Crime Tiny Knife Wielding Tranny Shot By Cops

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
This loony Troon probably thought having their dick blown off by the cops would be easier than paying for gender reassignment surgery.
 
Well that's not the caselaw

I try not to nerd out on this subject too much, but since you TRIGGERED me by actually saying "caselaw" I'll mention the actual legal standard.

Cops are generally protected from civil lawsuits by a doctrine called "qualified immunity."

This means that when they make one of these judgment calls we often judge when they show up in media, but they show up in front of a court, the cops are generally protected from legal scrutiny to some extent.

Here's the explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

This means unless a cop was acting clearly unreasonably and in violation of clearly established rights, they get away with whatever they do.

Why does this happen? You may ask that.

What do you think would happen if any time a cop fucked up, even while acting in good faith, they got sent to prison or whatever? Good, competent people would cease to seek jobs in law enforcement. Why would you want to be a cop if even the slightest error would send you to prison to be raped and murdered by the most evil criminals in the world?
 
I try not to nerd out on this subject too much, but since you TRIGGERED me by actually saying "caselaw" I'll mention the actual legal standard...

Yeah when I mentioned caselaw in that quote I was talking specifically about the standard for how much force can legally be used (Graham v. Connor) rather than the civil liability end if an officer screws the pooch. All this quoting is making me dizzy.

That said, the public pillorying of cops without waiting to see if there's reason for it has certainly had an effect even if they do avoid charges or lawsuits thanks to reasonable doubt and qualified immunity- not only are cities like Chicago and Baltimore unable to hire the cops they need but the cops that are there engage in as little contact (i.e. proactive policing) as possible.

But a case like this? Not much you can do when someone calls the police about some nut with a knife walking around. Or maybe not, maybe eventually it will get to the point where US cops act like those in the UK and sit back and wait.
 
No? It seems to me that many large American cities have a policing problem at some level. I know about Baltimore very well, and we definitely have a policing problem here. I don't know about other states though, and I kind of refrain from commenting on specifics in other places because I rarely know the details very well.
i have traveled and worked extensively with military and law enforcement for over two decades in a dozen countries and 30 states, including the feds. severe problems with police agencies are absolutely a tiny minority. large agencies lose people in the bureaucracy and the need to maintain a sizeable workforce. smaller agencies suffer from lack of funding and training. both suffer from bad faith actors who just do what is needed to secure a badge and gun; both suffer from a strong lack of community policing initiatives. i'm not saying it's not a problem. i'm saying it's not an epidemic.

Like if a cop shot a kid with a gun that had the orange tip intact, I'd be annoyed at that and the "it's just a toy" complaint would be right on target. Now if the little dumbass removed the orange tip, then that's on him. (And really, on his parents for raising the little shit.)
no, a police officer cannot take that risk. juvenile offenders can and will shoot to kill as part of gang activity. criminals can and do conceal real weapons in toys:


watersoaker.jpg
ev.owa1_1.jpg


as well as use toy firearms during the commission of real crimes - the importance is what is presented to casual inspection: "a gun".

dt.common.streams.StreamServer.jpg


you cannot categorically constrain police possibly responding to an armed suspect and expect them - when faced with imminent danger - to make the right decision, get it wrong, and then punish them for being wrong. what is important is that facts at hand that a reasonable person would observe at the time of the incident.
 
Can someone give me a short summary of why police have to shoot to kill, I know its to avoid lawsuits if you paralyze/cripple someone and you have to totally eliminate the threat or whatever
 
lol no. All cops shoot to kill. Australian police training teaches them to target center mass and to continue shooting until they're certain the threat is over. Our cops might be slower to shoot, but when they do it usually means some poor motherfucker is going to die, and he's going to die with 20+ bullets in him. The only time I've ever heard of cops here shooting to disarm is the very occasional incident where special response snipers will try for a knee-shot on an armed lunatic who's too far away to be a threat but still not letting anyone approach him.

I don't know what their official training is but this is something that is oft repeated by individuals... even one I asked this afternoon. Maybe it's just a concensus with a vast majority who have the skill set to deal with it. Maybe they just tell themselves that so they feel better when they do have to fill Bogan Jonno with 20 bullets.
I can live with that, they're a far cry better than what other countries have.

training varies from jurisdication to jurisdiction because the US is a series of states with individual laws and identities. likewise budgets and availablity of training varies significantly. while there is wonderful training available, it is either limited seating or is logistically out of reach. POST is fairly common, and police academies as well in other states. for some police in areas that are very remote, "on-the-job" training and being placed in controlled environments like jails is considered sufficient. you tend to get the police you pay for and ask for. police that are not screen sufficiently, or allowed to abuse the public trust and are upheld by their brothers in blue seriously damage the appearance of all police.


you can never have too much freedom. perhaps other countries can't handle that. in the US, we do not have "tall poppy" syndrome. being unique and special is celebrated generally. rule of law is vastly ingrained in the US - what you are missing is that the law cannot and often will not infringe on individual rights - only when the public is at risk or you are infringing on others is there a need for law enforcement to step in. if you live your way of life and harm no one and you aren't a dick about it, no one will give a fuck what you do.

minorities making ghettos is all on them these days. redlining hasn't been a thing for years and gentrification of areas to provide improved living conditions and employment opportunities are ruined by folks that would prefer to live in squalor and violent communities than seek to better themselves and the area around them. it's disingenuous to imply that minorities in the US as a rule (official or unofficial) seek to undermine a lawful society.
the US education system encourages teaching to meet a standardized test. with a constantly lowering bar and policies that forbid failing a student, you get crappy outcomes. nothing in that system has any impact on individual teachers or cohesive members of faculty that seek to use their job as a teacher to indoctrinate students.


don't mistake our police training as being "wrong" if you do not understand the differences in circumstances, society, and doctrine. in the US, people are not taught to run crying to the police for little things. if it is something escalated that far, an armed response may be required.


shooting to disarm is not Australian police doctrine or training. it is a consequence of electing to do so. i spent 3 months training VPSO in the use of terrorist-specific engagement tactics and it was never a thing in any document or policy of any kind that i can remember. if you are required to draw your duty weapon you are generally required to use it in order to save your own life or the life of someone else. shooting someone it always a lethal response whether your intention is to wound or not. to do otherwise implies you had no reason to use a firearm at all.


Japanese policing is entirely different in philosophy and scope. the koban system and community policing and assigning districts is extremely precise and often new officers will introduce themselves to the entire community over time, usually by a retiring or transferring officer. likewise many jurisdiction appointments are lifetime, and policework is a dedicated career and special college purely for police. there isn't a strong comparison to most Anglosphere police structures.


TASER devices easily fail. the statistics are about 25% or so for various reasons. here is a compliation of new stories where it is verified TASER devices were deployed note that there is a serious risk of heart attack or other death if the person being tased is particularly sensitive to electrical shocks


it is above and beyond directly because it is not called for in the daily course of duty - police do not encounter armed people constantly. police encounter freaks, drunks, and asshole constantly. given there is little reduction in those numbers, i postulate that police are not executing them. police are not soldiers. over the course of 8 years of policework i had exactly 2 shooting incidents. this is what i would consider typical for the time period for the average deputy sheriff in most of the US.


your expectations that every cop is to allow an armed suspect to close to lethal range is very much unreasonable. i challenge you to find someone besides yourself or Antifa that are agree with that.

i don't expect my mail carrier to water my plants or watch my house for burglaries. i don't expect my garbage men to lug a pile of scrap metal or concrete away. if they do, that's above and beyond, but it's not a job requirement however much some people might make an equivalence with "they handle garbage and see my house every day so they should be able to do these things too".


yet it proves my point. whether it is endemic or not is irrelevant. most policework (baliffs, jailers, matrons, admins, clerks, et c) encounter no violence in the same way most drug dealers do not. it's a very real and common risk of policework to encounter violence, i'm not arguing that. i challenge your statement that it is explicit is all.


then your phrasing is confusing to me, because it is not a widespread problem. it is concentrated in a few large agencies and in very small agencies.


the suit was in 1989 and has been consistently upheld that there is no Constitutional duty to protect and serve. it was a slogan of the LAPD. it also cuts the other way - there is no relief from a compulsion to execute a properly written order to the police. if you read the ruling it's an important distinction to realize that the firearm on an officer's hip is for his own protection - not yours.
[/QUOTE]

Whilst theres a lot of good information in that, there was also a lot of excuse making for the general public. If you believe the education system is fostering a belief of positivity towards police and law... given current climates that's awfully optimistic.

Either way, you will end up with more militarised police, like it or not, who are less skilled but carry more weapons before any fantasy land stuff like less weaponised police happens. The current climate is lending itself towards that for some "unknown reason".
That's classic problem, reaction, solution and will only get more intense on both sides, not less.
 
Suicide by cop is one of the most assholeish ways to go. Do we know/will we know where the cop hit him?
 
Can someone give me a short summary of why police have to shoot to kill, I know its to avoid lawsuits if you paralyze/cripple someone and you have to totally eliminate the threat or whatever

You can always tell people have never held or fired a gun if they ask why they didn't shoot them in the leg.
The leg is a small target to begin with & if its in motion (i.e. someone charging at you) it will be damn near impossible to get a disabling shot.
Center mass is a large & relatively stable target, a couple of shots on target will drop just about anyone.
 
STILL...I still would prefer them over the Indonesian cops. Australian cops even treat Abos fairly well, that should raise your spirits!
If that were the US, he would be wormmeat.

Of course our cops are better than third-world gook cops, I'm just saying that the reason America seems to have a lot more police shootings than us is because when American cops shoot somebody it's usually not in the back of the head, immediately before dumping them overboard with a wood stove chained to their ankle.

Australian cops are great, except when compared to cops from literally any other developed nation.
 
Can someone give me a short summary of why police have to shoot to kill, I know its to avoid lawsuits if you paralyze/cripple someone and you have to totally eliminate the threat or whatever
i'll try to give a short speech from my own training and the training i've given others: when you are confronted with a situation that poses an imminent or immediate threat of great bodily harm to yourself or to another, you are authorized to protect yourself in the way most effective and expedient. for most police, this is your duty weapon.

you train with it. you carry it sometimes daily. you are required to maintain it and make use of it regularly to practice with and possibly it can and will save your life an the lives of those that depend on you if you do your part.

you must always attempt to de-escalate a situation using whatever means you can. talk to them, use empathy. enjoin emergency services like trained negotiators, crises hotlines, friends, and family. attempt to ensure your surroundings are devoid of significant bystanders. contain and control the situation. make yourself aware of attack and escape routes. know your beat -know your people. if you know that the store clerk can be counted on in a fight, that's a possible ally if you're pulling up to a hold up if you use your training and the tools you have.

you must always shoot when if you don't shoot, a great bodily harm can be the result of your inaction. always shoot to end the threat. if the target dies, then so be it, that's reality. do not draw your weapon until you must be prepared to engage and end the threat immediately. drawing a weapon signifies a level of deadly preparedness that can be provoking to some suspects. consult the field experience of your sergeants.

aiming for center mass reduces the chance of misses because you are dealing with a larger target. small or obscured or unidentifiable or moving targets can miss. missed shots prolong the threat. purposely shooting to wound means you didn't have to shoot at all - your duty weapon is a deadly weapon. treat it as such. practice practice practice, an officer that does not practice is an officer that might miss or may hit something - or someone - unintended especially if the situation is not perfectly contained.

no situation is perfectly identifiable immediately. you get new information all the time. what you must know is that at the time you shoot, is that a good shot? are you ending the threat to yourself and others in the fastest most effective way you can? are you reasonably acting in good faith to shoot and are not guessing or making an unfounded assumption - is there clear and present evidence that it is a good shoot?

even after the dust is settled you must be confident that you have exhausted less than lethal possibilities or that the situation could not be evaluated in the short time needed to contain it or defuse it. you must respond to the situation as presented, not second guessing motives or circumstances beyond your control. in the moment: is it a good shoot?
 
In the UK, this guy would likely have been tasered, and it would be hilarious.

I'm not going to fault these coppers for deading this fucker though, the silly twat was literally asking for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom