Hari Seldon
Member
I read that the GT police don't carry tasers, and this is the first use of firearms in their history apparently.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Campus police shoot and kill LGBT activist armed with knife at university
- Thread starter Enter The 36 Chambers
- Start date
Heavy_D206
Member
If I'm armed with a gun and someone with a knife comes at me I'm pulling that trigger before they can get anywhere near me.
Some people in here are acting like a knife isn't a deadly weapon smh.
Some people in here are acting like a knife isn't a deadly weapon smh.
TheAbsolution
Member
Y'all. Could you please not misgender them please? Thank you.
Police should be held to a higher standard than citizens. Their job is to protect and serve and that protection should extend to the people they are trying to apprehend.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Well yeah, me too. We aren't police, though.
Gravy Boat
Member
The point is that police officers aren't (or shouldn't be) just a random dude with a gun. There's an expectation that they go through training to handle situations like this better than the average person. Why even call police in situations like this if they're going to just pull the trigger, something anyone with a gun could do?
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Bare hands can be a deadly weapon. So I guess we should just shoot-to-kill anybody who advances at us with foul intentions, eh?
Dusk Soldier
Member
Straight Edge
Member
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Those in particular.
They are police that are supposed to be trained to handle these type of situations, not just some random dude protecting himself with a gun.
Watch out, we've got a badass over here.
Combo into a triple bicycle kick for maximum damage.
I was going to post something like this... but this will do.
Outside of "police should have had tasers" (not the officer's fault), the police responded appropriately here.
Netherscourge
Banned
According to the account in the article, it didn't sound like the officers were in a shoot-first mentality.
Assuming that is how it went down, it's tragic, but the officer has the legal right to defend themselves from someone who is clearly unstable, clearly being threatening and advancing toward them with a knife yelling, "Shoot Me."
Police officers nationwide need to have specific training to deal with a situation like this without just resorting to using deadly force. One of the biggest problems is that police officers are not trained with how to handle unique situations like this. Their training is basically, "If you feel your life is threatened in any way, shoot." And the courts have made that response legal.
So think about it - your life is being threatened. The most effective way to preserve your own life and everyone else's life in the immediate area is to shoot this individual. You have been given the legal right to shoot this individual since they are clearly unstable and threatening and armed. So, why would you attempt to do anything else besides shoot this individual?
That's what needs to be fixed. It has to be dealt with at the academy level with new training requirements and at the legal level requiring officers to better assess situations without immediately resorting to gunfire.
It's not just an attitude issue. It's a systemic issue.
Assuming that is how it went down, it's tragic, but the officer has the legal right to defend themselves from someone who is clearly unstable, clearly being threatening and advancing toward them with a knife yelling, "Shoot Me."
Police officers nationwide need to have specific training to deal with a situation like this without just resorting to using deadly force. One of the biggest problems is that police officers are not trained with how to handle unique situations like this. Their training is basically, "If you feel your life is threatened in any way, shoot." And the courts have made that response legal.
So think about it - your life is being threatened. The most effective way to preserve your own life and everyone else's life in the immediate area is to shoot this individual. You have been given the legal right to shoot this individual since they are clearly unstable and threatening and armed. So, why would you attempt to do anything else besides shoot this individual?
That's what needs to be fixed. It has to be dealt with at the academy level with new training requirements and at the legal level requiring officers to better assess situations without immediately resorting to gunfire.
It's not just an attitude issue. It's a systemic issue.
You mean a knife? Do you think police officers go out with armor on that makes them immune to knife attacks everywhere that a stabbing could be fatal? It's fine to argue that the police could have handled this differently, but a person with a knife is dangerous. It's a deadly weapon. Downplaying the danger is either disingenuous or ignorant.
CheesecakeRecipe
Stormy Grey
It doesn't fit their narrow narrative. It always plays out similarly to the meme No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens - the rest of the world has plenty of examples of how it can and should be handled every time. They just don't want to listen or pay attention to the world around them.
perfectchaos007
Member
I couldn't find the video in the OP's article. Can you or someone else post it?
ShironRedshift
Member
"There is a parable about a small village by a river. One day the villagers were working in the fields by the river when a woman notices a baby floating downstream. She yells out and someone runs into the river and rescues the baby. One neighbor provides clothes, another food, and so on. The next day, the same villagers are working by the river. They see two babies floating downstream and rescue them. The following day it's four babies and after that eight. Within a short time, practically the entire village is wading into the water, rescuing babies, clothing them, feeding them, trying to find others who will house them, and then returning to rescue more. After a week of rescuing hundreds of babies, one villager yells out 'Hey! Why don't we go upstream and find out how all these babies are falling into the river?' The others quickly reject the suggestion, saying that there are too many babies in the river, and everyone should continue rescuing them lest they drown."
What Kind of Citizen?, Joel Westheimer, p. 44
The point of the parable above is that tackling symptoms by themselves isn't enough. The effort may be nonetheless commendable, but it inevitably leads to the same situation happening yet again.
The application here is that the lack of training most cops have when dealing with situations that require deescalation tactics, particularly mental health issues, means that if things continue as they are, more babies are just going to keep flowing downstream. That is to say, that this will keep on happening if we just accept this as the status quo. And the fact that there is even a term for this, "suicide by cop," demonstrate that while people indeed certainly find these kind of situations tragic, they've resigned themselves to the fact this is nonetheless the best approach to these situations. And thus there will be more suicides by cop, more babies floating downstream because we've resigned ourselves to keeping the babies from drowning instead of making sure they don't fall into the river in the first place.
But it doesn't have to be that way. We can make sure those "babies" don't fall it--that is, we can give cops greater training in deescalation tactics and dealing with individuals with mental health issues such as Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), who, even at first seem like a threat to others, are largely just a threat to themselves and how to recognize that and handle those situations. Instead of saying "well, they don't have that training, they don't have tasers, all they do have is a gun, so that's all they can do in those situations, and it's regrettable, but it's the best way they could handle it" why not ask why they don't have that training to begin with? No duh, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything will look like a nail. So why is the only tool they have a hammer to begin with? Why not change that? Instead of accepting it, why not demand that that officers get that training to be able to avoid situations like this having to have any fatalities? In order to make sure that it's not one or the other that dies, but neither?
Or are we just that resigned to the fact that more babies will keep on floating down the river, the fact that more "suicides by cop" will happen, and focus on keeping those babies from drowning/focus on just keeping the cop safe, instead of asking the question of "how can we prevent any of this from happening to begin with? How can we prevent anyone from having to die at all the next time a situation like this occurs?" and arriving at answers/better training that make that so?
Are people really that resigned to this being an inevitability? Because I'm not. Let's try and do better, and make sure these tragedies aren't a repeat occurrence. To instead of just stopping the babies from drowning, to stop them falling into the river in the first place, to figure out ways of talking down suicidal individuals and using appropriate deescalation tactics and situations gauged toward mental illnesses such as MDD instead of resigning ourselves to the inevitable when it's anything but.
I just don't get why people are so resigned to just accepting "suicide by cop" as a fact instead of understanding and stopping that from being a thing at all. It doesn't have to be. It's not elsewhere in the world. Let's make that the case in the United States. After all, the purpose of cops is supposed to be "Protect and Serve." Of course, there's the whole racism thing, and cops having a bad problem of not following through with that when someone just happens to have a bit too much melanin, but that's something we (that is to say, most people posting in this thread, at least I hope) call out when it happens. So why not this as well? Why accept this period, when there's no reason it needs to be so? People don't tolerate racist/discriminatory police practices, so why this? Because neither are in any way necessary or acceptable. I refuse to accept it.
Always fight for improvement, always question everything, don't accept anything as inevitable, and always look for and fight root causes that result in injustice. Even when it seems impossible, do so anyway. Because that's the right thing to do. To always, always, always at the very least keep trying. Because there's never any reason to, if nothing else, stop trying at the very least.
And I just can't put into words in threads like this how much it saddens and frustrates me that so many people apparently have even just completely stopped trying, that aren't even open to the possibility of anything else, that have just stopped looking and trying completely. That's unacceptable to me. But yet, here we are, time and time. Just more babies floating down the river, as if there was no other way. Sigh...
What Kind of Citizen?, Joel Westheimer, p. 44
The point of the parable above is that tackling symptoms by themselves isn't enough. The effort may be nonetheless commendable, but it inevitably leads to the same situation happening yet again.
The application here is that the lack of training most cops have when dealing with situations that require deescalation tactics, particularly mental health issues, means that if things continue as they are, more babies are just going to keep flowing downstream. That is to say, that this will keep on happening if we just accept this as the status quo. And the fact that there is even a term for this, "suicide by cop," demonstrate that while people indeed certainly find these kind of situations tragic, they've resigned themselves to the fact this is nonetheless the best approach to these situations. And thus there will be more suicides by cop, more babies floating downstream because we've resigned ourselves to keeping the babies from drowning instead of making sure they don't fall into the river in the first place.
But it doesn't have to be that way. We can make sure those "babies" don't fall it--that is, we can give cops greater training in deescalation tactics and dealing with individuals with mental health issues such as Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), who, even at first seem like a threat to others, are largely just a threat to themselves and how to recognize that and handle those situations. Instead of saying "well, they don't have that training, they don't have tasers, all they do have is a gun, so that's all they can do in those situations, and it's regrettable, but it's the best way they could handle it" why not ask why they don't have that training to begin with? No duh, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything will look like a nail. So why is the only tool they have a hammer to begin with? Why not change that? Instead of accepting it, why not demand that that officers get that training to be able to avoid situations like this having to have any fatalities? In order to make sure that it's not one or the other that dies, but neither?
Or are we just that resigned to the fact that more babies will keep on floating down the river, the fact that more "suicides by cop" will happen, and focus on keeping those babies from drowning/focus on just keeping the cop safe, instead of asking the question of "how can we prevent any of this from happening to begin with? How can we prevent anyone from having to die at all the next time a situation like this occurs?" and arriving at answers/better training that make that so?
Are people really that resigned to this being an inevitability? Because I'm not. Let's try and do better, and make sure these tragedies aren't a repeat occurrence. To instead of just stopping the babies from drowning, to stop them falling into the river in the first place, to figure out ways of talking down suicidal individuals and using appropriate deescalation tactics and situations gauged toward mental illnesses such as MDD instead of resigning ourselves to the inevitable when it's anything but.
I just don't get why people are so resigned to just accepting "suicide by cop" as a fact instead of understanding and stopping that from being a thing at all. It doesn't have to be. It's not elsewhere in the world. Let's make that the case in the United States. After all, the purpose of cops is supposed to be "Protect and Serve." Of course, there's the whole racism thing, and cops having a bad problem of not following through with that when someone just happens to have a bit too much melanin, but that's something we (that is to say, most people posting in this thread, at least I hope) call out when it happens. So why not this as well? Why accept this period, when there's no reason it needs to be so? People don't tolerate racist/discriminatory police practices, so why this? Because neither are in any way necessary or acceptable. I refuse to accept it.
Always fight for improvement, always question everything, don't accept anything as inevitable, and always look for and fight root causes that result in injustice. Even when it seems impossible, do so anyway. Because that's the right thing to do. To always, always, always at the very least keep trying. Because there's never any reason to, if nothing else, stop trying at the very least.
And I just can't put into words in threads like this how much it saddens and frustrates me that so many people apparently have even just completely stopped trying, that aren't even open to the possibility of anything else, that have just stopped looking and trying completely. That's unacceptable to me. But yet, here we are, time and time. Just more babies floating down the river, as if there was no other way. Sigh...
Im currently looking at a few news reports that says that isnt true
Since shooting someone in the legs is too tough for decision makers, compared to other nations who train their staff to do so....
what about rubber bullets? I don't hear much about rubber bullets anymore. I remember one or two that caused serious injury or was it death, but would still rather have that option for situations where someone is obviously looking get killed.
what about rubber bullets? I don't hear much about rubber bullets anymore. I remember one or two that caused serious injury or was it death, but would still rather have that option for situations where someone is obviously looking get killed.
Seductivpancakes
Member
Kind of weird that none of the cops present have pepper sprays or tazers.
Zoe
Member
They would need to carry two guns for that. We've already seen that people can get their gun and taser mixed up.
Stallion Dan
Member
Fair warning to stop moving and drop weapon.
The bullshit is when this doesn't happen and they just shoot without warning.
Or they might get stabbed?
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
It's (supposed to be) their job to attempt to disarm a suspect and de-escalate the situation. Not just blast suspects at the first sign of legitimate danger towards themselves.
Our police force are instead trained to always protect themselves first and foremost, even if it means the death of the very civilians they are supposedly protecting.
It's fucking unacceptable. This is not some isolated incident. They don't get a pass on this.
Temeculan3000
Member
Protect & Serve is a myth. Police are law enforcement. That's it, they enforce laws. In fact the US supreme court ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect someone from harm.
Well there you go.
ShironRedshift
Member
That's not enough. I don't accept any solution that results in a loss of life for anyone when that loss was preventable. In this case, the cops could have just kept backing up. There was no reason for anyone to get hurt. They just stop at one point, and then end up shooting, but there was no reason to stop-they just got bored, and decided to end it.
I mean, if you've got SWAT teams and shit that can deescalate situations like armed gunmen with hostages that end up with everyone alive due to deescalation/negotiation tactics, something like this should be child's play in comparison.
But the primary point being, there was absolutely no reason it had to end like this. All the cops had to do was continue to keep their distance, which they just stopped doing at one point for no discernible reason, letting Scout get closer, and thus "justifying" the shot. But there was no reason to let Scout approach instead of just keeping their distance. Then, once it became clear that Scout was suffering from MDD/suicidal tendencies, switch to deescalation tactics based around MDD/self-affirmation, that Scout's life does matter and that everything will be alright, that no matter what Scout does that they will not give up, that even if Scout doesn't believe anything good can happen, they do, etc, and other similar tactics until Scout gives up/gets exhausted.
Point being, the cops definitely had different options. They just didn't use that. And that's something I find unacceptable. If there's any way to keep everyone alive, you do that, as long as you're able to. These cops didn't, just gave up, and escalated the situation before their options were anywhere near exhausted or that became the only possibility. There were so many tools left in the toolbox, so much left that they could have done that they just chose not to and just gave up and decided to end it instead.
And that's something I refuse to accept. Because it not only condemned Scout to an unnecessary death, but doing so also condemns others in similar situations, those who come next and who will also try to commit "suicide by cop" to the same fate. And that's something I absolutely, positively refuse to accept when there are other options. No one had to die here. No one.
The bolded is false. They tried to de-escalate and talk them down and they kept advancing and threatening with, as you said a legitimate danger.
As to the rest of your post, I completely agree. Cops are concerned about their lives first, and civilians second. It may risk the Cop's life to find better solutions to these situations, but that's what their jobs are about.
Not enough training? Not enough resources? Pay too cheap? I'd agree and let's have that discussion, but neither of those items justify cops shooting civilians because they have a fear for their OWN life. Hell, if a civilian lands in a similar situation, a prosecutor would demand that the fear for their life was reasonable. Funny how that word never pops up for police shootings.
I will say that the furor for this should be more directed at the system and these cops in particular. In the framework they had, they actually performed better than average. That limited framework they had is the exact issue here.
Would you have suggested using the Right trigger power attack or the X quick attack?
I guess if they had a save point but died and the baton didnt work they could just try the other next time.
And people suggesting police "know what they got into" and take a blow. Sorry. Doesn't work that way. And serve and protect citizens is right, LEOs are citizens with families too.
In a sane police force they would have been equipped with tasers, and had a high chance of bringing them down non-fatally. Instead their only option were guns.
But yeah, basically for all the reasons you stated, that's just not the reality here in the US.
Not really.
Haven't seen the video so how long did this go on for? Seems you could back up for a long time until a non-lethal solution was found.
Maybe they shot so as not to get fired. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/1...or-not-shooting-man-who-had-unloaded-gun.html
Maybe they shot so as not to get fired. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/1...or-not-shooting-man-who-had-unloaded-gun.html
Hari Seldon
Member
The problem with tasers is that they would be really nice in rare isolated incidents like this, but most of the time they seem to be used as punishment for "not complying" even when the person being arrested doesn't have any weapons.
Forerunner
Member
The officers didnt do anything wrong in this situation. They tired numerous times to deescalate the situation. They spoke with them and also backed up a number of times to keep their distance. Its unfortunate that someone was killed, but they actually handle the situation well.
Youre not going to try and disarm an armed person. Its just not going to happen. There are too many variables that could go wrong. Worst case scenario is now youre dead and they have a gun now. Also you arent trained to shoot at extremities, its center mass. Its too easy to miss shooting especially in a high stress situation. When it comes to body armor, the majority arent rated against stabbing. The armor is either designed to stop bullets or knives.
Its so easy for people on this forum to be like I would have done this or that. However, until youre actually in one of these situations you dont know what you are talking about.
Youre not going to try and disarm an armed person. Its just not going to happen. There are too many variables that could go wrong. Worst case scenario is now youre dead and they have a gun now. Also you arent trained to shoot at extremities, its center mass. Its too easy to miss shooting especially in a high stress situation. When it comes to body armor, the majority arent rated against stabbing. The armor is either designed to stop bullets or knives.
Its so easy for people on this forum to be like I would have done this or that. However, until youre actually in one of these situations you dont know what you are talking about.
Ok, but what if they tried tasers first? Instead of starting with bullets? Is that just totally unreasonable?
Although I think someone said they were not equipped with tasers.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Again, you're only talking about American cops here. Swedish cops, for example, DO handle these situations non-lethally more often than not, and ARE trained to shoot people in the legs if it comes to that (and only in the chest if it's absolutely necessary). American cops are, evidently, not really trained much at all beyond "shoot to kill".
You guys have such a narrow, US-centric view on these things. It really is like you don't know the rest of the world exists.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
Just for the record, I viewed this as a sloppy confrontation that should have been better handled.
Shao Kahn on the Lawn
Member
The situation was too risky for tasers even if they had them. This person was wearing loose-fitting clothes that would've stopped or diminished the efficacy of that type of weapon and, in the event that it didn't work, was so close that switching to deadly force before being stabbed would be improbable.
They should not have been that close to someone with a knife.
Definitely
ShironRedshift
Member
And firefighters might die if they run into a fire, trying to save someone. Guess they never should. Just too dangerous.
It's the job they signed up for. They know that risk, just like firefighters know the risks of their job. If they don't care about those risks, that they aren't willing to put their lives on the line for the sake of others, if the only life they care about is their own, why are they LEOs to begin with?
I also really like how just the fact you are asking this question confirms as much. There's absolutely zero regard for Scout here or how Scout could have been saved. There's zero regard for Scout's life mattering at all. The fact that this question is even being asked the way it is carries with the it the implicit suggestion that the officer's life is ultimately the only life that matters and all is justified to protect that life, but the lives they themselves are supposed to protect? Justified as sacrifices if it keeps the LEO alive?
What if they get stabbed? What if Scout dies from a gunshot wound, like what happened here? Apparently that's a regrettable, but "acceptable" outcome, but while that is simultaneously regrettable but acceptable, an officer getting stabbed trying to save someone and avoid that person pointlessly and unnecessarily dying is completely unthinkable to the point that we have to avoid the situation at all costs?
Seriously. Just think about the implicit assumptions with a question like that for a moment. Stop and think about them. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't mean them, but stop and think about what you're saying here for a moment. Because the above is precisely what you're saying, whether you mean it or not.
That is, that while Scout being shot and dying from that wound is tragic, it's an acceptable and unavoidable outcome. But an officer getting hurt trying to protect someone? That's unacceptable? It's unacceptable for an officer to put their own life on the line to protect those that they're sworn to protect, but sacrificing one of those people they're sworn to protect in order to protect their own lives, even when there are other options on the table that have yet to be exhausted, that is acceptable? It's not acceptable to expect officers to put their lives on the line to protect those they're sworn to protect, even though that's a risk they accepted when they accepted the job and began training it, but while that's not acceptable, it is acceptable (if "regrettable") for officers to sacrifice the very ones they're supposed to be protecting, even if there are other options available?
That's a paradigm that I can't accept, but it's the logical follow-through with that train of thought, regardless of how it was meant or not.
The point being, the cops in this particular situation still had other options available. All they had to do was just continue to keep their distance, which they just stopped doing and let Scout get closer to them for no discernible reason. But that didn't have to be the case. And yes, not shooting Scout carries risk. But those are risk they know about and willingly signed up for in order to serve the common good, to protect the public. To put the public above themselves. Is that what you're seeing here? Is that desire in the question you asked? The desire to protect the public? Or has something completely twisted, completely distorted that into something ugly? Because that's something that I refuse to accept: using lethal force when other options are remain on the table.
There were other options still available. They just stopped using them and gave up. Yes, continuing on carries risks. But nonetheless, not only are those known risks that they signed up for when they took the job, but it's the morally right and just thing to do. To, if there's a method, if there's any possible solution that will keep everyone, not just the cops, not just Scout, but everyone in the situation alive, to keep exhausting and fighting for those possibilities until such time that they indeed happen to be completely extinguished. Because from a moral, ethical, and occupational perspective, that's the right thing to do.
Nothing less is acceptable, and it's just sad to see people hold those sworn to protect us to such a low standard that that's the one thing they're never expected to do: protect others. That any risk, despite those risks being known about and are what are supposed to make being a law enforcement officer a noble pursuit to begin with, are absolutely not acceptable and enough for an officer to end that person's life instead of protecting it.
I mean, let's try this from a different angle from a moment. Let's say it is perfectly understandable for even a law enforcement officer to be scared for their life and to shoot someone in a situation like this to protect their own and their fellow officers lives. Fine. I don't agree, but let's go with that for a moment anyway. In that case, why the fuck do I give a single fuck about law enforcement officers whatsoever? Explain that to me. Why should I care? Because what you're saying is that the only thing that ultimately matters to them if their own lives. Not the lives of the public, not the lives their supposed to protect but their own. In the process, you're taking away the very thing that's supposed to make the profession honorable and worth of respect to begin with! That is, the fact these brave men and women are supposed to be people who choose to go into the profession precisely because they're willing to put their lives on the line to protect others and do whatever they can to "serve and protect."
If that's not the case after all, and that they go with the "logical" and "emotional" response of killing threats to their person such as this, while that may indeed me the logical choice for self-preservation for any normal person, that's the thing... you just lowered them to the standard of the average person. If you hold them to the standard of an average person, what exactly is supposed to be so honorable about these individuals again?
That's one of the things that frustrates me about the reverence for cops these days--that people still hold it up to be a brave, noble profession, full of men and women who put their lives on the line for the sake of others, but when they don't exhibit those traits and put their own lives first... they still worship them and justify the actions and decisions anyway? I mean, that may be a logical decision purely from a self-preservation stand-point, but what's so honorable about that at that point? If they're just doing "what anyone else would do" instead of going above and beyond, why give them so much respect above and beyond everyone else anyway?
Which is it? Is it a pursuit worthy of honor and respect, etc, above most others? In which case, why do people no hold them to those standards and instead make any number of excuses when they fail? Unless there's a concession that it's not supposed to be such a pursuit, that that's not in fact what it means to be a cop, but then why are we supposed to dole out all kinds of respect and praise for them regardless?
There's a huge inconsistency there--that we're supposed to respect the profession of being a law enforcement officer for being this noble, brave pursuit of choosing a career where you put your lives on the line for the sake of others each and every day, but in any given situation, when an officer doesn't do this, but acts only in their own self-preservation, we're supposed to find that worthy of that same respect and honor and treat them as if they did put their lives on the line for the sake of others each and every day anyway, even when they never demonstrate that behavior? No, you don't get to have it both ways. Pick one. Not both.
Forerunner
Member
If they had tasers, it could have been an option. However, not everyone carries them. It depends on the department. That's one of the issues with law enforcement in the US. There are so many different departments and agencies. They all have different training, different procedures, and carry different equipment. It would be much easier if everything was streamlined. However, based on the video they used the appropriate amount of force given the situation.
Gravy Boat
Member
They didn't need to bloody shoot. They could have kept backing up, kept trying to descalate. Nothing happened that required them to kill the individual. This wasn't some impossible stalemate where only one party was going to make it out alive, no one was in danger as long as the officers kept their distance. This was one individual surrounded by 4 officers, they had them surrounded. No one was getting stabbed in this situation, they just needed to wait it out and wait for an opening to do something. Some of these justifications are infuriating.
People are acting like there some time constraint on a situation like this. It's better to wait 12 hours to successfully deescalate than to just give up and shoot an hour in.
Snowybreak
Member
They justify what suits them.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
The fact we have people in this thread defending an absolutely textbook case of excessive (to the point of being openly lethal) police force which has resulted in the death of 21-old is mind boggling for me. I guess I'll never understand some Americans.