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
Club Sandwich said:
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?
Click to expand...

Blue Jerkop said:
Well, I don't know about 'short'
Let me start with the technical line: police do not "shoot to kill," per se. Police training stresses "shoot to stop." If they did shoot to kill, they would shoot for the head (which some particular specialized units do train to do in situations like hostage-taking). Generally, police are trained to shoot for the chest, which happens to be the largest target on the human body that also has significant blood vessels.

By aiming at the largest target, you make it more likely that someone shooting will hit. Hitting even a torso-sized target with a handgun is no easy task when adrenaline is pumping and someone is shooting back or coming at you with a knife. And a dirty little secret of policing is that not all cops are great shots. In fact, quite a few probably only fire their weapons when they have to for qualifications. Makes some sense- of all the things we ask police to do, shooting people is the thing that takes up the least of their time. Most never have to do it.

I mentioned blood vessels- a drop in blood pressure is one of only a few ways to render someone incapacitated (although it rarely happens immediately). People have gone through and won gunfights after being shot multiple times- one was a woman cop who was shot in the heart with a .357 magnum. She went on to kill the guys who attacked her before she collapsed. That's one reason suspects sometimes get shot a bunch of times- a cop shoots them and, because it's not the movies, pretty much nothing happens. So the cop either figures he missed or decides to keep shooting until the guy falls down, which can take awhile. I could go through a few cases where people have been shot many times, including through the head, and continued to fight.

Other ways to drop someone include a disruption of the central nervous system- i.e. a brain shot or hit on the spine, and bone breakage. If you shoot someone and break their femur, for example, they will probably fall down. So why not do that?

Well, a few reasons. First, if they have a gun, they can still shoot you. But even if they just have a knife, it's pretty damn hard to hit the femur or even the leg of a moving target. Shooting someone in the pelvis is actually a viable option, but going for 'center mass' is just easier to train and rely on. Also, sometimes someone who has been shot in the torso will just decide that they are supposed to lie down due to the psychological effect.

Incidentally, because someone can bleed out extremely quickly from being shot in the leg or shoulder, there is no legal difference in force between shooting someone in the limb or chest.

So the torso it is. And, unfortunately, the drop in blood pressure that causes someone to no longer be a threat also tends to cause irreparable brain injury due to ischemia if advanced medical care is not provided immediately. Which it usually isn't, unless someone is smart enough to be shot in the trauma ward of a metropolitan hospital.
Click to expand...

thank you for the responses guys they were really in depth and well written. Very interesting indeed.
 
Deathfromabove said:
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
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with that. Also, they don't shoot to kill but to incapacitate. Shooting an offender is generally either to protect the officer or protect others.

The actual action is pretty much the same, though. It's firing in short bursts at the center/core of the body, i.e. the area where vital organs are clustered. They want to fire enough times to maximize the odds of hitting something that takes the suspect down, but leave enough to fire again if it doesn't. If there are multiple officers doing this, you get the proverbial "hail of bullets."

Then they evaluate the situation after the first volley, whether the suspect is still able to return fire, etc. It's generally only excessive if the suspect is clearly incapacitated and they just keep shooting him or, obviously, do something like walk up to him and shoot him execution style in the head when he's down and unarmed.

If he's incapacitated and unarmed, they'll call for medical care.

It's a subtle distinction because the actual physical actions are pretty much the same, but it's shooting to eliminate the threat. The purpose is not to kill, per se, but it's very, very likely you'll end up dead if you escalate the situation to this point.

CaptainShitlord said:
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.
Click to expand...

They also have this idea that somehow, shots in the extremities are just harmless things you shake off like you were in a Rambo movie. Hit the femoral artery in the leg and you'll bleed out in seconds just like it was your throat. That or, you can find video of shit like this all over the net, it doesn't even stop the guy.

So even if you hit the target, it not only might not work, but can kill the guy just as fast.

Hit the core and unless it's the fucking Hulk he's probably going down.
 
I think the reason everyone is 'misgendering' him is because he's one of the super-extra-special snowflakes that identified as non-gendered or fluid or whatever the fuck the latest trend of bullshit entails. Maybe they'd normally just call him by his name except someone decided that name would be "scout" and fuck me if I would want to go through a press conference saying that a dozen times.
 
InLivingTuna said:
In that way, I sympathize with the Tiny Knife Wielding Tranny. Part of this story that a lot of people aren't looking at is that it was very clearly a suicide, she was even asking to be shot.
Click to expand...

You misgendering creep! They used they as a pronoun. Lol.

Still, it's sad that obvious mental health issues were ignored. Troonery is itself generally a sign of serious unhappiness and often outright mental illness. But you can't say this or intervene because the troon police have decreed that the proper treatment is to just let them troon out and give them asspats instead of actual psychiatric assistance.

Then when they end up dead blame everyone in the world but the source of the real problem.
 
That's what I hate about modern SJW movements like troonery...... the rest of the world has to not only let you run off and live in your fantasy LARP all day long, but they have to modify their lives around it. The days where you could just politely and passively ignore someone have been wrecked by activist who have forced a "you either support them or you hate them and want them dead" mentality on everyone. Either you agree with the mentally ill man that you see the unicorns too... or you are a hateful person. Whatever hallucinations these snowflakes see, you have to see them too.
 
restinpower.png


That's nice. Ragging on grieving parents for calling their son by his actual pronouns. You can tell that the parents are uncomfortable with the they/them thing as in other statements they look like they are avoiding using pronouns as much as possible.

Nothing he did was activism. He hasn't furthered the rights of LGBT people. He's made them look insane. Every time a troon is killed, no matter what the circumstances xe is a hero. Much like Mike Brown and the other dindus. This is why your activist movements look bad. Because you lump everyone in together to inflate the problem rather than focus on the people who were actually unfairly targeted.
 
Blue Jerkop said:
A building lacks the agency to decide whether or not to burn. Obviously this person did not care enough about his due process rights enough to not advance multiple times on police while displaying a deadly weapon.
Click to expand...
What if he was psychotic though?

This was a good shoot. But I don't think you can make statements like that, because then any time a criminal did something dumb or crazy you could start justifying things on the assumption that they willfully forfeited their rights. We should respect police for having to deal with hostile people on an hourly basis, but at the same time a lot of that respect is precisely because they have to act professionally while doing so.
 
Holdek said:
What if he was psychotic though?

This was a good shoot. But I don't think you can make statements like that, because then any time a criminal did something dumb or crazy you could start justifying things on the assumption that they willfully forfeited their rights. We should respect police for having to deal with hostile people on an hourly basis, but at the same time a lot of that respect is precisely because they have to act professionally while doing so.
Click to expand...

It's not so much that you forfeit your rights by doing something like advancing on a cop with a knife, but that you don't even have the right to do that at all, and that at that point, the cop's right to live, and the public's right not to be menaced by knife-wielding lunatics, more or less outweighs your right not to be shot while committing a violent crime.
 
Holdek said:
What if he was psychotic though?

This was a good shoot. But I don't think you can make statements like that, because then any time a criminal did something dumb or crazy you could start justifying things on the assumption that they willfully forfeited their rights. We should respect police for having to deal with hostile people on an hourly basis, but at the same time a lot of that respect is precisely because they have to act professionally while doing so.
Click to expand...

I agree that the police do have a professional presence to maintain on top of protecting the peace. Scout there legit wanted to commit suicide by cop for some reason and coming at them with a knife will get responded to with force there are no two ways about that. Metal illness will not be taken into consideration if someone is threatening the lives of officers or civilians. This is where officers are always walking a very thin line of duty and public opinion which only serves to make the job far more stressful than it should be.

On top of that the majority of police officers are not trained to deal with mental illness ( or any illness really look at the time a guy got his shit kicked in because he went into insulin shock while driving). As far as I know the majority of the training revolves around identifying and controlling a situation and if a situation gets out of hand or violent then asses will be either kicked or shot.
 
heathercho said:
As an example - In Tokyo, you have police boxes. The police in these boxes don't do a whole lot, but if you're slyly jay walking across a side alley at night and you hear the familiar sound of the police whistle and the stomp of a wooden stick out of the dark, most people will be like shocked and sorry. Because being law abiding is a thing most people want to do. They aren't going to yell "YEAH FUCK YOU" to the cops. That doesn't mean people don't break the laws, it just means that society respects laws as a culture/whole more so than in America. There's more shame attached to breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Yes and there's a flip side to this shame-based approach to law and order:
In a country more inclined than the West to think of itself as a big family collective, admission of guilt is often seen as the first step to readmission into society. It is also the surest route to a conviction.

Some interrogators use moral blackmail (“Think of the shame you are bringing on your family”).

One lawyer estimates that a tenth of all convictions leading to prison are based on false confessions. It is impossible to know the true figure, but when 99.8% of prosecutions end in a guilty verdict, it is clear that the scales of justice are out of balance.
Click to expand...
https://www.economist.com/news/lead...s-are-far-too-vulnerable-abuse-forced-confess
Last year confessions underpinned 89% of criminal prosecutions in Japan. And almost without exception, those who confess are found guilty.
Click to expand...
https://www.economist.com/news/asia...s-undermining-faith-courts-extractor-few-fans

(Even the guy in this video still "apologizes to the People of Japan" FFS.)
 
Last edited:
Holdek said:
Yes and there's a flip side to this shame-based approach to law and order: https://www.economist.com/news/lead...s-are-far-too-vulnerable-abuse-forced-confess

https://www.economist.com/news/asia...s-undermining-faith-courts-extractor-few-fans

https://youtube.com/watch?v=yFINmgSzK6E
Click to expand...

Honestly, the alternative is worse, the alternative being idiotic lawlessness.

It's personal preference, but I just prefer that approach, probably just a cultural thing for me.

Something will snap in the US. The police aren't going to stop being the police and if people continue launching like fucking tards at the police then they will continue to get shot. So they should, it just seems more logical to me to solve the issue by society being less violent and dismissive of law and order, so then the police can pull back a bit.
Submission to this issue can't start with the police, that would undermine their purpose, but society won't relent either, so this will not improve anytime soon, it will only get worse, which is unfortunate.
 
Holdek said:
That's a false choice.
Click to expand...

What I mean is in the context of this tranny and what it wanted as well as the idiot father. They're pro-antifa. Antifa want everything smashed - "make yourself ungovernable" etc

There was no passive alternative to this tranny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom