Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, April 27, 2021

[Rep. Val] Demings defended the officer during an interview with CBS's "Face the Nation," explaining the police body camera video indicated Officer Nicholas Reardon acted as he should've when he fired four shots at Bryant as she appeared to lunge at two other people with a knife.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Terrible tragedy, but the officer acted in the right way according to Congresswoman Demings.

Could have it been handled better or differently? It doesn't appear to be the case. He acted according to his training to protect the innocent.

#1 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 02:40 PM | Reply

CRUCIAL QUOTE
"When I served as police chief, what I prayed for daily was that my police officers would respond as they were trained to do," Demings said

Blue Wall remains solid.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 02:45 PM | Reply

"He acted according to his training to protect the innocent."

Innocent?
You're granting the police the power to determine guilt and innocence in a split second decision.
And, it doesn't seem like you realize you are doing that.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 02:48 PM | Reply

ABH,

Still doing his best to excuse execution by police officers.

To justify the murder of a 16 year old girl holding a 4 inch serrated knife.

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-27 02:50 PM | Reply

That's not my quote. That's from the Democrat Congresswoman. I just happen to agree with it.

#5 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 02:54 PM | Reply

You're granting the police the power to determine guilt and innocence in a split second decision.

This is the future.

Streamline our judicial system.

Over crowded courts and prisons are a thing of the past.

Isn't that what Judge Dredd is about?

Yep, here's the synopsis:

He is a "street judge", empowered to summarily arrest, convict, sentence, and execute criminals.


It's a conservative's wet dream.

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-27 02:55 PM | Reply

Nobody wants that. You are making wild inferences. But police should be allowed to react to deadly force with deadly force and not be called murderers and worse, especially after being cleared of wrongdoing. But random dudes on Internet know SO much more.

#7 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 03:00 PM | Reply

But police should be allowed to react to deadly force with deadly force

We both saw the same videos. Lots of people did.

I don't see the justification.

I didn't see the deadly force or the need for an immediate execution.

Seems to be a lot of other people who came to the same conclusion.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-27 03:06 PM | Reply

"Nobody wants that. You are making wild inferences."

These are your own words, ABH: "He acted according to his training to protect the innocent."
In our society, police don't determine guilt or innocence.
You clearly want them to have that power, though.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 03:25 PM | Reply

"But police should be allowed to react to deadly force with deadly force"

They are.

Just don't pretend it's to protect the innocent.

Was Breonna Taylor innocent? Yes or no.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 03:26 PM | Reply

In the context of what the officer knew. A girl with a knife lunging at a girl holding a puppy, about to stab her.

The one with the puppy is the innocent one.

It may not have started that way, but that's what it became, and that's what he witnessed.

#11 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-27 03:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I'm sorry, but if you are willing to attack somebody with a knife, which is attempted murder, you should expect cops to put you down.
If she didn't have a knife I would agree this was excessive, but she was out of control and her choices got herself killed.

Should the cops have let her stab the other girl?
How many holes should she be allowed to gash into her victim before its appropriate to shoot her?

#12 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2021-04-27 03:47 PM | Reply

"The one with the puppy is the innocent one."

The puppy is the innocent one.

#13 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-04-27 03:50 PM | Reply

"I'm sorry, but if you are willing to attack somebody with a knife, which is attempted murder, you should expect cops to put you down."

No need to apologize.
I agree that you should expect that.
I still think the cops can and should do better.

The cops shot first and asked questions later. Maybe sometimes that's the most we can expect. I'm still not convinced this was one of those times.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 04:15 PM | Reply

#13 both.

If 5 minutes ago Bryant was on the ground and the girl in pink was kicking her, the girl in pink was the aggressor. If she stops and walks away and gets a puppy, and Bryant gets up... She can't pick up a knife and stab the girl in pink. I bring this up since Clown seems to think that what happened before the cop got there could change things. It doesn't.

So, both the puppy and the girl in pink were the innocent ones in the frame of reference that mattered.

#15 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-27 04:15 PM | Reply

"before its appropriate to shoot her?"

Kill her.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 04:19 PM | Reply

Let's also keep in mind that if the cop had missed, the shooting would also have been justified.

This is precisely how the death of Breonna Taylor is justified, for example.

But I don't think the killing of Brianna Taylor is in anyway justifiable. Do you, 503JC69?

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 04:22 PM | Reply

Should the cops have let her stab the other girl?

Yes.

How many holes should she be allowed to gash into her victim before its appropriate to shoot her?
#12 | POSTED BY 503JC69

I don't believe he should have shot her, regardless.

He could have tased her, maced her, tackled her.

I'm 100% against any justification for the death of a 16 year old girl.

She was guilty of aggression, aggressive behavior.

That's it.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-27 04:25 PM | Reply

#18 Tased, maced, or tackled.

Precious... just precious. You left off whipped her with an antenna.

It's like BuffBob has come back to us.

Say something else stupid, I need a good laugh.

#19 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-27 04:28 PM | Reply

Clown seems to think that what happened before the cop got there could change things. It doesn't.

You're all for elimination motive.

But motive is a big part of every criminal investigation.

Unless you're of the opinion Ma'Khia was a crazy person.

Then perhaps there was no motivation to her anger.

#20 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-27 04:28 PM | Reply

You left off whipped her with an antenna.

*Yawn*

#21 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-27 04:28 PM | Reply

#21 There is no "motivation" that allows you to stab someone who has ceased to be a threat in front of a cop. How do you not grasp, that whatever those girls were doing to Bryant... They had stopped. That means they are no longer an imminent threat, and there is no justification for stabbing them any longer. In fact, trying to makes you the imminent threat.

If you can't digest that, we'll have to agree to dis... that you're a moron.

#22 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-27 04:37 PM | Reply

#17 Taylor was a victim of no knock warrant assault. Anytime someone enters your home in the middle of the night you have a right to shoot at them like the boyfriend did. The cops unloading without seeing who they were aiming at,let alone other apartments near bye was reckless . The cops in that case are 100% at fault and should be charged.

I wish we could become like Britain and take the guns away from the police... but since we have the 2nd amendment allowing any idiot 18 year old to buy an ar-15, the cops need weapons or we will be living in Thunderdome.

Let's just hope and pray that there is an afterlife and the people who have been taken unnecessarily have found peace.

#23 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2021-04-27 05:10 PM | Reply

there is no justification for stabbing them any longer.

Any longer?

Waving a 4 inch knife around isn't "stabbing them."

My goodness. All you have is fright and hyperbole.

You're a scared little man.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-27 05:24 PM | Reply

Right. Because the officer ended the the threat by stopping her mid motion. Without the officers quick thinking and excellent reactions no telling how much damage she could have done with that deadly weapon. Don't act like at knife is not a deadly weapon. Also, please don't act like the stabbing needs to be completed before the officer engages. That would be an insane thing to stipulate.

But to the topic, members of Congress agree that the officer did the right thing. So, this door be all over and the officer left alone to go back to work.

#25 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 05:38 PM | Reply

Clown , she wasn't waving the knife around, she was lunging at the other girl .
If that was your daughter about to be possibly killed, how many holes should the attacker be allowed to inflict before the police react?

If it was my kid I would want them to defend her. And if my daughter got killed like that I would feel the same, come at someone with a knife and it's attempted murder IMO

#26 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2021-04-27 05:39 PM | Reply

Without the officers quick thinking and excellent reactions no telling how much damage, if any, she could have done with that deadly weapon.

It's amazing how deadly 4" kitchen knives are.

And how well Ma'Khia Bryant was trained to use knives to kill.

So much so that she completely murdered that first girl she fell to the ground with.

No? She didn't stab the first girl?

But she was definitely going to stab the second one?

#27 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-27 05:51 PM | Reply

If that was your daughter about to be possibly killed,

I'd have a lot of questions for my daughter.

Why was she bullying a younger girl? Why was she at Ma'Khia's house? What were they fighting about?

I know. I've been told nothing prior the the shooting matters. The cop did the right thing.

If that's the case. Then all police officers are justified to kill whoever they want. Because nothing else matters and the cop did the right thing.

#28 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-27 05:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Again, I'm all for ways to prevent the police from killing someone in this situation.

But I've seen someone die from a stab wound....rather, they died not long after I saw them right after being stabbed.

I view a knife as a deadly weapon...or at least some knives in specific situations.

The video of I've seen shows this knife extremely close to being plunged into that girl.

I get the girl about to be stabbed was the villain which started the whole thing which makes this even sadder and so full of injustice.

Where Clown and I disagree might be where I consider where that knife was and where it was headed at the moment the cop shot that girl.

#29 | Posted by eberly at 2021-04-27 05:56 PM | Reply

"the officers quick thinking and excellent reactions"

How long was he on the scene? How much time did he have to think, and react, to what was unfolding before him?

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 06:05 PM | Reply

Where Clown and I disagree might be where I consider where that knife was and where it was headed at the moment the cop shot that girl.

Which is fine.

On the original thread I mostly suggested the cop could have dealt with the situation without the use of his gun.

But people seem determined to prove the cop was correct in his actions.

I'm still of the belief Ma'Khia wasn't trying to kill anyone. It was a lot of anger and screaming and intimidation.

I think things seems worse than they were because Ma'Khia and the first girl fell over each other and then Ma'Khia went straight after the second girl.

If I'm coming off as an uncaring POS it's because no one was hurt other than the victim who had called the cops for help.

Also. Ma'Khia was 16. The rest of the people there, based on what I read, were adults. So, at least 18 years old.

Why were they there?

#31 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-27 06:06 PM | Reply

How long was he on the scene? How much time did he have to think, and react, to what was unfolding before him?

He showed up and unloaded 4 bullets all at the same time.

#32 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-27 06:08 PM | Reply

"but since we have the 2nd amendment allowing any idiot 18 year old to buy an ar-15, the cops need weapons or we will be living in Thunderdome."

Thanks to the Second Amendment, we are already living in Thunderdome.

And for anyone keeping score, cops kill about 20x more people, than people kill cops.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 06:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Also. Not sure why a congresswoman defending the police officer's actions is news.

It's just the system protecting itself.

News would be interviewing the other people there to figure out what was actually happening.

Did anyone figure out who the guy standing there was or why he kicked the girl on the ground?

#34 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-27 06:18 PM | Reply

I wish we could become like Britain and take the guns away from the police... but since we have the 2nd amendment allowing any idiot 18 year old to buy an ar-15, the cops need weapons or we will be living in Thunderdome.
Let's just hope and pray that there is an afterlife and the people who have been taken unnecessarily have found peace.
#23 | POSTED BY 503JC69

That's not how policing works in GB. Police on the beat do not carry guns, but there are other police that respond to violent calls who are armed. I too advocate for having a police force more imminent in the community who are not armed and have more intensive training in dealing with the mentally ill.

Less police addressing traffic violations. But those officers who are obligated to carry a weapon should be paid a LOT more than they currently are with the understanding that they'll be faced with far more intensive training and expectations to not shoot first and ask questions later.

It's not a panacea, but it would be a better environment that we currently experience.

#35 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-04-27 06:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Not sure why a congresswoman defending the police officer's actions is news."

Because she's black, and a Democrat. It's supposed to be a double-barreled "gotcha." Well, she's also a former Chief of Police. No surprise which side her bread is buttered on.

I've said all along under today's guidelines the shooting is justified. That doesn't mean it was the best thing to do. Lots of things were justified, until they weren't, like the chokehold. Though that one has simply morphed into kneeling on someone's neck. Apparently, that's justified. And so it goes.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 06:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I too advocate for having a police force more imminent in the community who are not armed and have more intensive training in dealing with the mentally ill."

Republicans will pay for 100 new prisons before they will pay for mental health.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 06:37 PM | Reply

#35 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Great post.

Agree with it all.

You probably don't want the headache.

But based on years of reading your posts.

I believe you could do a lot of good in politics.

Especially on a local level where you could (hopefully) get more done.

#38 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-27 06:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We used to not have problems with the mentally I'll devise we could just put them forever in psychiatric hospitals and throw away the key. But that wasn't right to do people. Then, and certainly not now. What can we do to fix it, when treatment has to be voluntary? Forcibly medicate the mentally I'll with the drugs whose side effects are nearly as bad as the disease? Who's going to force them? It's a very difficult problem. There are no easy answers

#39 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 06:46 PM | Reply

But that wasn't right to do people.

That's not why mental institutions were shut down.

They were shut down because Republicans decided the taxes funding mental institutions and mental healthcare could be used to pay for a tax cut for the rich.

In the 1960s, laws were changed to limit the ability of state and local officials to admit people into mental health hospitals. This lead to budget cuts in both state and federal funding for mental health programs. As a result, states across the country began closing and downsizing their psychiatric hospitals.

www.healthline.com

Under President Ronald Reagan, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act repeals Carter's community health legislation and establishes block grants for the states, ending the federal government's role in providing services to the mentally ill. Federal mental-health spending decreases by 30 percent.

www.motherjones.com

#40 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-27 06:52 PM | Reply

"We used to not have problems with the mentally I'll devise we could just put them forever in psychiatric hospitals and throw away the key. But that wasn't right to do people. Then, and certainly not now. What can we do to fix it, when treatment has to be voluntary?"

We wait for them to voluntarily pull a knife.
Then we gun them down.

Problem. Solved.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 07:00 PM | Reply

This is a good read. Shuttering favorites was part of it, but unrestricted ability to put people in hospitals began in the late 60s and 70s based on case law refining individual rights versus the rights of the state to "protect" society from mentally Ill people.

www.samhsa.gov

#42 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 07:05 PM | Reply

Facilities. Damn it.

#43 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 07:05 PM | Reply

41. If they are attacking people with a knife. In front of a police officer, yep. That's what happens.

#44 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 07:08 PM | Reply

"late 60s and 70s based on case law refining individual rights versus the rights of the state to "protect" society from mentally Ill people."

And for the past 30 years we have seen case law expanding individual gun rights versus the obligation of the state to protect society from mentally ill people through limiting their access to gun rights.

It makes its own gravy. The police kill an average of three people a day.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 07:11 PM | Reply

#38 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Appreciate the compliment, truly.

#46 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-04-27 07:12 PM | Reply

41. If they are attacking people with a knife. In front of a police officer, yep. That's what happens.
#44 | POSTED BY ABH

So then why did you ask "What can we do to fix it, when treatment has to be voluntary?"
You seem to think the current solution is right as rain.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 07:12 PM | Reply

No. But there is no scenario where we can ask police officers to NOT a protect people from knife wielders.

But I absolutely agree something must be done. the amount of. CIRT teams on duty and responding to suspected mentally Ill people is a great way to start.

#48 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 07:23 PM | Reply

"But there is no scenario where we can ask police officers to NOT a protect people from knife wielders."

Translates to:

"But there is no scenario where we can ask police officers to NOT kill knife wielders."

I think there is.

As I've been saying all along, there are other ways for the police to protect us than kill us.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 07:27 PM | Reply

"But there is no scenario where we can ask police officers to NOT a protect people from knife wielders."

That attitude is why this happens:
en.m.wikipedia.org
You think killing him was the best choice?

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 07:30 PM | Reply

Suit up and give it a shot. Let us know how you do.

#51 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 07:30 PM | Reply

50. Oh that's bad orange. I'm going to prove it by showing you these terrible apples!

In other words the cases are so far apart in their merits, it's laughable you link them together.

#52 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 07:33 PM | Reply

"Suit up and give it a shot."

I wouldn't get past the IQ test.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 07:33 PM | Reply

Most departments require at least some college. You discuss like you didn't graduate elementary school, so probably not.

#54 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 07:34 PM | Reply

Are you playing dumb, or you really don't know?

LOL

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 07:41 PM | Reply

That you barely graduated elementary school?

#56 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 07:42 PM | Reply

Many police forces are criminally untrained in dealing with people having a mental health crisis, while others are well trained. The standard police tactics to be used to gain control of a situation are exactly the wrong way to handle someone having a mental health crisis. A person suffering a mental health crisis is, by definition, incapable of positively reacting to demands, especially those shouted at them. The way their brains are functioning at that moment causes a reaction that they are incapable of controlling. Think of it as a fight or fight response. To react properly, to acquiesce to an officer's demands requires the individual to be able to think rationally about the cost benefits of complying vs non-compliance. A person suffering a mental health crisis is incapable of reacting rationally. They are responding from a very primitive mental state. Fight or flight against a perceived threat. And, keep in mind, that perception is warped by the mental disorder.

So what is an officer to do? And YES, it is understood that the police officer's primary duty is to protect everyone, but controlling the situation has many definitions beyond imposition of will, which is the default police position. Well, there are many proven methods to control a mentally unstable individual and many of them are counter intuitive. Remaining calm is the most effective starting point, engage calmly with a level and even tone of voice. Screaming "GET DOWN" or "PUT THE KNIFE DOWN" simply wont work because the person is incapable of seeing the benefit of complying. Build a rapport with the individual especially by one or two trained professionals. There is a productive way to communicate with a person in this state-limit the challenges to what the person is doing, ask them questions, listen to them, be patient. The goal is to quiet the person's brain which can only be done through trust.

It is an absolute travesty that this training isn't common and required in every police force as a vast majority of their calls are to handle mental health crisis.

#57 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-04-27 07:44 PM | Reply

Sounds like you really don't know!

Jordan v. The City of New London.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 07:45 PM | Reply

"The standard police tactics to be used to gain control of a situation are exactly the wrong way to handle someone having a mental health crisis."

They don't want cops with high enough IQ to understand that.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 07:46 PM | Reply

"controlling the situation has many definitions beyond imposition of will, which is the default police position"

They don't want cops with high enough IQ to understand that either.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 07:47 PM | Reply

"Remaining calm is the most effective starting point"

Testing cops for steroids would be a good start.

You okay with that, ABH? Or too intrusive?

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 07:48 PM | Reply

This Is why expansion of CIRT teams is a proposal I JUST made. Something needs to be done, yes. And this is one.

#62 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 07:50 PM | Reply

I remember a video from a few years ago, a man suffering a paranoid schizophrenic episode was walking around carrying a knife. He was in a field way from people. A line of police officers approached him with guns drawn yelling at him to put the knife down. The police claim he lunged at them (he didn't) and was gunned down. There is absolutely no reason for that to have happened. The entire reaction by the police exacerbated the situation. Nothing was done to calm the guy down. From his perspective he saw a wall of enemies approaching him to do him harm and he was defending himself. Properly trained police officers would have allowed that man to live.

#63 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-04-27 07:51 PM | Reply

#61. Absolutely. Pre hire and spontaneously throughout employment.

I also advocated for civilian as part of every review board to provide context beyond police policing themselves. Any other idiotic questions?

#64 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 07:52 PM | Reply

"Any other idiotic questions?"

Why'd you quit. Too many bad apples?

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 07:54 PM | Reply

Never started

#66 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 07:55 PM | Reply

#63 But then you put police in a situation where they can't ever know if the person with a knife is just a paranoid schizophrenic, or an actual threat. And, as you're aware, police are trained that it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. I think most any of us would agree with that, but then we aren't trained killers like the police are, and we don't spend our nine to five prepared to kill someone.

What you are asking for is incompatible with the current paradigm of policing. At the risk of sounding like Jim Rome, let me repeat: What you are asking for is incompatible with the current paradigm of policing. Even ABH can agree with that.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 07:57 PM | Reply

How about, do you support completely revamping police duties to limit the number of interactions between police and the public? For example, eliminate the majority of traffic stops so you don't have situations like the one in VA the other week where they tazed the army officer. Of course, since the primary reason for that type of policing is to generate revenue that will have to be offset by raising taxes.

#68 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-04-27 07:58 PM | Reply

Never started?

Why don't you put on the badge and you see if you can do better, ABH?

What a clown.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 07:58 PM | Reply

#63 But then you put police in a situation where they can't ever know if the person with a knife is just a paranoid schizophrenic, or an actual threat. And, as you're aware, police are trained that it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. I think most any of us would agree with that, but then we aren't trained killers like the police are, and we don't spend our nine to five prepared to kill someone.
What you are asking for is incompatible with the current paradigm of policing. At the risk of sounding like Jim Rome, let me repeat: What you are asking for is incompatible with the current paradigm of policing. Even ABH can agree with that.

#67 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

My concept of policing makes everyone safer, the police, the public and suspects.

It will take alot of effort including many ideas that the Defund the Police advocates were supporting.

#70 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-04-27 08:00 PM | Reply

69. The difference is, I believe I. General police are good, smart, and capable of making decisions like this. You aren't. Hence the you suit up and prove them wrong bit. But nice try.

#71 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 08:09 PM | Reply

"including many ideas that the Defund the Police advocates were supporting."

If their ideas are on par with their slogan, I'll pass. Was there ever a greater gift to Republicans than the phrase, "Defund The Police"...?

#72 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-04-27 08:11 PM | Reply

"I believe I. General police are good, smart, and capable of making decisions like this. You aren't."

Nope, that's not it.

I believe policy may be completely capable of making decisions like this. But they are trained to shoot first and ask questions later, they are trained to escalate -- not de-escalate -- violent situations and achieve compliance through force, including deadly force if necessary, and they are given immunity for most anything they do.

Unless you think shooting a gun at someone holding a knife is a de-escalation. Are you that far gone?

Please do me the favor of explaining where, in general, the good police are in this thread:
Woman with Dementia Mocked by US Police
drudge.com

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 08:19 PM | Reply

Was there ever a greater gift to Republicans than the phrase, "Defund The Police"...?
#72 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Defund the police was something Rightwing media grabbed, from one protest, and completely blew out of proportion.

The problem came when moderates accepted the Rightwing narrative. Instead of listen to liberals.

It's another reason moderates hurt our chances at progress or reform.

There actual discussion was about the insane budgets police are getting and the military equipment they're purchasing with it.

The attempt was to point out how this money could be used to better fund social workers or healthcare or reeducation or therapy or after school programs.

You know. Things that can help reduce crime. Other than tanks.

But. That can't happen because.

It helps the poor. People really hate the poor.

America loves selling military armaments to anyone who can afford it. Why not sell it to ourselves?

Helping reduce crime would reduce prison populations.

So. The message quickly became defund the police.

Which killed all actual discussion.

#74 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-27 08:29 PM | Reply

ABH

Are you familiar with the "Sheep and Sheepdogs" metaphor of policing? Do you think that's a good way to train the police, to tell them that we are sheep, and they are the sheepdogs?

I wonder where you get your opinion that the police are good-natured. Is it from hanging out in private Police Facebook groups, or overhearing conversations like the one I linked to here? drudge.com

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 08:38 PM | Reply

"There actual discussion was about the insane budgets police are getting and the military equipment they're purchasing with it.
The attempt was to point out how this money could be used to better fund social workers or healthcare or reeducation or therapy or after school programs."

Yeah, like that robot dog the police have.
That could have been spent on social services.
There's an opportunity cost to everything. The opportunity cost of our current paradigm of policing is that the police kill about 1,000 people every year. And then there's the actual cost into many millions for actual settlements after police harm or kill people.

Of course, Trumpers would like to see the police harm and kill even more people. Are you a Trumper, ABH?

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 08:42 PM | Reply

28 posts out of 76 are snoofy.

#77 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-04-27 08:50 PM | Reply

28 posts out of 76 are snoofy.

Weak. ------ used to hit 75% on a good day. Mind you that was fluffing his own threads.

#78 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-04-27 08:55 PM | Reply

"28 posts out of 76 are snoofy."

29.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 09:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#78

Whatever happened to him and his iterations?

#80 | Posted by willowby at 2021-04-27 09:39 PM | Reply

It's sad that a girl was killed but I can't criticize the cop for taking action. Regardless of what happened before, at the time the cop opened fire that girl was the aggressor. She was trying to cause serious harm to that other girl. Perhaps there are things the police could have done differently leading up to the moment when that girl attacked the others and that is fair to debate but I can't criticize that cop for opening fire when he did. A cop can't be expected to stand there and watch while someone gets stabbed in front of them.

#81 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2021-04-27 09:42 PM | Reply

Either the boss got tired of him calling President Obama and Boaz the n-word. Or his paycheck cashing kiosk in some wretched London suburb caught fire.

#82 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-27 09:45 PM | Reply

#82--->#80

#83 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-27 09:47 PM | Reply

75. In a way. Yes. I believe people should make some efforts toward the own safety and security, but not many can afford to be truly safe. The police exist to remove those that prey on others in society by bringing them before the courts to face justice. Citizens arrest is a real thing, but almost any lawyer that got his law degree from a box of cracker Jacks will destroy any arrest made by a citizen in court. So the only real option is trained representatives from the government.

That often takes violence. Sometimes extreme violence, because criminals tend to not want to face justice for their crimes and react violently when cornered.

Look, I'm not naive. I know there is a decent percentage of barely functioning Neanderthals in Police work. But they can be trained to react morally and ethically.

No matter how ugly the outcome was in this very specific case, it was the right decision. To protect life from a distance, a distance weapon is the fastest and most effective. Tazers are too intermittent for when deadly force is justified, trying to tackle is to slow and now cop AND the victim are now in danger.

What I do know is, trying to establish policy to be that the knife has to make contact before shooting, or the officer needs to spend a certain amount of time on scene, or know every fact is a recipe for disaster.

Each case needs to be looked at on its own merits as if no shootings has ever occurred before. A true assessment of the facts each and every time is the goal. Most times courts get it right, occasionally they do not and it sucks. But there is an old saying? I'd rather 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to jail.

#84 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 09:59 PM | Reply

John,

"I can't criticize the cop for taking action"

Who says you can't?

Of course you can.

It's liberals who are running around telling everyone what they can and can't say.

You are entitled to your opinion.

However, this women whose opinion isn't just based on emotion or "what seems right" believes the situation was unfortunate but most likely saved lives.

#85 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-04-27 10:01 PM | Reply

I don't think thats her opinion.

Lives were saved? She was going to kill at least two people?

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 10:03 PM | Reply

It's liberals who are running around telling everyone what they can and can't say.

That's mostly about pronouns.

Which, conversely, conservatives feel equally as responsible for telling people which pronouns they can't use.

Don't see you lecturing conservatives.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Unless they go against some texts written thousands of years ago.

#87 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-27 10:08 PM | Reply

"The police exist to remove those that prey on others in society by bringing them before the courts to face justice."

Getting back to the analogy: Sheep don't prey on each other.

Sheep fear the sheepdog, because the sheep can't ever be sure the dog won't turn on then. It's fear conditioning.

You think we should fear the police, then?

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 10:09 PM | Reply

"Defund the police was something Rightwing media grabbed, from one protest, and completely blew out of proportion."

It was more than one protest, and the left grabbed on to it too and kept going with it even after comparatively reasonable Democrats pointed out how dumb it was. I'm sure that Slavic and Chinese troll farms were pushing it too, but there are still people actually defending this dumb phrase. Just like "Medicare for All", which would have gotten Trump reelected if one of the candidates supporting that was nominated.

#89 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-04-27 10:09 PM | Reply

Lives were saved? She was going to kill at least two people?

Possibly a killing spree.

The puppy was definitely gonna get stabbed.

It had shht on the lawn.

#90 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-27 10:10 PM | Reply

To answer you question about why I think cops are good natured, I can only speak from my own anecdotal experience. I know a great many cops, and ask are excellent people. I have had a few interactions with the police, all have gone fine, and the way I deserved.

Stats wise, there are literally millions of interactions between cops and not cops every year. A very tiny fraction of Percent ends in violence. We hardly hear about the good ones. It doesn't make for salacious reading and endless debates.

#91 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 10:10 PM | Reply

88. You really want to go past the trees and try to look at the grains of sand in the forest floor don't you. Sometimes it's okay to take things at face value. Police are there to protect society by ensuring criminals face appropriate justice. Much LIKE.... not exactly like... sheep dogs protect sheep.

#92 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 10:13 PM | Reply

"That often takes violence. Sometimes extreme violence, because criminals tend to not want to face justice for their crimes and react violently when cornered."

You can't possibly think that describes what happened here.

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 10:13 PM | Reply

"You really want to go past the trees and try to look at the grains of sand in the forest floor don't you."

Quite the opposite, I'm looking at the big picture.

I'm asking if citizens in a free society should fear police, like sheep fear sheepdogs.

It seems like your answer is yes. In which case, you support fascism. Which gets back to why I asked if you're a Trumper.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 10:16 PM | Reply

"A very tiny fraction of Percent ends in violence."

Our fraction isn't so tiny compared to Germany or Japan ir anywhere else in the modern world.

But I guess those grains of sand don't matter to you.

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 10:18 PM | Reply

Nope. Never said it was. That was a general statement of policing.

What happened here..... as you know... a girl was in the literal act of stabbing a girl what? 8 feet from a cop? Regardless of what happened 5 minutes, 30 seconds, or 1 day ago,, a cop should never allow someone to be stabbed in front of him without using all necessary force including desk to stop it. In this case distance and imminence of the threat left only the gun as the choice for a tool.

#96 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 10:19 PM | Reply

94. Nope. Not in either election. I've been clear in that quite often here.

#97 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 10:20 PM | Reply

Citizens SHOULDN'T fear the police. Criminals should. That's how a society like ours that's built on guilt works. When police do bad things in all for them being bright to justice just like any other criminal.

#98 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 10:22 PM | Reply

"To answer you question about why I think cops are good natured, I can only speak from my own anecdotal experience. I know a great many cops, and ask are excellent people. I have had a few interactions with the police, all have gone fine, and the way I deserved."

You're lucky.

Ever been held at gunpoint for a crime you didn't commit, or did that go fine when it happened?

Ever been asked to give up your rights during a traffic stop, or is it fine to ask people to give up their rights?

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 10:22 PM | Reply

"Citizens SHOULDN'T fear the police."

Well they do.

Because they are trained to kill, to escalate violence, and to coerce us into giving up our rights.

Why doesn't any of that scare you?
Can't you see where that is heading?

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 10:25 PM | Reply

99.... I've been asked to search my trunk and glove compartment, refused both without a warrant. Was on my way 5 minutes later. But that was only once. Never had a gun pointed at me by police. But I was in the army for a while, a couple decades ago. But as I said, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. More pertinent is the rate of violence over the millions of interactions, which is statistically infinitesimal.

Trying to compare us to dramatically more homogenous, and smaller countries is Disingenuous at best. But also a nice effort.

#101 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 10:30 PM | Reply

100. Not even in the slightest.

#102 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 10:31 PM | Reply

"99.... I've been asked to search my trunk and glove compartment, refused both without a warrant."

But you think they were doing their job to the best of their ability when they asked you.
You think their job is to get you to give up your rights.
Is that correct?

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 10:33 PM | Reply

It's not "getting". What's the harm is asking?

#104 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 10:34 PM | Reply

"More pertinent is the rate of violence over the millions of interactions, which is statistically infinitesimal."

Come on.
They kill 1,000 people a year.
If Muslim terrorists did that we'd be at war.

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 10:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What's the harm is asking?"

Perhaps you should tell me why they are asking, then.

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 10:35 PM | Reply

It's not "getting".

But it is.
The entire point of asking if they can search is for you to say yes.

If you have rights, what's the harm in giving them up?
You really asked that question.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 10:36 PM | Reply

And the overwhelming majority of the time, it's completely justified because of the actions of the person shot and not the cop. Shouting numbers just didn't make it a problem. Each case has merits and facts that need be evaluated.

#108 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 10:37 PM | Reply

Lol. Who said anything about giving them up? They asked. I said no. And was on my way. I didn't mind a bit then asking.

#109 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 10:37 PM | Reply

"And the overwhelming majority of the time, it's completely justified because of the actions of the person shot and not the cop."

Since you were in the military, you know that it only takes one "Oh no" to undo 80 "Attaboys."

Beyond that, and this is something far too many people have won't let themselves see, "justified" is not the same as "right."

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 10:40 PM | Reply

"I didn't mind a bit then asking."

You don't mind that they were asking for your help to establish probable cause or reasonable suspicion, for no reason other than to arrest you?

I am not sure if I can really believe that.

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 10:42 PM | Reply

I didn't mind at all. I wouldn't mind if they asked tomorrow. They get paid to find Evidence of crime. There is no harm is asking. If you feel like letting them, say yes. I don't feel like letting them, so I would say no. Of they have enough to search anyway, they'll get a warrant and do it no matter what. So the default for me is always no. But it done at offend me on the slightest for them to ask. That's just stupid to be offended over that. All you have to do is say no.

#112 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-27 10:45 PM | Reply

"What's the harm is asking?"

Surely you're not this naive.
Officer Jonathan Freitag is the harm.
And he's just one example.
There's thousands like him.
There's a whole department of them over on this thread, that you still haven't been to:
drudge.com

#113 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 10:47 PM | Reply

"The attempt was to point out how this money could be used to better fund social workers or healthcare or reeducation or therapy or after school programs."

Oh, I get that. Phrasing it as "Defund The Police" is profoundly stupid. Not only is it misrepresentative, it's a boxed-up, bow-tied gift to the opposition.

#114 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-04-27 10:47 PM | Reply

"All you have to do is say no."

1. That's not how innocent people think to talk to the cops.
2. Police exploit the fact that that's not how people think.

#115 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 10:48 PM | Reply

"There is no harm is asking. If you feel like letting them, say yes. I don't feel like letting them, so I would say no"

Why would you say no, if you hadn't committed a crime?
You said you don't fear them, so why not say yes?
Your story doesn't quite seem to check out.

#116 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 10:51 PM | Reply

Beyond that, and this is something far too many people have won't let themselves see, "justified" is not the same as "necessary."

I agree wholeheartedly, but to me, the word "right" can be synonymous with "justifiable" though I know you're connoting it as "correct." "Necessary" more clearly asks whether or not other other options could have led to an equal or superior conclusion if they were tried instead of what was.

#117 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-04-27 10:52 PM | Reply

I would like to show the video to police in other countries, and ask how they would have responded.

Those would be some good data points to have.

#118 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-27 10:55 PM | Reply

#118

I've asked the question that I've yet to see answered here: If the shooting officer did not have his gun already drawn and in his hand, what would he have done facing the same scenario? What would the public have expected him to do if he couldn't have simply shot her?

My guess is that he would have physically tried to stop or mitigate Ma'Khia's assumed attack. And I also say "assumed" for good reason. Ma'Khia had no known history of attacking anyone else, so is it plausible in her agitated state that she was only feigning her attack like a person often does to frighten an aggressor?

And let me say this as a human being - I would rather see the officer take the chance to tackle Ma'Khia under the likelihood she wouldn't have struck a fatal blow on the other girl than have him shoot Ma'Khia 4 times and end her life.

But that's me.

#119 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-04-27 11:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

John,
"I can't criticize the cop for taking action"
Who says you can't?
Of course you can.
It's liberals who are running around telling everyone what they can and can't say...

#85 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

So you take one sentence out of context and use it to attack liberals?

Here's the facts, I've never had a liberal tell me I can't say something. I have had liberals question things that I said that made me consider my stances in thoughtful ways. Sometimes I held my views and sometimes I changed them.
On the other hand I've had conservatives tell me I read certain books or study certain subjects because they might conflict with some passage in a book that was cobbled together a long time ago. I've had conservatives in my life tell me I can't listen to certain music and that I can't be friends with certain people because of the color of their skin. I've had conservatives tell me I can't date their daughter because I don't attend their church. Even now I have you telling me how I should be writing my comments on this story.

#120 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2021-04-27 11:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You all are creaming aint ya. Lol

#121 | Posted by fresno500 at 2021-04-28 12:25 AM | Reply

I just don't understand why they can't shoot at kneecaps. Why is it always shoot to kill?

Well I do know, they are trained to take control of any situation by the most escalated means necessary.

That is your problem with military-style police tactics.

I still say defund, and put money into mental health.

#122 | Posted by bocaink at 2021-04-28 12:35 AM | Reply

A good start would be to get less x-military as police. No offense intended, but from my understanding they are trained in an "us vs them" philosophy which works at war but not domestically.

#123 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2021-04-28 12:39 AM | Reply

John,

"So you take one sentence out of context and use it to attack liberals?

Attacking?

Isn't that a little melodramatic?

And you're going off in the direction of the Bible? You sound like you're battling some inner conflict or you're part of some strict religion.

Without being judgmental about the shooting, this Congresswoman simply said she believed lives were saved.

Or....to put it another way. Should the cop have allowed the assault to continue and innocent people be killed?

So...if someone had to die to stop this...well...at least the right person died.

#124 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-04-28 02:13 AM | Reply

Bill, I hope you're OK after your internal projector just exploded.

:>)

#125 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 03:54 AM | Reply

www.ktvu.com

Did the police do anything wrong on this one?

#126 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 04:20 AM | Reply

Anecdote: My mother was a dispatcher for Bell county in central Texas. It encompassed most of Ft Hood. She told me the Sheriff told her he'd never had to pull his gun out of his holster ever in 30 years. He had great interpersonal skills when dealing with the public, and no doubt is a reason for his being re-elected over and over.

Fast forward 35 years and police appear to be looking for ways to use their gun to enforce their will. I'd go as far to say that a certain percentage of police want to kill people. If only for the reason to prove to themselves they can do it. So, sick, sociopathic ------------- drift toward this profession, and are not weeded out by the psychological tests, and are not turned in by their co-workers for crimes against the public.

It's incredulous that their co-workers cannot sense the proclivities of these wayward policemen. I guess exile to France is what happens as it did to Frank Serpico.

I hate to think we're turning into most other countries in the world where the police don't need a reason to arrest you and keep you locked up for an indefinite amount of time. At least a person in the US in custody still gets to be seen by a Magistrate.

#127 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 06:57 AM | Reply

116 because I know my rights and theirs. They have the right to ask, and I have the right to tell them to pound sand. That's okay. I don't understand what the big deal is. Can I? Nope. Okay bye.

#128 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 07:15 AM | Reply

122. These limb shots are highly risky. Incredibly difficult to hit because they are far smaller targets, and they are much more mobile than your torso. And if you miss what do you intend to shoot, you hit things you didn't intend to shoot, and that's very, very bad. Also, they don't have the same statistically high likelihood of stopping the deadly behavior that justifies the deadly force. Also bad.

#129 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 07:17 AM | Reply

Blue Wall remains solid.

I'm certainly not a member of the Blue Wall. In fact, I believe that police should be defunded i.e. a significant amount of their budget should redirected into mental health and other non lethal public safety areas. However, based on what was shown in the brief video, I think the officer did the right thing by shooting the girl about to stab the other person.

If there is anything to quibble about, it could be why shoot at the torso? Shooting at the torso put the woman about to be stabbed at risk of being struck by an errant bullet. Also, could a single shot have been enough to deter the aggressor or would that simply result in the stabber turning her attention to the police officer?

A tough choice but the officer did the right thing.

These limb shots are highly risky. Incredibly difficult to hit because they are far smaller targets, and they are much more mobile than your torso.

Considering the size of the aggressor, the ----------- was a good target.

#130 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2021-04-28 07:34 AM | Reply

130. So training people to look for targets that are "just as big and possibly just as effective" again, a recipe for disaster. You want the officer while a person is thrusting a knife at a person, try to evaluate: is this person big enough that maybe I can aim somewhere else, where night it be just as effective as a torso shot, how are they moving... and by that time the knife has come around a couple more times. Deadly force is authorized? Shoot center mass as quickly as possible. Period. That's training, and that's how innocent (in that moment) lives are saved.

#131 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 08:17 AM | Reply

How many holes should she be allowed to gash into her victim before its appropriate to shoot her?

#12 | POSTED BY 503JC69

I'm told there's only a 4% chance of dying when stabbed.

So the answer is as many as the attacker could get in before the taser took effect!

#132 | Posted by jpw at 2021-04-28 08:53 AM | Reply

If there is anything to quibble about, it could be why shoot at the torso?

#130 | POSTED BY FEDUPWITHPOLS AT 2021-04-28 07:34 AM | FLAG:

Because that's how you kill people the fastest, aim for the heart and lungs. Beyond self defense, it is a cornerstone of ethnical hunting.

#133 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-04-28 09:18 AM | Reply

Police never shoot to kill. Shoot to end the threat. It is entirely coincidental that the fastest way to stop a threat in the act has a statistically high likelihood of causing death. That sounds like the same thing it isn't. It comes down to intent. Intent isn't to kill. It's too stop the act of them killing others including possibly the officer.

#134 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 09:29 AM | Reply

ABH, they usually empty their Glock 17s till they're out of ammo. I'm no expert, but I'd say that was shooting to kill. Have you ever seen what a hollow point 9mm can do?

It can blow a man's head clean off.

#135 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 09:41 AM | Reply

That doesn't mean it's their INTENT. it means it's incidental to their intent. It'sa very important distinction, especially in court.

#136 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 09:42 AM | Reply

I've a sense that this rookie cop only shot four rounds into Ma'Khia because she was so close to other people, and he was worried he might kill them, as well.

#137 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 09:44 AM | Reply

If the cops' intent wasn't to kill someone, they wouldn't shoot them with a gun. They'd use a taser or pepper spray, instead. I'm not a lawyer, but how do you prove mens rea? You'd net a PET scan at least to gauge whether the person was lying or not.

#138 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 09:47 AM | Reply

...or Mr Spock's mind=melding death grip from hell to extract that kind of information from someone.

#139 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 09:48 AM | Reply

Wrong. Like the wrongest thing I've read in a while. You can't end a deadly threat with a taser that has an extremely short range, a statistically high failure rate, and a high rate of failure to affect. If there just fighting? Fine. Have a weapon? Nope.

#140 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 10:09 AM | Reply

Pepper spray is an even worse tool to end a deadly threat. Shorter range, and an even higher rate of failure to affect the target.... and a high rate of affecting the other officers and civilians nearby as it is carried by the wind. Terrible idea.

#141 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 10:12 AM | Reply

"I've asked the question that I've yet to see answered here: If the shooting officer did not have his gun already drawn and in his hand, what would he have done facing the same scenario?"

Hard to say, but in this particular situation the information that the cop had when he arrived was that there was an assault with a deadly weapon already in progress. I'm not seeing where the officer's behavior was unreasonable in this case. Should it be analyzed to see if a different procedure could have resulted in a better outcome? Sure, but it's not something he should be charged or disciplined for, like the cop who confused her gun for her Tasercats sword.

#142 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-04-28 10:41 AM | Reply

Wrong. Like the wrongest thing I've read in a while.

ABH, calm down. When you argue, try not to let your emotions take over. Going to the extreme of saying what I typed was "like the wrongest[sic] thing I've read in a while." is evidence that you're becoming unhinged.

One of the downsides of arguing with emotional people is you can't really come to an understanding or learn anything. You just end up putting on the mantle of "teacher" and your interlocutor as "unwilling student." And it rarely works.

Snoofy, Truthhurts, Sitzkrieg, Tonyroma, Bocaink, JohnnyHotsauce, Clownshack, and Danforth are not getting emotional over this. Why are you?

#143 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 10:56 AM | Reply

#143 | POSTED BY SADSCIENTOLOGIST

I think you may have just gotten yourself into the gaslighting hall of fame.

#144 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-04-28 11:06 AM | Reply

Ha! Emotional? Please. I am the only one looking at it analytically. You can't make statements like using a taser or pepper spray in deadly force situations and not expect to be called on it. There is NOTHING emotional about the analytics of the gun being the most appropriate tool and shooting center mass the most effective way to employ that tool I. Deadly force situations.

#145 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 11:10 AM | Reply

Police never shoot to kill.
#134 | POSTED BY ABH

Wow.
You have jumped the shark.
Police always shoot to kill.

Furthermore, this is a basic principle of gun safety:
Never point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy.

#146 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 12:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There is NOTHING emotional about the analytics of the gun being the most appropriate tool and shooting center mass the most effective way to employ that tool...

#145 | POSTED BY ABH

To a gun nut The Gun is ALWAYS the most appropriate tool...

If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

Maybe we should start thinking outside the Gun.

I know I am a dreamer. But I am not the only one.

#147 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-04-28 12:17 PM | Reply

146. Apparently you can't read. They don't intend to kill. It's incidental to their intent to stop the threat as quickly and efficiently as possible. Don't act now like nuance is lost on you. It's a very important distinction, as I said, especially in court.

#148 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 12:27 PM | Reply

It's a distinction without a difference, ABH.

In basic training, our infantry MOS'd DS gave instruction on who and what you can shoot with an M60 7.62mm machine gun. He said it was against the Geneva Convention to shoot at people with it, and it was to only be used against equipment. But, he also added that, canteens, belt buckles, helmets, LBEs (Load Bearing Equipment), rucksacks, etc. were equipment. Thereby nullifying the spirit of the international law.

I don't know where you're getting your intent argument from. As Colonel Potter would say, "That sounds like a bunch of horse muffins."

#149 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 12:42 PM | Reply

I think you may have just gotten yourself into the gaslighting hall of fame.
#144 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

First of all, I haven't given you the right to speak to me, especially with your-------- in.

Secondly, you need to look up what gaslighting means. Ironically, if anyone practices gaslighting around here, it's you. You can barely type a sentence without using it.

Thirdly, you need to look up what projection and reaction formation are. Because you also use those so frequently as to tell on yourself and your real self with every post.

Fourthly, get down on your knees, go sit in the corner and do not come out until I give you permission, you bad, bad person, you.

#150 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 12:46 PM | Reply

Let me tell you what not wanting to kill someone with a gun looks like: A few days ago I told the story of how I keep an old .22 six-shooter I inherited from my grandfather in my locked desk drawer. The first three barrels are loaded with rat shot, the next two with .22LR hollowpoint, and the last barrel is empty as a safety in case someone breaks into my desk and pulls the trigger it will fire on an empty barrel. That's because I don't want to kill someone. If I'd wanted to kill someone, I'd use my 9mm, which I only use for target practice.

If the three rat-shot rounds don't scare the burglar, I have two .22LR hollowpoints to act as a convincer. I'd rather the guy or kid just ask for some money like a man instead of as a criminal. But, I realize not all people share my soft-heartedness, therefore the .22LR.

#151 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 12:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think it might be mad who doesn't know what gaslighting is.

#152 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-28 12:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think it might be KWRX25 who doesn't know what gaslighting is. *DERP*

#153 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 01:14 PM | Reply

I apologize to you if you think I'm using psychology to base my arguments on, but what do you think life is? Psychology is obviously a potent, yet nonviolent weapon in the arsenal of combatting ignorance.

Didn't you guys go to Sunday School at one time?

----------------

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, in addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

--Ephesians 6:10-17 (NIV)

#154 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 01:26 PM | Reply

"I apologize to you if you think I'm using psychology to base my arguments on, but what do you think life is? Psychology is obviously a potent, yet nonviolent weapon in the arsenal of combatting ignorance."

Yeah, you and Mushskull are obviously the same poster. Either that, or you're conjoined, like the Hensel Twins. Good luck at the Special Olympics.

#155 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-04-28 01:59 PM | Reply

149. Oh so now intent doesn't matter? Poor people stealing because they are starving should be hammered just as hard as someone that shoplifts necklaces for fun? Interesting take.

#156 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 02:14 PM | Reply

IMO, the choice was to either shoot her or let her stab the other woman. In this case, the officer acted properly.

#157 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2021-04-28 02:14 PM | Reply

"They don't intend to kill. It's incidental to their intent to stop the threat as quickly and efficiently as possible."

You're divorcing cause and effect, which is asinine.
Killing is "incidental" to eliminating a threat with a gun?
No. Killing is the precise mechanism of action by which a trheat is eliminated with a gun.

#158 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 02:30 PM | Reply

They'll settle for incapacitating, but you won't be getting first aid any time soon. If you're gut shot you're still getting rolled over onto your stomach and cuffed. You're going to bleed out fast.

#159 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-04-28 02:37 PM | Reply

#159 as evidenced by them immediately performing first aid for Bryant and getting her to the hospital asap.

#160 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-28 02:42 PM | Reply

"#159 as evidenced by them immediately performing first aid for Bryant"

They sterilize lethal injections too.
That doesn't change what they are.

#161 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 02:45 PM | Reply

"immediately performing first aid for Bryant and getting her to the hospital asap."

You can see how this demonstrates their intent in shooting her was to kill her, right?

Or maybe you can't.
Maybe you think their intent in shooting her was so they could do CPR on her and get her to the hospital.

#162 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 02:47 PM | Reply

Snoofy you'r really going to dance around the fact that you KNOW I was responding to the comment that they'll just let you lay there bleeding out.

Since I know you know that's what I was responding to.... what the f*** value are your last few posts?

I'll tell you they're worse less than what I just flushed after a burrito from taco bell.

#163 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-28 02:56 PM | Reply

*worth

#164 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-28 02:57 PM | Reply

"Snoofy you'r really going to dance around the fact that you KNOW I was responding to the comment that they'll just let you lay there bleeding out."

Sorry, I missed that.
You're smart enough to know when the police shoot someone, they shoot to kill.
The police will tell you this themselves, whenever some liberal asks why couldn't you just wing 'em?

#165 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 03:02 PM | Reply

fair enough to "missed that"... happens.

I do think your purposefully missing the nuance, of shooting to stop the threat vs shoot to kill. And the unfortunate nature that those are usually the same thing.

#166 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-28 03:29 PM | Reply

Exactly. A guy that wants to get down into the weeds of the metaphor of sheepdogs. He KNOWS the metaphor is about sheepdogs function to protect the flock so the flock can do what it is going to do and not have to worry about being attacked.... but wants to argue about actual social dynamics in real life sheep dog/ sheep prairie life.... suddenly can't recognize nuance between intent to end threats and intent to kill.

#167 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 04:03 PM | Reply

"I do think your purposefully missing the nuance, of shooting to stop the threat vs shoot to kill. And the unfortunate nature that those are usually the same thing."

There is no nuance there.
They are exactly the same thing.
It's a distinction without a difference.

#168 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 04:41 PM | Reply

Police sometimes use Lethal force.
Police sometimes use less-than-lethal force.

One of those things is reasonably expected to result in a fatality.

Maybe ABH can tell us which one it is?

#169 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 04:43 PM | Reply

Based on a lifetime of observing how these incidents play out, I do not believe that other than in the rarest of circumstances is there any such thing as 'shooting to injure' as opposed to 'shooting to kill'. Maybe if the person is two feet away, standing still, and the gun is pointed directly down at the leg. Other than that, the mind-set has to be that any fired shot has a high possibility of killing the target.

#170 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-04-28 04:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I do not believe that other than in the rarest of circumstances is there any such thing as 'shooting to injure'"

Police themselves will tell you they shoot to kill.

I guess ABH thinks the police are lying when they tell us that?

#171 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 04:48 PM | Reply

No. They won't. You will NEVER, Not EVER hear an officer on the stand respond to "why did you shout them " with any variation of "I was trying to kill them." Moder8 is a lawyer. He knows this is the case.

#172 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 05:01 PM | Reply

o. They won't. You will NEVER, Not EVER hear an officer on the stand respond to "why did you shout them " with any variation of "I was trying to kill them." Moder8 is a lawyer. He knows this is the case.

#172 | POSTED BY ABH A

Cops lie on the stand? Say it ain't so!

#173 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-04-28 05:21 PM | Reply

If I am on a jury and someone shot a gun at someone, I can only conclude that they were shooting to kill.

#174 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-04-28 05:23 PM | Reply

The fact that you assume them to be lying says much more about you than them.

#175 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 05:25 PM | Reply

"You will NEVER, Not EVER hear an officer on the stand respond to "why did you shout them " with any variation of "I was trying to kill them."

That's just phrasing.
You're hiding behind words.

Is using a gun using lethal force?
What does "lethal" mean?

#176 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 05:29 PM | Reply

It is force that has a high probability of causing death or great bodily harm. But we aren't talking about that. We are talking about intent. You really have to be intentionally missing the point by now.

#177 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 05:31 PM | Reply

If I intend to kill you I will shoot, and walk away.

If I intend to neutralize you as a threat, I will shoot, and provide aid.

Now, I can be fully aware that shooting has a high chance of killing you, but that doesn't mean my intent is for you to die.

Snoofy says that's a distinction without a difference, and I disagree. There is a huge difference there. Probably not for the person shot, but for society and how we function there is.

#178 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-28 05:40 PM | Reply

Exactly.

#179 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 05:46 PM | Reply

KWrX, respectfully, I disagree. There is not much nuance when it comes to shooting someone. In a sane world, the intent to pull the trigger is the same thing as a conscious willingness to kill.

#180 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-04-28 05:48 PM | Reply

You ever heard a cop on the stand say he was trying to kill someone? I bet you haven't. Because they are trained to "stop the threat" not kill. Accepting that as a consequence of their shooting someone isn't the same thing as INTENDING to kill them.

#181 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 05:54 PM | Reply

The discussion of the execution of a 16 year old girl, continues.

Bet if Ma'Khia was your daughter, you'd have preferred the cops attempted something prior to shooting her dead.

Or. Who knows.

Maybe you'd all be fine with it.

#182 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-28 05:57 PM | Reply

No one is fine with it. Accepting the right thing happened doesn't mean we are all Throwing first bumps in the air and so happy it happened. It's horrible and tragic.... which is no indication of wrongdoing on the part of the officer.

#183 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 06:00 PM | Reply

It doesn't take Miss Cleo to determine the reason the officers started CPR on Ma'Khia was because they'd just killed a teenaged girl on camera. If I put myself in their position, I'd've said, "Holy ----, we just killed a girl!" And would've at least made it look good for the camera that we were trying to save her.

How are you supposed to use CPR to save someone with four bullet holes in them? Every chest compression simply oozes blood out of torn arteries and since she'd obviously lost blood pressure, it'd be of no use.

#184 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 06:25 PM | Reply

It is force that has a high probability of causing death or great bodily harm. But we aren't talking about that. We are talking about intent. You really have to be intentionally missing the point by now.
#177 | POSTED BY ABH

Let's talk about intent, then.

Here is a random statute which explains what it means to use "deadly force."

LII Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) Title 10 - Energy CHAPTER X - DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (GENERAL PROVISIONS) PART 1047 - LIMITED ARREST AUTHORITY AND USE OF FORCE BY PROTECTIVE FORCE OFFICERS General Provisions 1047.7 Use of deadly force.
(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. ... When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

"Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm."

So, I don't see how it's conceivable that police use deadly force, without knowing it likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the person upon said deadly force was used. It's precisely the fact that it causes death or serious bodily harm that is is effective at neutralizing a threat.

But, I suppose one explanation is that the police officer is not a "reasonable person."

In this case, it's ABH who is not being a reasonable person.

#185 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 06:32 PM | Reply

If I intend to kill you I will shoot, and walk away.
If I intend to neutralize you as a threat, I will shoot, and provide aid.
Now, I can be fully aware that shooting has a high chance of killing you, but that doesn't mean my intent is for you to die.
#178 | POSTED BY KWRX25

You're simply refusing to connect the dots between the intent to neutralize the threat, and the fact that deadly force was used to neutralize the threat.

When you use deadly force on someone, that person's death is the expected, intended outcome.

#186 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 06:34 PM | Reply

Again. For the millionth time, it's a consequence of the force they have to use not the REASON they are using the force. Stop being willfully ignorant.

#187 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 06:37 PM | Reply

The fact that you assume them to be lying says much more about you than them.

#175 | POSTED BY ABH

The fact is that i have seen it first hand numerous times.

#188 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-04-28 06:37 PM | Reply

I can't believe I have to explain this to you badge bunnies, but:

US police should shoot to kill or not at all, law and justice experts say
www.theguardian.com

#189 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 06:46 PM | Reply

"For the millionth time, it's a consequence of the force they have to use not the REASON they are using the force."

The REASON the force achieves the desired consequence is because it is lethal.

And when you choose to use lethal force, you choose to kill.

#190 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 06:47 PM | Reply

On a separate note, in this day and age who in their right mind would currently choose to go into the profession of being a police officer? I mean unless you are a glutton for punishment or some type of psychopath. There just is no up side. At least in the past most people assumed that police officers were honorable people who told the truth and cared about protecting others. Now though, a person's character is considered suspect or even worse if they choose to be a cop. There is no respect, no glory, no trust.

I realize that perceptions of police do tend to be cyclical. But among most reasonable people nowadays there seems to be a real awareness of just how out of whack many police officers seem to be.

#191 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-04-28 06:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's just wrong. And you know it. You just want to troll. That's fine.

#192 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 06:50 PM | Reply

and we've entered snoofygames(tm) territory.

#193 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-28 06:54 PM | Reply

"And when you choose to use lethal force, you choose to kill."

"That's just wrong."

No, it's completely correct.
How is the charge of "murder" ever made, if the intent of someone using lethal force was something other than killing?
How is the charge of "attempted murder" ever made, if the intent of someone using lethal force was killing, but the killing was unsuccessful?
You tell me.

#194 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 06:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

and we've entered snoofygames(tm) territory.
#193 | POSTED BY KWRX25

Hardly.
You and ABH have gone off the deep end, and can't figure out that when an officer uses lethal force, he intends to incapacitate his target by killings it.

You can't possibly be saying they shoot to wound, or they were not intending to hit the target.

You, me, some cop, doesn't matter who. When you fire a gun at a person there is only one intent: To kill that person.

#195 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 06:58 PM | Reply

Your line of reasoning here is no different than saying Osama bin Laden's intent wasn't to murder thousands of people, it was to get the US out of the Middle East.

Oookay.

#196 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 07:00 PM | Reply

#178 | POSTED BY KWRX25
You're simply refusing to connect the dots between the intent to neutralize the threat, and the fact that deadly force was used to neutralize the threat.

You're simply refusing to connect recognize the difference between intent and accepted risk of outcome.

If I have to slam a door to keep the undead out, and there's a chance you might not get your fingers out of the way in time, but I HAVE to shut it now or we die. If you're fingers get crushed when I slam the door, I didn't intend to crush, even though I knew it was a risk.

If I slam a door to keep the undead out, and I see that your fingers are there and might get caught, and I slam it hoping to catch your fingers... not only hoping... I swing the door specifically to catch your hand it when it shuts, then I intended it.

If you can't at least acknowledge that there is a difference with intent to kill vs intent to stop (knowing it can result in death), then there's no discussion that can continue in a useful way.

#197 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-28 07:00 PM | Reply

Yeah, you and Mushskull are obviously the same poster. Either that, or you're conjoined, like the Hensel Twins. Good luck at the Special Olympics.
#155 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

If you feel this is the case, by all means give RCADE a call. He'll have no trouble noting that GreatBritishSkull is posting from England and I'm posting from central Texas.

Oddly enough, it is worth noting that two people from opposite ends of the world vis a vis our countries' political spectrum can come to similar conclusions.

You sorry-assed piece of human jetsam. Go back into your corner and count to one thousand.

#198 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 07:01 PM | Reply

191. I would if it paid enough. It doesn't. But I legit like the idea to not be tied to an office in endless meetings and in a job where you can go home and actually look at the day and think you actually accomplished something important and helpful. something other than making a few dollars for some other person higher up on the food chain in the company.

#199 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 07:07 PM | Reply

"If I have to slam a door to keep the undead out, and there's a chance you might not get your fingers out of the way in time, but I HAVE to shut it now or we die. If you're fingers get crushed when I slam the door, I didn't intend to crush, even though I knew it was a risk."

That's not a reasonable what happened here.
There was no third party inadvertently affected.

If you shoot someone committing a stabbing, your intent was to put that person down.

#200 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 07:10 PM | Reply

ABH, police officers aren't even in the top 10 most dangerous professions, and contrary to popular belief, are paid handsomely for their service. Not including the many opportunities for overtime and special perks.

From another point of view, police officers do not always go home feeling good about their jobs. Rampant alcoholism, suicide, PTSD, etc. are normal. You say they're not serving a greedy capitalist, but they are serving as veritable stool-pigeons for the state. So, pick your poison. If you want to go into a field that is completely without obeisance to the Man, then join the Peace Corps. Or stand in the River Jordan eating locusts and wild honey and rile against the powers that be.

#201 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 07:20 PM | Reply

Of course it is. Girl A is in the act of stabbing girl B. Officer c, the THIRD party, sees this and wants to prevent girl A from stabbing girl B so he uses his duty weapon hitting girl A hoping to prevent her from completing the act of stabbing girl B. Incidental to the trying to end the threat to girl B, girl A dies from her injuries. Officer C didn't intend to kill girl A, but the force he needed to use to end the threat to girl B caused her death.

#202 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 07:23 PM | Reply

201. I make more money than the chief of police in my town. No chance I'm giving that up.

#203 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 07:24 PM | Reply

191. I would if it paid enough. It doesn't. But I legit like the idea to not be tied to an office in endless meetings and in a job where you can go home and actually look at the day and think you actually accomplished something important and helpful. something other than making a few dollars for some other person higher up on the food chain in the company.

#199 | POSTED BY ABH

90% of a policeman's job is ruining (or at a minimum harming) someone's life over ----------- on drugs, most traffic stops, asset forfeiture)

#204 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-04-28 07:31 PM | Reply

something other than making a few dollars for some other person higher up on the food chain in the company.

#199 | POSTED BY ABH AT 2021-04-28 07:07 PM | REPLY

what do you think the purpose is of all those traffic stops, petty drug charges and asset forfeiture?

#205 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-04-28 07:33 PM | Reply

I make more money than the chief of police in my town. No chance I'm giving that up.
#203 | POSTED BY ABH

How is this statement helping your argument? Other than getting to brag about your earning capacity working for the Man?

#206 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 07:38 PM | Reply

"Officer C didn't intend to kill girl A"

His method of protecting girl B was by using lethal force on girl A, to render girl A harmless.

The intent to kill is plain as day.
He intended to use lethal force, and he carried out his intention with gusto.

#207 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 07:46 PM | Reply

You are preaching to the court about the war on drugs. I think they should all be legalized. It's not the governments job to dictate what people do if they aren't harming anyone.

#208 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 07:48 PM | Reply

Choir. Not Court

#209 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 07:48 PM | Reply

206. Which statement?

#210 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 07:49 PM | Reply

ABH did the officer intend to use lethal force?
Yes or no.

#211 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 07:56 PM | Reply

"If you feel this is the case, by all means give RCADE a call."

He's not answering his bat phone right now.

"He'll have no trouble noting that GreatBritishSkull is posting from England and I'm posting from central Texas."

Are you really saying you lack the technical expertise to spoof an IP address or use a simple proxy? Do you really expect us to believe that?

It wouldn't be the first time someone on here claimed to be posting from Texas when he wasn't...

#212 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-04-28 07:57 PM | Reply

207. No. officer Cs only thought was for the safety of girl B. His training and experience taught him that the firearm was the fastest way to end the threat to girl B. At no time does he think "I'm gonna kill this girl." Nope. It's incidental to his intent.

#213 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 07:57 PM | Reply

ABH, you're seriously telling us that he saw a public safety situation which justified the use of lethal force, he intervened with lethal force... but he didn't intend to use lethal force.

#214 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 07:59 PM | Reply

#211. No. He intended to use the fastest, most efficient means to end the threat. That's the force also can produce death is incidental to his intent.

#215 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 08:03 PM | Reply

"At no time does he think "I'm gonna kill this girl."

Setting aside that you don't know what he was thinking:

You don't have to think "I'm gonna kill this girl" to kill this girl.
And it doesn't make any difference whether he thought that or not.
His choice to kill is implicit in his choice to employ deadly force, and in the "dead" part of the term "deadly force."

#216 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 08:05 PM | Reply

214. No. I'm telling you his intent was to end the threat the girl was facing. Not kill the girl with the knife IN THE ACT of stabbing the other girl. You must need to look up the word "incidental". It will be very illuminating for you.

#217 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 08:05 PM | Reply

Nope. It's incidental to his intent.
#213 | POSTED BY ABH

What a load of sophist crap. Your arguments aren't even making sense anymore and you're fully entrenched in proving your point that police don't aim to kill but to neutralize the threat.

The rookie cop may have been justified in using lethal force (notice it's called lethal force), but the question will be hashed out in a Grand Jury if the local Prosecutor deems it court-worthy. Just because you can do something, doesn't make it right. And, IMHO, rolling up on a situation and 5 seconds later firing off four shots into a group of people was sheer luck that he didn't kill anyone else.

#218 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 08:06 PM | Reply

"He intended to use the fastest, most efficient means to end the threat."

He did.
He also intended to use lethal force.
These things aren't mutually exclusive. In this case, they go hand in hand.

#219 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 08:07 PM | Reply

Yup. Still haven't looked up the weird "incidental." I'll wait.

#220 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 08:08 PM | Reply

Word. Dammit.

#221 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 08:08 PM | Reply

" rolling up on a situation and 5 seconds later firing off four shots into a group of people was sheer luck that he didn't kill anyone else."

Ah, but those killings would have been justified too. Regrettable, but since the shooting was justified, then the shooting was justified.
That's a point I was trying to make before ABH decided to die on a hill where choosing to use lethal force on someone can't mean choosing to kill someone.

#222 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 08:09 PM | Reply

It wouldn't be the first time someone on here claimed to be posting from Texas when he wasn't...
#212 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Then send RCADE an email. You had no problem dropping a dime on BruceBanner several months ago when he used you as a chew-toy. And you talk about gaslighting. J'Accuse you of being the gaslighter, you non-self reflecting tiddly wink. Your life isn't even worth living, as Socrates would say.

#223 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 08:10 PM | Reply

"incidental."
1. accompanying but not a major part of something.
2. liable to happen as a consequence of (an activity).

So I suppose you're telling us that "death" "accompanying" the use of "deadly force" is not a major part of what it means to use deadly force.
In that case, what are the major parts of using deadly force?

#224 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 08:15 PM | Reply

"police don't aim to kill but to neutralize the threat."

Definition of neutralize

transitive verb
1 : to make chemically neutral
2a : to counteract the activity or effect of : make ineffective propaganda that is difficult to neutralize
b : kill, destroy
3 : to make electrically inert by combining equal positive and negative quantities
4 : to invest (a territory, a nation, etc.) with conventional or obligatory neutrality conferring inviolability during a war
5 : to make neutral by blending with the complementary color
6 : to give (a pair of phonemes) a nondistinctive form or pronunciation t and d are neutralized when pronounced as flaps

2b or not 2b, that is the question

#225 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 08:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

ABH, using your reasoning, if you shot someone four times but didn't intend to kill them, but they died anyway, could you be charged with murder?

#226 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 08:21 PM | Reply

2a. Neutralize. And the threat. Police meet the amount of force with an equal or greater amount to protect themselves and others. TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AND OTHERS. Not to run around and kill people.

#227 | Posted by ABH at 2021-04-28 08:22 PM | Reply

"2a. Neutralize. And the threat. "

When you choose neutralize a threat with lethal force, is it reasonable to expect your neutralization efforts will result in the death of the threat?

#228 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 08:31 PM | Reply

"TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AND OTHERS. Not to run around and kill people."

Again, these two things are not mutually exclusive.
The threat was neutralized when the officer chose to employ lethal force.
To say he didn't intend to kill, while simultaneously intending to use lethal force, is sophistry of the highest order.

#229 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 08:35 PM | Reply

"You had no problem dropping a dime on BruceBanner"

Nothing was done behind the scenes with regard to that. His behavior crossed a red line, and when given the opportunity to back down he doubled and tripled down on it. Apparently he became too much of a glaring liability to this site for even Rcade to ignore anymore. Too bad if he was one of your sock puppets. Either way, given some of the stuff you posted towards me lately, I'd be more than happy if you ended up with the same fate.

#230 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-04-28 08:40 PM | Reply

His behavior crossed a red line,

No. It didn't.

#231 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-28 08:45 PM | Reply

Snoofy, I simply can't believe that you can't comprehend that he chose an action that, round numbers, 99% of the time results in death, while really hoping for the 1% chance that it doesn't.

#232 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-28 09:02 PM | Reply

and to highlight the point ... snoofy games

Posted:

"incidental."
1. accompanying but not a major part of something.
2. liable to happen as a consequence of (an activity).

Snoofy then only comments some stupid s**t on definition 1. While it's blatantly obvious ABH is talking about about entry number 2.

Snoofygames.

#233 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-28 09:04 PM | Reply

Mad,

"Fast forward 35 years and police appear to be looking for ways to use their gun to enforce their will"

The nut jobs on the street are getting worse thanks to drugs, mental illness, a permissive society and an enabling culture that rewards bad behavior.

Today most nut jobs have multi-generational nut job parents.

No one corrects them until they get arrested.

What worked for cops 35 years ago would be less effective today and might even get the cop killed.

People going into law enforcement will most likely decline in the coming years.

#234 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-04-28 09:09 PM | Reply

Mad,

The argument for keeping guns and ammunition in your home is getting easier to justify.

#235 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-04-28 09:15 PM | Reply

Bill, thank you for your measured and restrained posts.

I cannot lambaste people for keeping guns in their homes as I do as well. If the government mandated I turn them in upon pain of jail, I'd certainly comply. What else would I do? Hide them in the attic like the Scots tribes his their claymores 500 years ago? We've much too organized a military and police force for that, and spending 5 years in prison isn't worth the loss of sleep.

I will suggest that in your #234 that I recognize much of what you're talking about from being exposed to the 700 Club with Pat Robertson back in the middle '80s. My father would plop down in front of the tube at night and get all hot and bothered after watching it and the PTL Club. We only had one TV, so it was commandeered by him for the evenings.

I'd argue the escalation on the War on Drugs is one of the most strategic blunders in US history, and the religious angle of putting drug users in prison has only benefitted the investors of the prisons and the scurrilous individuals who profit by them. I lived in Huntsville, TX for several years earning my BS and found out all sorts of hanger-oners who supplied the various prison units with substandard garbage. From dehydrated soup companies, to homemade cleaning supplies. All with contracts from the Texas government.

#236 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-28 09:28 PM | Reply

#230 a glaring liability.

What, were you going to sue Rcade?

#237 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-04-28 09:32 PM | Reply

Mad,

"If the government mandated I turn them in upon pain of jail, I'd certainly comply."

The day law enforcement starts entering our homes searching for guns will be the day America has a far more worse problem than guns.

#238 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-04-28 09:35 PM | Reply

Mad,

And by your own admission you'd go along.

Is it because that's your nature or because you're a liberal who conforms to group think?

#239 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2021-04-28 09:38 PM | Reply

" No. It didn't."

Yes it did.

" What, were you going to sue Rcade?"

Not at all. As I said, I never even interacted with Rcade, other than what I posted publicly here. So much for all your paranoid conspiracy theories.

#240 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-04-28 10:01 PM | Reply

Just didn't understand what 'glaring liability " meant.

#241 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-04-28 10:14 PM | Reply

Snoofy, I simply can't believe that you can't comprehend that he chose an action that, round numbers, 99% of the time results in death, while really hoping for the 1% chance that it doesn't.
#232 | POSTED BY KWRX25

If he wasn't trying to kill her, he wouldn't have, and shouldn't have, shot her.

#242 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-28 10:37 PM | Reply

Wow... 242 posts.

Almost time for someone to post another thread so we can start all over again.

#243 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-04-28 11:11 PM | Reply

So much for all your paranoid conspiracy theories.
#240 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

You paranoid icecapades watcher. I bet you think there are little green men under your bed, too. I hear haloperidol helps with the paranoid schizophrenia.

#244 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 01:08 AM | Reply

In any case, I've a sense that RCADE's got your number by now. He's not as stupid as you like to believe he is.

Even a passing reading of your posts exhibits the behavior of a troll trying to get other posters in some sort of bind so you can then run to the teacher and complain. That is gaslighting. And you have told on yourself over and over again by mentioning it. It's called reaction formation, or blame the other guy for what you're doing as a defense against you, yourself being caught doing it.

Republicans love to use this tactic, because unless a higher authority is paying close attention, they can get away with it. It's a very old scheme. And the people who are left that still post here aren't as stupid as you think.

Now go back into your corner, sit quietly, and don't open your mouth until I say so. Got it?

#245 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 01:37 AM | Reply

"Just didn't understand what 'glaring liability " meant."

Aside from the fact he indicated that users here making explicit threats of sexual violence against other users is a bridge too far for him, it's not a exactly a good business decision to allow it, even for a hobby site.

#246 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-04-29 05:43 AM | Reply

Is it because that's your nature or because you're a liberal who conforms to group think?
#239 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

That there is some Funny Stuff Christian.

I don't care who you are. That's funny coming from a Christian.

It's all about "group think" with your cult.

Don't you dare think outside the cross.

Don't you dare.

#247 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-04-29 09:16 AM | Reply

could you be charged with murder?

#226 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You and I would be in jail with no bond awaiting trial for murder.

Citizens go directly to jail and do not pass go.

Cops go to the head of the class!

Which is why they should be held to a much much higher standard than Citizens.

#248 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-04-29 09:22 AM | Reply

238/239 Bill, it's because I've become a pragmatist in my old age. If the government did anything of the sort, it would probably look like keeping your long guns at a gun range. And handguns securely locked up in a UL listed gun safe. Or mandating a safety course for all non-military civilians, and having to maintain a nominal insurance policy.

But my statement was partially fatuous. I can't imagine the Federal Government ever implementing such a policy. Not in the next 200 years anyway. On the back burner of most politicians' mind is that since every other Tom, Dick, and Harry are armed to the teeth, an invading army would think twice before mounting a land war here.

#249 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 09:35 AM | Reply

BTW, Banner's profile is still active as a user on here, even though he apparently hasn't posted on it since all that went down. I remember Rcade initially suspended him for a week or two, and then decreased it 3 days. So either Banner left by himself, or he decided to create a new account to harass people with.

#250 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-04-29 10:49 AM | Reply

Donner,

I am neither a typical conservative nor liberal Christian. I try to not mold my religious beliefs around my more political ones and vise versa.

For one I don't believe the Bible is the infallible word of God. It has been filtered through fallible humans who are not perfect.

In fact I feel the Bible has been elevated to what I would put in the category of idol worship by some.

It is a valuable starting point to give you insight into the mind and will of God and the history of Christianity. Some parts are open to interpretation and are still evolving.

But the Bible is not God.

I do not fit into the cult mindset you refer to.

I do believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ to that extent.

#251 | Posted by Billjohnson at 2021-04-29 11:23 AM | Reply

Snoofy one last shot here...or you really are a bigger troll than I thought.

Suggested internal dialogue of the cop.

I'm going to have to shoot to stop this girl before she kills that girl in pink. I hope I don't kill her.

Vs

I'm going to get to shoot this girl to stop her. I hope I kill her.

Do you really not see the nuanced difference that exists between the two?

#252 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-29 12:09 PM | Reply

#250 I didn't say Banner's account was relegated to Visitor status, I simply said:

Then send RCADE an email. You had no problem dropping a dime on BruceBanner several months ago when he used you as a chew-toy. And you talk about gaslighting. J'Accuse you of being the gaslighter, you non-self reflecting tiddly wink. Your life isn't even worth living, as Socrates would say.
#223 | POSTED BY MADSCIENTIST AT 2021-04-28 08:10 PM

So you can take your false statements and shove them up your ass, deviant.

#253 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 12:17 PM | Reply

When someone employs deadly force, a reasonable person expects the recipient to die.

That's what deadly force means. That's in the definition.

Therefore, by definition, if he didn't want her dead, he shouldn't have used deadly force. And if he didn't want her dead, he wouldn't have used deadly force.

You can't use a tool as intended and hope it doesn't work. I mean, you can, but your hope is opposite from your intent at that point. You use a tool, you should expect the usual result. You could hope for something else, but you should expect the usual result.

I buy a lottery ticket, sure, I hope I'm gonna win the big jackpot. But my expectation is I am not going to win the big jackpot.

The nice thing about these definitions like "deadly force" is they obviate the need for any speculation.

You use deadly force on someone, your intent was to kill them. End of conversation.

#254 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 12:18 PM | Reply

What happened to Bruce Banner?

I always think of that song whenever I see his name, Woo Haa I got you all in check.

#255 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 12:20 PM | Reply

Snoofy one last shot here...or you really are a bigger troll than I thought.
POSTED BY: KWRX25

KWRX25, do you actually think this is a productive form of communication when you preface your argument this way?

You come across as a 14-year-old with accompanying debate skills. Spruce up your act and people might take you more seriously.

#256 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 12:25 PM | Reply

#255 Bruce was joking with Sentinel saying he would slap his ---- against his forehead and leave a mark in a Roman Helmet manoeuvre.

Sentinel got his fake fee-fees hurt and narc-ed on him to RCADE, who then put Bruce in the cooler for a while. When his account was unsuspended, Bruce never showed back up. Probably because he's got enough self-esteem to eschew being punished in such a way. But, I do with he'd come back.

#257 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 12:30 PM | Reply

Snoofy, you are willfully ignorant to the definition of intent, intended, and incidental. End of conversation.

#258 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-29 12:45 PM | Reply

Mad, I truly don't GAF about what you think about my form of communication. Go play Snoofygames(tm) for a few hundred comments and see what yours looks like.

#259 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-29 12:47 PM | Reply

Are you sure it wasn't : David Banner ft Twista & Busta Rhymes - Like a Pimp

When I hit the club, I'ma be with David Banner
A thug ass n**** with bad table manners

I suppose they like the way me and Banner pimp
You can catch us at Pappadeaux eating steak and shrimp

We make 'em swallow the nut, so
Follow the truck, Lil Flip and David Banner
We got all of the bucks, and
All of they ----- and all of the ----
So drop it like it's hot, girl
Touch your ------- toes

David Banner ft Twista & Busta Rhymes--"Like a Pimp"

#260 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 12:50 PM | Reply

Snoofy, you are willfully ignorant to the definition of intent, intended, and incidental. End of conversation.
#258 | POSTED BY KWRX25

The intent when using deadly force is quite clear: Death.

#261 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 12:53 PM | Reply

Mad, I truly don't GAF about what you think about my form of communication. Go play Snoofygames(tm) for a few hundred comments and see what yours looks like.
#259 | POSTED BY KWRX25 AT 2021-04-29 12:47 PM

If you don't keep your emotions in check, they will be your undoing. You sound like a raving lunatic who's foaming at the mouth in rage. Calm down. Take deep breaths. It'll help.

Using Cognitive Behavioral Therapy will help as well. Imagine your emotions as a warning signal of trouble (as you should when arguing with people above your pay grade), but tell your emotions, "I feel you're presence and appreciate your instinctive warnings of trouble, but I don't need you right now."

#262 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 12:53 PM | Reply

It'll help you think more clearly. What you are really advocating for is for police to shoot anyone at will they deem as miscreants. And if the police are suddenly stripped of this power, so will you. In conclusion, you're afraid of losing YOUR right to shoot people on the spot you deem lawbreakers.

It's the truth and you just got $325 worth of advice for free, mind you.

#263 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 12:56 PM | Reply

Start with the Delphic Oracle's maxim inscribed on the temple of Apollo: Gnothi seauton, or know thyself, according to the Greek writer Pausanius. Socrates also used it, as well as Aeschylus in his play Prometheus Bound.

In other words, in order to understand the motives and action of others, be sure to study your own behavior first and learn from it.

#264 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 01:10 PM | Reply

Mad I can't describe just how far up your backside you can stuff your babble...

I in know way want or think that the police should be be able to just shoot anyone at will, that's straight up stupid.

How do you get "there's a difference in intent when shooting to stop a threat, between intending to stop the threat and kill threat" to I just want to shoot anyone at will.

That is ------- crazy and you fancy yourself an intellectual. laughable.

#265 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-29 02:01 PM | Reply

And you might be projecting. It's quite easy to state everything I've said in a calm manner. Is it perhaps you who gets too easily agitated and has to force ones self to calm down? Maybe the advice you're giving needs to be channeled inward instead?

#266 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-29 02:04 PM | Reply

"I in know way want or think that the police should be be able to just shoot anyone at will, that's straight up stupid."

It's no less crazy than saying the police use deadly force, but not to kill.

#267 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 02:07 PM | Reply

In fact it's pretty much the same crazy.

You just can't understand what you're saying, when someone else says it to you.

#268 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 02:07 PM | Reply

answer this snoofy

I have to stop this girl by shooting her, and it might kill her, I hope it doesn't.

I have to stop this girl, and I get to kill her to do so.

Those are the same to you?

#269 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-29 02:24 PM | Reply

The outcome is unaffected by "hope."
Everyone knows using deadly force is reasonably expected to result in death.
Even you know that, when you're being reasonable. Which isn't the KWRX25 that has been participating in this conversation.

#270 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 02:34 PM | Reply

answer this snoofy
I have to stop this girl by shooting her, and it might kill her, I hope it doesn't.
I have to stop this girl, and I get to kill her to do so.
Those are the same to you?
Posted by KWRX25

QED.

#263 "In conclusion, you're afraid of losing YOUR right to shoot people on the spot you deem lawbreakers."
#263 | POSTED BY MADSCIENTIST AT 2021-04-29 12:56 PM

#271 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 02:47 PM | Reply

"I have to stop this girl by shooting her, and it might kill her, I hope it doesn't."

If you have to stop this girl by shooting her, you're actually hoping that it does kill her.
Because that's how shooting someone stops them: by killing them.
Merely wounding them isn't always enough to stop them.
Ask any cop, they will tell you I'm right.

#272 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 02:50 PM | Reply

Mad I can't describe just how far up your backside you can stuff your babble...
I in know way want or think that the police should be be able to just shoot anyone at will, that's straight up stupid.
How do you get "there's a difference in intent when shooting to stop a threat, between intending to stop the threat and kill threat" to I just want to shoot anyone at will.
That is ------- crazy and you fancy yourself an intellectual. laughable.
#265 | POSTED BY KWRX25 AT 2021-04-29 02:01 PM

It is you, KWRX25 who are calling me the intellectual. In short, you can't understand what I'm typing because you are not trained to understand logic, proof, and debate. You still think your force of will will win an argument, when it doesn't, and never has. That's called Sophistry.

All you have left is ridiculous, teenaged sarcasm and ad hominem attacks on your interlocutors. You have lost.

As a well-trained mostly English-American, I've got a sense of duty not to destroy you, but once you've got your man on the mat, well, that's it. We're I to keep kicking and slapping you around as you writhe on the ground would not be the act of a gentleman. I've offered my hand to you several times to get off the mat, but you simply slapped away my helping hand. So, just lay there, catch your breath, and try to be more ready for your next bout.

Felicitations &c

MS

#273 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 02:55 PM | Reply

Mad... stfu, I wasn't talking to you. And really don't care to.

#274 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-29 03:31 PM | Reply

Mad... self declaring that you're wiping the mat with me is a joke.

You and Snoofy can go on jerking each other off by ignoring basic meanings of words, and injecting intent of action on people who deal with much more nuanced situations than either of you.

I can't wait for the next discussion where snoofy will twist into to knots to explain how knowing how taking a high risk action actually doesn't show intent.

#275 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-29 03:35 PM | Reply

Firing a gun at another person is such an inherently extremely dangerous act that, in my opinion, it is a red herring to argue whether the one pulling the trigger "intended" to kill the target. You point a gun at someone and pull the trigger there is a large possibility/probability that you are going to kill them. Your "intent" whether to kill, injure or simply scare is largely irrelevant. When you do that action, you must be willing to face the consequences of deliberately doing an action that killed another human being regardless of your intentions.

I guess what my bottom line really is, is that I am less concerned whether the officer pulled the trigger one time or four times. I am concerned whether the decision to pull that trigger was reasonable under the circumstance. In the case of Bryant, I happen to think it was reasonable. I do not believe the officer should be charged with any crime.

#276 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-04-29 03:40 PM | Reply

Snoofy, you realize that I'm not arguing that they know they're most likely to kill right. I'm try to discuss the very specific wording of wanting to kill the suspect versus accepting they'll most likely kill them.

Do you honestly feel there is no difference in wanting to kill them versus feeling as though they have to, to protect someone else?

#277 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-29 03:46 PM | Reply

To me, if you reject #277 then to me the natural deduction is that you feel we have a police force of psychopaths, and not a field of professionals who's main goal is to head into situations where tough calls sometimes have to be made.

Overlaying that on this situation I reject that this officer was just a cold blooded killer looking for an excuse to kill someone, and instead was put into a situation to make an incredibly hard decision.

It seems you feel he went home happy as can be that he got to shoot a black girl, while I feel he'll probably end up in years of therapy from it.

#278 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-29 04:02 PM | Reply

"I'm try to discuss the very specific wording of wanting to kill the suspect versus accepting they'll most likely kill them."

I'm trying to explain if you don't want to kill someone, you shouldn't fire a gun at them.
I'm trying to explain if you do want to kill someone, a really good way is to fire a gun at them.

Again I'll ask the hypothetical that has gone unanswered:
If you willfully and knowingly fire a gun at someone, even though you don't want to kill them, but you do in fact kill them: Can that ever be murder?

#279 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 04:14 PM | Reply

"injecting intent of action on people "

That's what you're doing, KWRX25.
I'm merely discussing the action itself -- the use of deadly force, which by definition in an action that any reasonable person understands will result in death.

#280 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 04:16 PM | Reply

"Do you honestly feel there is no difference in wanting to kill them versus feeling as though they have to, to protect someone else?"

Wanting to kill them is part and parcel of wanting to kill them to protect somebody else.

#281 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 04:17 PM | Reply

#279 would even more apropos if I had phrased it like this:

If you willfully and knowingly fire a gun at someone, even though you hope it doesn't kill them, but you do in fact kill them:
Can that ever be murder?

#282 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 04:32 PM | Reply

I'll answer your 282.

If I fire a gun at a person in a situation like the Bryant one. To stop an imminent threat to another. My defense of not wanting to kill her, but having no other option in that moment to stop her would be believable.

If I walk into a building, point a gun at another man who is literally doing nothing but standing there, no threat to me or anyone else and pull the trigger. Then try to claim that I didn't mean/hope to kill him that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny and it would be Murder.

#283 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-29 04:41 PM | Reply

Let me flip this around, as it might be more in line with how I'm viewing this...

I feel like the difference in what we are saying is this.

When the officer shoots a suspect, in this case Bryant.

If she lived would he have been relieved or upset. If he was relieved then it proves his intent was to stop her, and hope she didn't die. If he's upset or even indifferent then he was probably shooting to stop and to kill. Those are two different people to me, and I don't want the 2nd to be an officer.

#284 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-29 04:45 PM | Reply

You're resolute on not acknowledging that use of deadly force demonstrates intent to cause death.

#285 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 04:49 PM | Reply

#283 then you can see that your intent to use deadly force isn't made justifiable, or not, simply by hoping you don't kill the person you shoot.

Nothing hinges on that.

#286 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 04:52 PM | Reply

I acknowledge that deadly force demonstrates intent to use the strongest stopping force the officer has access to. I acknowledge that the officer knows full well that there is a high degree of likelihood that death may result from use of said force. I maintain that while the officer may use this highest stopping force, that it is not with the mindset of killing, but stopping. Any officer whose intent is to kill and not stop, yes a razor thin line, is not someone I want to be an officer.

#287 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-29 04:56 PM | Reply

"Those are two different people to me, and I don't want the 2nd to be an officer."

Agreed.
Sadly, that kind of person wants to be an officer.
Like the Colorado cops who beat down an 80lb female.

#288 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 04:57 PM | Reply

"I maintain that while the officer may use this highest stopping force, that it is not with the mindset of killing, but stopping."

Stopping means killing, when deadly force is used.
Police shoot to kill because a wounded threat is still a threat.
Go ask one, if you think I'm wrong.

#289 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 04:58 PM | Reply

#283... I don't know that I ever inferred that it did.

This all started somewhere in objecting to the notion that the cop WANTED to kill her. Which devolved into the difference between Wanting her stopped, while accepting that might mean she dies vs WANTING her dead, and getting to do that by stopping her. Not the same thing to me.

#290 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-29 05:00 PM | Reply

"This all started somewhere in objecting to the notion that the cop WANTED to kill her"

When you use deadly force on someone, it means you want them dead.
It's in the definition.

#291 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 05:13 PM | Reply

He wanted to neutralize the threat too. I'm not denying that.
When deadly force is used to neutralize a threat, the threat isn't neutralized until the threat is dead.
As I have said probably a half dozen times now, a wounded threat with a deadly weapon is still a threat with a deadly weapon.

#292 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 05:18 PM | Reply

289 not sure if this is good example or not.

Jacob Blake was stopped not killed.

#293 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-29 05:32 PM | Reply

Because Jacob Blake got lucky.
Not because the intent of gunning him down was for him to live.

#294 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 05:36 PM | Reply

"Sentinel got his fake fee-fees hurt and narc-ed on him to RCADE, who then put Bruce in the cooler for a while. When his account was unsuspended, Bruce never showed back up. Probably because he's got enough self-esteem to eschew being punished in such a way. But, I do with he'd come back."

It sounds like you two would have a great time hooking up. You could both take out your unsolicited homosexual fantasies about me on each other, and leave me out of it.

#295 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-04-29 06:09 PM | Reply

It sounds like you two would have a great time hooking up. You could both take out your unsolicited homosexual fantasies about me on each other, and leave me out of it.
#295 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

I wouldn't mind having a beer with Snoofy. But I don't know about your gaslighting us as homosexuals as both of us have stated in the past that were straight. That's your fantasy. Cowboy.

#296 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 06:51 PM | Reply

"Jacob Blake got lucky."

Not as lucky as Robert Blake.

#297 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-04-29 06:57 PM | Reply

LOL. KWRX, in case you haven't picked up on it yet, Snoofy has spent the better part of the last two days trolling the bajeezees out of you. Enough already. Everyone here with a functioning brain cell understands what you are pointing. No need to explain it any further.

#298 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-04-29 07:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Oh, and KWRX25, you've improved your dialogue quite nicely. I appreciate you listening to me and my little tidbits of advice. It's quite an ego boost.

Except for your: Mad... stfu, I wasn't talking to you. And really don't care to.?

then on to your 200 word browbeating of: Mad... self declaring that you're wiping the mat with me is a joke.
You and Snoofy can go on jerking each other off by ignoring basic meanings of words, and injecting intent of action on people who deal with much more nuanced situations than either of you.
I can't wait for the next discussion where snoofy will twist into to knots to explain how knowing how taking a high risk action actually doesn't show intent.
-----------------------------------

It shows you really do really want to talk at me, but only on your terms, which is me putting up with your rantings and me not responding to them.

You can't fool me, KWRX25.

You want me as bad as your senior prom date in 2010.

#299 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 07:02 PM | Reply

"You and Snoofy can go on jerking each other off by ignoring basic meanings of words"

Go crazy?
Don't mind if I do!

#300 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 07:05 PM | Reply

"I wouldn't mind having a beer with Snoofy."

Are you Creskin?
I literally just cracked a beer.

#301 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 07:05 PM | Reply

Watch me pull a rabbit outa my hat!

#302 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 07:11 PM | Reply

"Everyone here with a functioning brain cell understands what you are pointing. No need to explain it any further."

To try to paraphrase,
He didn't kill her because he hates black people, or women, or teenagers.
He wanted to kill her, only to the extent that he wanted to protect the other girl from getting stabbed.

Now, I can't actually speak to either of those, because I don't presume to know what was going on in his head.
Only thing I can say for certain is he wanted to kill her, as demonstrated by the fact that he shot her four times.

You. Don't. Shoot. People. You're. Not. Trying. To. Kill.
And don't any of you Wisenheimers dare go bringing Dick Cheney into this!

#303 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 07:12 PM | Reply

This is a Three Weavers Expatriate IPA. Probably the best IPA in the coast to coast mixed twelve pack I bought the other day. I'd rate it "good value for the price."

#304 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 07:14 PM | Reply

Are you Creskin?

Should be a "K". Obviously you were wrong about everything in this thread.

#305 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-04-29 07:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I grew up watching The Incredible Hulk. Everybody knows they changed his name from Bruce to David for a reason...

#306 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-04-29 07:20 PM | Reply

#386 You got me!

Also I was way off on the song.

I was thinking of Some L.A. ------ by Dr. Dre.

#307 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 07:29 PM | Reply

#298 Ya, I picked up on it. I just don't get the mindset of sabotaging something that could be a good discussion. Go f with reddit or something and not a place that someone has taken the time to cultivate a community of a usergroup.

#308 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-29 07:42 PM | Reply

KWRX25, as an adult you'll learn you can't force anyone to follow your train of thought or get on to your wavelength. No matter how beet-faced angry you get with them. You gotta keep your cool. If this happens, you need to come to terms first. If the prosecution asks you if you ever had sexual relations with your mother, instead of blowing your top, say, well, yes, once, when I was born. Does that count?

Remember what Yoda said, "But beware of the dark side of the force. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will!"

#309 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 07:53 PM | Reply

#309 we had an emotional intelligence training at work explaining how our first reaction is always an emotional reaction.

I wonder if police get that kind of training. I wonder if police frown on hiring people with high emotional intelligence, the way they frown on high intellectual intelligence.

Almost every time a cop makes the news, it's because they have allowed themselves to fly off the handle.

We recognize this can lead to shaking the baby, in new parents. We need to bring that same awareness to police work.

#310 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 08:20 PM | Reply

"I just don't get the mindset of sabotaging something that could be a good discussion."

All I did was stand my ground.

#311 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 08:21 PM | Reply

"I just don't get the mindset of sabotaging something that could be a good discussion"
Posted by KWRX25

ON YOUR TERMS. That's what you aren't getting. No-one is required to argue with you ON YOUR TERMS ALONE. Learn this.

#312 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 08:29 PM | Reply

No, in good faith. Not trolling

#313 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-04-29 08:48 PM | Reply

Don't worry, KWRX25, I once got overhead into an argument with the honorable DirkStruan where we had to come to terms on which alphabet we'd be using. It wasn't until Speaksoftly had to interrupt and stop the proceedings that the argument came to a standstill.

But, to my defense, I believe the dude had a PhD in Philosophy and Theology from an Oxon University. (Oxford or Cambridge). Or maybe the University of Dublin.

#314 | Posted by madscientist at 2021-04-29 08:54 PM | Reply

No, in good faith. Not trolling
#313 | POSTED BYKWRX25

Thank you.

I don't think you're trolling either.
I think we are both just trying to get our point across.

Your point is he wasn't trying to kill the girl with the knife, he was trying to stop a murder the only way he could.

#315 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-29 09:08 PM | Reply

It's a presumption to assume there would have been a murder.

Plenty of people, I assume the vast majority of people, have come to the conclusion the girl in pink would have been stabbed and the resulting injury would have resulted in her death.

I still argue, in vain, we can't know if Ma'Khia would have stabbed the girl in pink, and it's definitely an assumption that the resulting stab wound would have resulted in the death of the girl in pink.

It's crazy anyone is okay a 16 year old girl was shot dead because another girl may or may not have been stabbed and the resulting wounds could have possibly, not definitely, resulted in the death of the girl in pink.

That police officer ran in and opened fire.

That's it.

That cop walked in and the gun was out before he had any idea what was happening.

#316 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-04-29 09:47 PM | Reply

The girl who was shot had called the police when she was attacked by a group of thugs,so she was defending herself.
But stand you ground doesn't apply to non-whites, right?

Unlike the guy who shot Travon or the guys who shot the jogger in Georgia. Even though they were the attackers, too.

#317 | Posted by northguy3 at 2021-04-29 10:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This place has fallen to a new low when it comes to being a cesspool of trolls, and that's saying a lot. Even Reddit is laughing at us.

"But stand you ground doesn't apply to non-whites, right?
Unlike the guy who shot Travon or the guys who shot the jogger in Georgia."

And at least 2 people marked this as newsworthy.

#318 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-04-30 03:14 PM | Reply

#317 stand your ground doesn't mean you get to be the aggressor. It means you're under no duty or obligation to retreat before using deadly force in self defense.

Just because trigger happy ------- have tried to use it to get out of charges doesn't mean that's what the law actually says.

#319 | Posted by jpw at 2021-04-30 03:30 PM | Reply

Are there even any Stand Your Ground examples in case law?
Are there enough to claim statistical differences by race?

#320 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-04-30 03:32 PM | Reply

Honestly don't know.

The cases that get the press are when the law is misapplied by idiots.

#321 | Posted by jpw at 2021-04-30 03:35 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort