Cops kill Costco pizza lady....

Skibum said:
You mean the woman who has been handling a knife on a regular basis at work for the past year and a half? Can't see how she wouldn't have picked up a few skills handling a blade in that time.....
Click to expand...

Ok, so you slice a person like you slice an unmoving pizza. Right then ...
 
jj said:
Ok, so you slice a person like you slice an unmoving pizza. Right then ...
Click to expand...

Skibum said:
No, but I'm sure she wasn't inept with a knife.
Click to expand...

I'm not inept with a knife. My boning knife, 5" chef and 7" chef now have 36 years in my possession and I use knives every day, rather proficiently.

But if Nessie or Bikewer were to come at me with a baton or pepper spray, I'd probably get taken down while I was trying to figure out how to change the grip from my slicing or chopping grip to a knife-fighting one. (Unless they were cooperative and put their hand(s) on a cutting board and asked me to julienne the first four fingers. I'd be great at that. :D )

These threads are so informative. For certain definitions of "informative", of course.
 
DreamingNaiad said:
I cant tell if you're trolling or not. You seem to have trouble following.

If you're wandering aimlessly you can end up in part if a room where there are other people. She could have even been walking towards the door..
Click to expand...
You said they should have moved out of her way. That's not walking aimlessly, that's walking towards them and you think they should have let her travel past them - where other people were.

Those are your own words, perhaps you have difficulty with the English language?
 
Last edited:
qayak said:
That's like saying anyone who isn't inept with a pen will write a bestseller.
Click to expand...

Its more like saying they have more potential to write one. We won't know until they try. It most likely will turn out to be a bloody mess, but it is still an attempt.
 
Last edited:
Bikewer said:
The search for an effective non-lethal weapon has been elusive. The problem is that circumstances are difficult to anticipate, and people are highly variable in their reactions.

The police "baton" (don't you love euphemisms) or "night-stick" has been an option for a very long time. Unfortunately, the typical untrained method of using this device is to beat people over the head until they are senseless.
This actually seldom results in them becoming senseless and instead results in the poor sod being severely cut and sometimes concussed. Bleeding profusely and still fighting...

Attempts to employ the baton in a more scientific manner, borrowing techniques from various martial arts styles, have had a limited amount of success. Blows to joints and such are highly effective, but also tend to damage the joints leading to chronic syndromes and large lawsuit awards.
Blows to muscle-mass "pressure points", such as taught in the PPCT (pressure point control tactics) system tend to work quite well...On sober people.
Unfortunately, sober people are not normally in a state of agitation requiring the officer to fight with them.
If they are high on various drugs or drunk, these blows tend to go rather unnoticed.

Chemical weapons have had varying levels of success. We were initially issued the small, personal "tear gas" canisters. They proved woefully ineffective. Some people are simply not susceptible. Again, when drunk or drug-fueled.... They tended not to work at all.

The "Pepper Spray" (Oleoresin Capsicum) is better. I've used it several times with good effect. However, if the person is very motivated or chemically "altered", he can still fight. He may not be able to see... But he can still resist and still must be wrestled into submission.
The Taser... The Taser has great potential, but at best it is somewhat unreliable. The device shoots two wired darts which diverge at a 15 degree angle.
So... There is a "sweet spot" range. Too close, the darts hit close together and there is insufficient tissue mass in between for a good, disabling shock.
Too far... And one dart misses. No effect unless you then thrust the body of the weapon against the person (it has exposed electrodes as well as the darts)

When it works, it works spectacularly well. The individual is rendered quite helpless for the duration of the 5-second pulse, and may be cuffed or otherwise restrained.
The wires attached to the darts are only 15 feet long... So that's your range.
It is intended to take "out of control" people into custody without harming them. It is NOT intended as a self-defense weapon or to be used against an armed and hostile individual...Simply not reliable enough for that purpose.

There are a variety of other "less-than-lethal" weapons available. One is projectile weapons that are designed to fire things that will disable the individual. "Bean bag" rounds. "Baton" rounds. Things like that. Generally launched by modified riot guns or 40mm launchers of the sort used for tear-gas rounds.
These are sometimes effective... But we've seen video of individuals essentially laughing them off.
Not reliable for defensive purposes.

Other devices have been proposed or are in development. The so-called "green laser" or strobe can induce nausea... Sometimes. Haven't heard any more about it in years.

So in short, no less-than-lethal weapon presently available is reliable enough in it's effects to be used for defensive purposes. Most all of them are used in an attempt to take a person into custody who is agitated, insane, threatening... but not actively attacking.

Should such a device become available... The Phaser on "stun"... I'd be first in line to get one, and I suspect police departments would fall all over themselves. "Use of force" is highly problematic for departments and officers as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks, this is an interesting and informative post from someone who knows what they are talking about which is probably one reason why it has been widely ignored.
 
Skibum said:
Its more like saying they have more potential to write one. We won't know until they try. It most likely will turn out to be a bloody mess, but it is still an attempt.
Click to expand...

So, the option is then the death penalty, based on potential to cause harm. Is that what you mean?
 
jj said:
So, the option is then the death penalty, based on potential to cause harm. Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...

No, the option is someone being allowed to defend their life from a threat on theirs. Call it a death penalty all you want.
 
WildCat said:
You said they should have moved out of her way. That's not walking aimlessly, that's walking towards them and you think they should have let her travel past them - where other people were.

Those are your own words, perhaps you have difficulty with the English language?
Click to expand...

Wandering aimlessly means having no destination in mind. I could leave the house right now for a wander and end up at the post office. Sure I'm moving towards it but that's just the general direction I happen to be travelling in.

And I clearly said that if they didn't want to grab her from the front because of the blades they could have moved and grabbed her from behind. In this hypothetical situation you are determined to twist.

Do you think that would be an impossible feat? That if they step aside she will suddenly reveal herself to be The Flash and zip off?

As for the whole standing aside thing. It was aimed at those here who think they should never have to move away from danger. I said that clearly in the post. And that I didn't expect these officers to walk away. Try reading a whole paragraph instead of focusing on random out of context sentences that you repeat over and over again despite explanation.

Try arguing against things that have actually been said instead of making things up.
 
WildCat said:
Incorrect.
Click to expand...

Why?


64 killed by suspects last year. 5 from stabbings btw.
Click to expand...

That now needs context. A search finds that there are about 800,000 sworn personnel police officers in the USA, so with 64 killed that is a death rate of 8 per 100,000.

In 2011 there were 136,261 police in England & Wales with 2 killed. So that is a death rate of 1.4 per 100,000.

I have to admit I was not expecting such a difference and I think Wildcat has (after checking his claim and doing the correct maths) made his point. The US police should be more inclined to go to deadly force in a situation as so many of them get killed.
 
WildCat said:
And apparently UK cops respond just like US cops do if they're armed.
Click to expand...

Not always, having armed police shoot someone is very rare here and it is unarmed police who deal with the vast majority of incidents.

That's some curious "logic" you employ there.
Click to expand...

No, as shown above, just checking your claim due to your use of raw numbers without proper context.
 
Nessie said:
Why?




That now needs context. A search finds that there are about 800,000 sworn personnel police officers in the USA, so with 64 killed that is a death rate of 8 per 100,000.

In 2011 there were 136,261 police in England & Wales with 2 killed. So that is a death rate of 1.4 per 100,000.

I have to admit I was not expecting such a difference and I think Wildcat has (after checking his claim and doing the correct maths) made his point. The US police should be more inclined to go to deadly force in a situation as so many of them get killed.
Click to expand...

What does this so-called analysis have to do with the OP? This thread is about a specific incident, not about the rate of police killings between nations. Start another thread.
 
lionking said:
You have the question wrong. It should be how reasonable the police response was in the circumstances. I think the police will be found to have acted reasonably in this case.
Click to expand...

I have already said that if the police arrived and straight away she rushed them armed with a knife then I can see why they shot her.

And I will repeat, police shout nt be expected to "take a few knocks" from a person with a knife in the course of their duties.
Click to expand...

This is getting two things mixed into one. The police should be expected to take a few knocks in dealing with arresting people. They cannot kill to prevent themselves from getting any form of injury whatsoever.

Now if there is someone with a knife who has to be arrested, yes if that person poses a clear danger to the police by rushing them shoot. But if there is no immediate danger don't shoot and certainly don't shoot so as to avoid any form of injury whatsoever.

I suspect many here are talking passed each other as all agree, rush the police with a knife and get shot, especially if a tazer has failed. But a person with a knife cannot just be shot by the police because they have a knife on them and may, at some point become an immediate threat.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I'm not inept with a knife. My boning knife, 5" chef and 7" chef now have 36 years in my possession and I use knives every day, rather proficiently.

But if Nessie or Bikewer were to come at me with a baton or pepper spray, I'd probably get taken down while I was trying to figure out how to change the grip from my slicing or chopping grip to a knife-fighting one. (Unless they were cooperative and put their hand(s) on a cutting board and asked me to julienne the first four fingers. I'd be great at that. :D )

These threads are so informative. For certain definitions of "informative", of course.
Click to expand...

I agree with you Foolmewunz, cheffing and fighting skills are completely different things.
 
WildCat said:
You said they should have moved out of her way. That's not walking aimlessly, that's walking towards them and you think they should have let her travel past them - where other people were.

Those are your own words, perhaps you have difficulty with the English language?
Click to expand...

Sorry Wildcat but are seriously not getting the point of what is being said here by DreamingNaiad.

If the lady was not posing an immediate threat to anyone and it turns out she did not rush at the police then other tactics can be used and it was wrong to shoot her.

If the lady did rush at the police with knife out (as the article suggests, but we don't know for sure) then they were justified in shooting especially since the tazer failed.

Hope that helps :)
 
lionking said:
What does this so-called analysis have to do with the OP? This thread is about a specific incident, not about the rate of police killings between nations. Start another thread.
Click to expand...

It is important to put the incident into context. We now know that the US police are about 4 times more likely to be killed that those in England & Wales. That would give further reason for the police attending Costco to be inclined to use deadly force to protect themselves. That makes her shooting, sadly, more justifiable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom