Cops kill Costco pizza lady....

Nessie said:
Police arrest man with a knife in London

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFddlI9QHJk

The mounted officers contain and control, listen to the commands of the female officer. The man is surrounded and a tazer fired and then the surrounding police pounce. There are armed police there, but guns remain in holsters.

Here is exactly what I was speaking of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX5CPx4RKWw

A man armed with a machete is contained, a wheely bin is used to try and disarm him. There is negotiation of sorts in that the man is told clearly to drop the knife and he is going to be arrested. As back up arrives he is eventfully overwhelmed, pounced upon and arrested. The police have batons and some have a shield. I do not see CS being used and no one has a gun.
Click to expand...

Meh, why go to all that trouble? The sooner you fill him full of holes, the sooner you can get back to the donut shop.

;)
 
Nessie said:
American exceptionalism, you think you have nothing to learn from others.
Click to expand...
Yes of course, because Triforcharity goes from thread to thread comparing other countries to his own claiming that his own country is better using nothing but weak correlation to boot. Oh wait, that is you!


avoid being injured is not sufficient to justify killing another.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. You cannot know how severely you will be injured, you could be maimed, or killed by the injury. Are you psychic?

Common law goes back a very long way, your own law is based on the same common law ours is, and in common law a person is able to make use of deadly force when defending themselves from attack.

In this case I tend to agree with you that options probably existed, what I do not agree with is your argumentative focus on unimportant detail. Was it reasonable to shoot?

Yes, it probably was. That is not the same as saying it was the only option, nor the best option.
 
Last edited:
Xulld said:
Common law goes back a very long way, your own law is based on the same common law ours is, and in common law a person is able to make use of deadly force when defending themselves from attack.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any dispute about what the law is. The question is, SHOULD it be the law?

Also, because you CAN use deadly force, does that mean you SHOULD?

I don't have an answer to either of these questions. Just food for thought.
 
Xulld said:
Yes of course, because Triforcharity goes from thread to thread comparing other countries to his own claiming that his own country is better using nothing but weak correlation to boot. Oh wait, that is you!


<SNIP>.
Click to expand...

No one is saying the UK is better.

But if our police can resolve dangerous situations without killing then why cant yours? Or, if they can why don't they?

I don't mean that as a criticism. I just have no idea why everything is seen as more dangerous over the pond. And if it's more dangerous because there are more guns then how do more guns make things better?

We are from two quite different cultures wrt this issue and I think that's what causes so much frustration on gun threads. We don't see danger everywhere and cant really understand that mentality.

I don't for one second believe these guys wanted to shoot her but I hope that they considered other avenues and didn't move straight from one of their tazers not working (wouldn't they both have one?) to deadly force unless she was actually charging at them with blades.

Hope that helps.
 
Last edited:
Xulld said:
Yes of course, because Triforcharity goes from thread to thread comparing other countries to his own claiming that his own country is better using nothing but weak correlation to boot. Oh wait, that is you!
Click to expand...

It is an extremely strong link, countries with strict gun laws that are well enforced and limit guns in the wrong hands have lower death rates than the USA. All of them.


Yes it is. You cannot know how severely you will be injured, you could be maimed, or killed by the injury. Are you psychic?
Click to expand...

Are the police in the USA given any training in recognising factors when sizing up a situation or person and the risk they pose? Recognising how much risk someone poses comes with training and experience.

Common law goes back a very long way, your own law is based on the same common law ours is, and in common law a person is able to make use of deadly force when defending themselves from attack.
Click to expand...

In the UK self defence has to be proportionate. You cannot kill to avoid being hurt.

In this case I tend to agree with you that options probably existed, what I do not agree with is your argumentative focus on unimportant detail. Was it reasonable to shoot?

Yes, it probably was. That is not the same as saying it was the only option, nor the best option.
Click to expand...

We do not know all the details, so no one knows the answer whether or not this was proportionate.
 
The police had a taser and used it first. It did not work. So let's dispense with the idea that they immediately went to firearms.

Tasers often do not work, for various reasons.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
The police had a tazer and used it first. It did not work. So let's dispense with the idea that they immediately went to firearms.
Click to expand...

Idea dispensed.
Any news on store camera footage? Seems like there ought to be some.
 
Nessie said:
Are the police in the USA given any training in recognising factors when sizing up a situation or person and the risk they pose? Recognising how much risk someone poses comes with training and experience.
Click to expand...

Why would they need training? They have guns.
 
LTC8K6 said:
The police had a taser and used it first. It did not work. So let's dispense with the idea that they immediately went to firearms.

Tasers often do not work, for various reasons.
Click to expand...

Multiple cops and they only had 1 taser?
 
Noztradamus said:
Not true

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2066rank.html

USA is below most European counties.
Click to expand...

This appears to be a ranking of rates of death from all causes. Not surprising that the U.S. is way down the list, far behind most third-world countries.

Maybe more useful is a comparison of deaths by firearms. The U.S. is close to the top in the industrial world:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ed-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/us-guns-statistics-outlier_n_2331892.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom