• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The behaviour of US police officers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back to the Wyatt Earp solution, despite numerous police officers explaining why that's a problem.
And no one at all disagrees with them.:rolleyes:

I don't know why several of you post this argument as if it is the final word. Gosh, why don't I cave to such obvious expertise as cops in the US who learned the shoot to kill or don't shoot mantra and can't let go of it?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you think I'm supposed to see. Have I once said the dead girl had not appeared to be about to stab the other girl? :boggled:
I also said given the cop's options and training, he did what he was trained to do. The victim was not in position to slit the girl in pink's throat. She was obviously in position to stab the girl in pink.

Perhaps you are conflating my posts where I referred to cops shooting mentally ill people with knives when the person was not near anyone.

Cops do that. You don't drop the knife, they shoot regardless of how close the knife wielder is to anyone. I gave those as other examples that shoot to kill might not have been the best option.

Given that is the cop's body cam it even looks like the girl's ass was a much larger target than the chest.

"The girl who died was not in any physical position to be able to slit the throat of the girl she was attacking."

Highlighted: Ummm maybe we're just quibbling but perhaps puncture her throat rather than slice is more accurate :confused: Anyways there was very little time between when he decided to shoot and the 2nd girl could've been seriously wounded or killed. I don't think deciding on an ass shot was appropriate given the circumstances. And any circumstance where there was time, I find it unlikely that a less lethal option could've been chosen instead.

Underlined: yeah you and me would agree in that situation, and we could probably find plenty of bodycam shooting videos where I'd say yes, police could've chosen another option, or just waited. Theres no need to shoot a knife wielder if they are not brandishing a knife at someone in their immediate vicinity.
 
Could he have gotten to her in time? Maybe not.
I'm pretty sure the cop was close enough to whack her on the head if he had tried.

But cops in the US won't because they'd be afraid the girl would then attack them with the knife. Maybe.
 
It's much more likely if they don't aim for center mass, like they have been trained to do.

( FWIW I don't believe all US police officers should be carrying guns at all times. However, if this one hadn't been armed, the other girl in the fight would probably be dead. )
Go back to the video, the girl's ass/thighs were a much larger target.
 
Okay you really need to let me know where I lose you here.

It stops most of the people most of the time" isn't good enough.

This is where you lose me: changing the circumstances.

When do tasers not work?

When the cops miss: could happen, could have happened with the bullets also.

When they fail to keep the tased person down after the first jolt. Not an issue if you are trying to stop a girl with a knife from thrusting it into the other girl.​
 
And no one at all disagrees with them.:rolleyes:

I don't know why several of you post this argument as if it is the final word. Gosh, why don't I cave to such obvious expertise as cops in the US who learned the shoot to kill or don't shoot mantra and can't let go of it?

No need for you to cave. Just offer a reasoned response instead of " because I said so "..

Just because it's not good training, in some people's opinion, doesn't change the fact that it is the training that is in place, and the officer followed it.
 
Last edited:
"The girl who died was not in any physical position to be able to slit the throat of the girl she was attacking."

Highlighted: Ummm maybe we're just quibbling but perhaps puncture her throat rather than slice is more accurate :confused: Anyways there was very little time between when he decided to shoot and the 2nd girl could've been seriously wounded or killed. I don't think deciding on an ass shot was appropriate given the circumstances. And any circumstance where there was time, I find it unlikely that a less lethal option could've been chosen instead.

Underlined: yeah you and me would agree in that situation, and we could probably find plenty of bodycam shooting videos where I'd say yes, police could've chosen another option, or just waited. Theres no need to shoot a knife wielder if they are not brandishing a knife at someone in their immediate vicinity.
If you are lunging at a person with a knife like in this case, you don't lunge for the throat. But yes, stab and slit are two completely different actions.
 
This is where you lose me: changing the circumstances.

When do tasers not work?

When the cops miss: could happen, could have happened with the bullets also.

When they fail to keep the tased person down after the first jolt. Not an issue if you are trying to stop a girl with a knife from thrusting it into the other girl.​

Okay let me put it in terms you'll understand.

Person A is charging at the stupid, argumentative, pointless hill you've decided to defend for the last... 3 pages now.

Because this pointless argumentative hill is the most important thing in the world do you, whatever weapon you use to stop them can't be a weapon/tactic that might stop them. It has to be a weapon/tactic that will stop them.
 
This is the best out of context post on this board in a long time.
What do you mean by "center mass" when referring to the place to aim because it is a larger target than say aiming at a person's head?

Center mass doesn't mean "heart". It's being used as if that's what it means. But that's not what it means physiologically.
 
No need for you to cave. Just offer a reasoned response instead of " because I said so "..

Just because it's not good training, in some people's opinion, doesn't change the fact that it is the training that is in place, and the officer followed it.
I have given detailed reasoning multiple times not just because I said so. And what has been offered as the rebuttal? Because others said so.:rolleyes:

Are you claiming police tactics have never changed throughout the years? Ever?

Since when has 'we've always done it that way been' always been a good argument?
 
Last edited:
How do you know that is not where he aimed, but missed?

If you are going to question his training, why not question his marksmanship?
I didn't question the individual's training.

I'm questioning the policy considering how shoot to kill or don't shoot may not fit every single situation.
 
Okay let me put it in terms you'll understand.

Person A is charging at the stupid, argumentative, pointless hill you've decided to defend for the last... 3 pages now.

Because this pointless argumentative hill is the most important thing in the world do you, whatever weapon you use to stop them can't be a weapon/tactic that might stop them. It has to be a weapon/tactic that will stop them.
No, just no. But it explains why there is only holding positions in the thread rather than discussing the actual issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom