Crime Tiny Knife Wielding Tranny Shot By Cops

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-student-holding-tiny-knife-article-1.3501857

I'm conflicted. This is the kind of bullshit over use of force that I hate cops for. BUT, fuck this suicidal shithead.

 

[Marvin]

No dude. With respect, nonlethal options are nowhere near as reliable as firearms when it comes to dealing with a subject armed with a knife.

OC spray isn't karate in a can and is totally unpredictable. It's good at stunning or panicking some subjects, but others are virtually immune to it or even get enraged and more dangerous and violent.

Tasers will incapacitate a subject reliably...but that's if and only if both prongs connect properly...which is surprisingly difficult and unpredictable with a subject advancing towards the officer.

Go hands on, with or without a baton, and you're nearly guaranteed to get cut.

I can say that if a subject advanced towards me with a knife and I had all of the tools available to the best equipped officers in North America, I'd still shoot them. And generally speaking (of course all situations must be evaluated on their own merits but I'm speaking broadly), that's how law enforcement are trained, it's legally acceptable, and it's frankly the smartest thing to do.

You're approaching this as if any risk at all is unacceptable. I disagree, I think the element of risk is an essential part of the job description.

I expect cops to put themselves in danger, at least a little bit, to try to make the system as fair as possible. That is to say, the purpose of the police is simply to get the suspect secured and in front of a judge, where the actual factfinding is to take place.

Cops are supposed to get a little dirty while executing their duties. They have to deal with domestic violence situations, crazy hobos, tackling drunk guys at bars, etc. Like if the other guy has a gun, sure, go for it, light 'em up. But just a knife? That's going to be a case by case basis, and I've seen too much bullshit from cops to go easy on them.

They should be compensated appropriately for the risk, of course. But a cop who just knee-jerk shoots a guy with a knife in every situation? That's like a firefighter who won't run into a burning building.

 

[Cato]

You're approaching this as if any risk at all is unacceptable. I disagree, I think the element of risk is an essential part of the job description.

I expect cops to put themselves in danger, at least a little bit, to try to make the system as fair as possible. That is to say, the purpose of the police is simply to get the suspect secured and in front of a judge, where the actual factfinding is to take place.

Cops are supposed to get a little dirty while executing their duties. They have to deal with domestic violence situations, crazy hobos, tackling drunk guys at bars, etc. Like if the other guy has a gun, sure, go for it, light 'em up. But just a knife? That's going to be a case by case basis, and I've seen too much bullshit from cops to go easy on them.

They should be compensated appropriately for the risk, of course. But a cop who just knee-jerk shoots a guy with a knife in every situation? That's like a firefighter who won't run into a burning building.

It's not reasonable to ask anyone to literally gamble their life to use unreliable nonlethal options over reliable lethal ones, in order to attempt to spare the lives of people who chose to arm themselves, disobey lawful orders, and become active threats to law enforcement officers and the general public.

 

[GethN7]

Based on the circumstances, this is how it likely looked from the mind of the cop who shot the troon:


I have a non-compliant person with a dangerous looking blade advancing towards me, they have refused attempts to disarm peacefully, they are likely not mentally stable, and they appear intent on causing harm if they get within sufficient range to launch an attack.

Further, reports prior to my showing up on the scene indicated they might also have a gun, which it is only prudent to assume is a backup weapon they can and will use and is capable of lethal harm to me or an innocent person.

Rather than risk injury or death to myself based on all this information, I should put this person on the ground with the weapon I have been issued, especially since they are still advancing and my lawful order for them to peacefully disarm has been completely ignored.

 

[Coldgrip]

View attachment 281722
Anyone who dresses like that should be shot tbh.

Only after a righteous and thorough beating though.

 

[Marvin]

It's not reasonable to ask anyone to literally gamble their life to use unreliable nonlethal options over reliable lethal ones, in order to attempt to spare the lives of people who chose to arm themselves, disobey lawful orders, and become active threats to law enforcement officers and the general public.

They should gamble their life a little. Again, firefighters running into burning buildings. There's an element of risk there, but it's a part of the job. Or what about soldiers? I mean, we can give them all the fancy toys they want, but ultimately, some day a soldier is going to end up in front of the barrel of a gun. They've got to be prepared for that.

Police do need to get their hands dirty sometimes. The job inherently comes with risk of injury or death.

Getting the suspect in front of a judge is an important goal. Again, I'm not saying they should just risk themselves willy nilly. But I do expect them to try, and that includes a little physical danger sometimes. I'm not going to just rubber stamp every decision the cops make.

 

[Hyperion]

Fantastic shot. Advancing on a female cop actually changes the algebra a little bit. This was justified.

Also I hope she gets a marksmanship citation.

 

[RI 360]

They should be compensated appropriately for the risk, of course. But a cop who just knee-jerk shoots a guy with a knife in every situation? That's like a firefighter who won't run into a burning building.

False equivalent.

They should gamble their life a little. Again, firefighters running into burning buildings. There's an element of risk there, but it's a part of the job. Or what about soldiers? I mean, we can give them all the fancy toys they want, but ultimately, some day a soldier is going to end up in front of the barrel of a gun. They've got to be prepared for that.

Police do need to get their hands dirty sometimes. The job inherently comes with risk of injury or death.

Soldiers are prolific killers, that's literally their job. They don't stand around negotiating with terrorists on the battle field, even if the terrorist is only holding a tiny knife.

Not all firefighters do go into burning buildings, that's only the job of search and rescue manning the ladder companies, and there are some infernos they use their discretion not to enter because it would be suicide.

I don't know what you think "getting your hands dirty" entails but killing someone is like at the top of the list for the average person, and that's what those cops did. With the way he was behaving I might have assumed he was on meth or bath salts.

 

[The_Truth]

Police do need to get their hands dirty sometimes. The job inherently comes with risk of injury or death.

You know what else comes with an inherentl risk of injury or death?

Advancing on someone while armed with a knife.

The police showed considerable restraint in not simply blowing this guy away when they arrived on the scene.

 

[Cato]

@Marvin You're strawmanning by acting like when a subject is shot, no other efforts were made to avoid the use of lethal force.

Note that the officers in the video used verbal commands to attempt to gain compliance and deescalate the situation. The subject did not comply and instead advanced upon the officers.

What you don't seem to understand is that in legitimate use of force situation, the subject is the one dictating the level of force used, not the officer. This subject chose to crank the dial up to justify lethal force.

I by no means "rubber stamp every decision that cops make." In fact, I left the law enforcement field due to ethical concerns. But I fully support the right of police officers to defend themselves and others (as I support the right of private citizens to do the same).

Those officers already put themselves at a degree of risk by attempting to talk down and arrest an armed subject. That's a reasonable degree of risk to expect them to put themselves in. Asking them to use intermediate force when subjects present lethal threats is not a reasonable degree of risk, nor is it tactically sound.

 

[The_Truth]

Actual use of a Tazer from less than 3 weeks ago.

It starts around 1:40

You can tell the Tazer at least hit him because you can see him dragging it behind him as he still attacks the officer.

It took multiple bullets to finally bring him down.

 

[AnOminous]

Cops are supposed to get a little dirty while executing their duties. They have to deal with domestic violence situations, crazy hobos, tackling drunk guys at bars, etc. Like if the other guy has a gun, sure, go for it, light 'em up. But just a knife? That's going to be a case by case basis, and I've seen too much bullshit from cops to go easy on them.

I agree in general it's a judgment call, and should be judged on a case by case basis. However, my presumption is that if someone is advancing on a cop with a knife, the cop's judgment should be judged in that light and only solid evidence that the judgment wasn't sound should be considered against them.

They should gamble their life a little. Again, firefighters running into burning buildings. There's an element of risk there, but it's a part of the job.

I dislike this comparison, because firefighters are generally rescuing people who deserve it, not violent perps trying to kill them, or in this case, crazy people deliberately trying to force the cops to kill them by advancing on them with a weapon.

 

[Mason Verger]

Those cops should all be arrested for misgendering them multiple times.

"Put the knife down MAN" ?! What the fuck is that?!

 

[m0rnutz]

Can this be a random.txt please?

I still can't keep myself from hearing this in my head

This isn't really the first time I've heard of this happen, though. There was a case of a Kristiana Coignard walking into a Texas police station with a steak knife, being tackled to the ground and disarmed, only to get up when they backed off and lunge at an officer's holster. One theory is she thought aliens were coming.

https://news.vice.com/article/texas...n-shooting-death-of-mentally-ill-teenage-girl

If a cop tells you to drop the knife, you drop the fucking knife. If you decide to keep walking holding a knife, they are obliged to cap your ass like the autist you are.

Speaking of, there was a youtube video of a woman who trained her dog to stop her when she had breakdowns from autism. Same woman was later shot and killed by officers.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-asperger-shot-dead-police-article-1.2520902

So this really isn't that new of a concept. Threaten an officer, you will get taken down.

 

[Mason Verger]

I still can't keep myself from hearing this in my head

This isn't really the first time I've heard of this happen, though. There was a case of a Kristiana Coignard walking into a Texas police station with a steak knife, being tackled to the ground and disarmed, only to get up when they backed off and lunge at an officer's holster. One theory is she thought aliens were coming.

https://news.vice.com/article/texas...n-shooting-death-of-mentally-ill-teenage-girl

If a cop tells you to drop the knife, you drop the fucking knife. If you decide to keep walking holding a knife, they are obliged to cap your ass like the autist you are.

Speaking of, there was a youtube video of a woman who trained her dog to stop her when she had breakdowns from autism. Same woman was later shot and killed by officers.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-asperger-shot-dead-police-article-1.2520902

So this really isn't that new of a concept. Threaten an officer, you will get taken down.

In other shooting like this, I've literally read people say: "couldn't they just shoot the knife out of their hand?!"

 

[m0rnutz]

In other shooting like this, I've literally read people say: "couldn't they just shoot the knife out of their hand?!"

Throw in a 720 no-scope while they're at it.

 

[Dysnomia]

"They seemed fine, friends said they seemed fine … I don't know," she said.

You see how this "they/them thing works when trying to read an article? Not very well at all. It's confusing and looks stupid.

What the hell kind of person names their kid Scout (other than Demi Moore)? That's a dog's name. It's like naming your kid Fido or Rover or something.

It's a clear case of suicide by cop.Obviously he thought he was martyring himself. No one's mentioning he was mentally ill. He knew what he was doing.

 

[Cato]

What the hell kind of person names their kid Scout (other than Demi Moore)? That's a dog's name. It's like naming your kid Fido or Rover or something.

It was the name of Atticus Finch's daughter in To Kill a Mockingbird. Since he's a high class character with integrity it gave it some respectability.

I dunno, I kinda like it. :/

 

[Chan the Wizard]

I watched the video. 100% justified.
He had a knife and was advancing on the officer.
I could see the knife on video and he was advancing quickly.
You don't pull out a weapon unless you intend to use it, the officers repeatedly tried to talk him down and only shot when he made a sudden advance towards her. It looked like the officer only shot once and hit center mass.

This isn't even one of those edge cases to me. Don't charge at someone with a deadly weapon, especially if they're pointing a gun at you.

 

[Marvin]

False equivalent.
Soldiers are prolific killers, that's literally their job. They don't stand around negotiating with terrorists on the battle field, even if they're only holding a tiny knife.

Not all firefighters do go into burning buildings, that's only the job of search and rescue manning the ladder companies, and there are some infernos they use their discretion not to enter because it would be suicide.

How is it a false equivalence? There's a job that we hire people to do. It comes with some risk of bodily injury or death. We pay people to deal with that risk because we've got higher goals as a society.

That applies to both police officers and firefighters.

I'm not saying a bus driver should tackle crazy hobos on the bus. It's not their job to do that. But y'know whose job it is? The cops.

"It's dangerous." isn't an excuse for a cop not to do their job. Now "it's too dangerous" might be.

But I'm not going to just take their word for it.

@Marvin You're strawmanning by acting like when a subject is shot, no other efforts were made to avoid the use of lethal force.

That does happen sometimes though. That's what I'm complaining about. I'm not strawmanning anything because I'm not talking about any particular incident. Like I'm not talking about this incident, for example.

I see plenty of incidents where cops shoot people when less lethal options weren't even tested, and everyone is just handwaving away the inconsistencies because the person who was shot was a criminal.

What you don't seem to understand is that in legitimate use of force situation, the subject is the one dictating the level of force used, not the officer. This subject chose to crank the dial up to justify lethal force.

The debate is about what "legitimate" is. I certainly believe plenty of legitimate use of force situations exist, unfortunately, but I think too many people want to just trust the officer's word on that.

I by no means "rubber stamp every decision that cops make." In fact, I left the law enforcement field due to ethical concerns. But I fully support the right of police officers to defend themselves and others (as I support the right of private citizens to do the same).

I wasn't accusing you of doing that. But a lot of people do here.

As far as self defense goes... I can't really tell someone they shouldn't have defended themselves retroactively. But if someone can't deal with a higher level of risk than an ordinary citizen deals with, they probably shouldn't be a cop.

Edit: Like, they should be a mallcop or something. I don't expect mallcops to put themselves at additional risk. But I do expect real police to do that.

 

[Funnybone]

I'm sorry, anyone that has the bloodthirsty balls to try to attack a fucking cop deserves a bullet. That means they want to fucking slaughter people, and most civilians do not have firearms or any means to defend themselves-- so therefore, you must protect not only yourself but any person that's nearby by neutralizing them. Also remember-- cops are usually there because SOMEONE CALLED FOR FUCKING HELP.
Someone who is high or in the fit of a mental breakdown can fight through non lethal advances so easily.
It sucks, it's vicious, no one wins, and it's a nasty job. I'm sorry, but I believe that most cops DO NOT enjoy killing people.

It's pretty lame to compare cops to firefighters in anyway because firefighters are fighting to save people from a natural disaster. That's completely different than throwing yourself in front of a rabid human who wants to kill or at the very least, cause grievous bodily harm.
Cops are made of flesh and bone like everyone else-- a knife, no matter how 'small' it may seem is a deadly weapon that could hit a major artery, organ, or even be dirty/rusty and cause a life threatening infection. There are so many factors here that justify using lethal force.

p.s. fire and people are not the same thing