasers of the 80's have become much more refined and powerful today. (Early Tasers, for instance, could be blocked by even a heavy denim jacket; and they were one-shot only: Once the prongs were released and the first bolt discharged, they could not be fired again until a new cartridge was installed) And the public wants 110% safety from drug-crazed terrorists wielding Glock AR-47 assault grenade launchers; at the same time as they demand that suspects not be damaged when police arrest them. Since these are not compatible demands, noncompliant suspects usually end up paying the price.
 
2014-08-19 11:24:18 PM  

Cyclometh: Fubini: This paper in particular rejects your claim that tasers should only be used in lieu of deadly force.

You need to look up the definition of "deadly force". Because every use of force you cited in that post was, in fact- deadly force.

Tasers should not be (and are not intended to be) used in lieu of deadly force. They  are a type of deadly force. Just because they tend to not be lethal as often as firearms, does not mean they are not deadly force.


So you are going to just completely ignore the post where I showed that you are 100% incorrect? You know other people can read it and see you are 100% incorrect, right?
 
Displayed 50 of 582 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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