• 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

J

Jenov

Member
I'm wondering how it even escalated to that point if all he had was a utility/pocket knife that wasn't even out? Campus police really should have tazers, or another non-lethal weapon. They're dealing with students most of the time.
 
M

MUnited83

For you.
Heavy_D206 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you a civilian, or are you a jackass that seeked out a job where YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TRAINED TO HANDLE STUFF BETTER THAN CIVILIANS WOULD?
Jacksinthe said:
Ah, the femoral artery. That will at least give you an extra minute to explain you're good guy cop by shooting the leg before the suspect bleeds out.

And to those thinking you have time in a knife attack, Google: Tueller

Also, a good rule of thumb is that unless it's a shot to the head or spine the attacker will be doing exactly what they were doing before they've been shot - coming at you. Too much footage of this out there. Even after multiple shots we see attackers still going for upwards of a minute after they've been shot several times.

Most instant stops that do not kill the target are psychological: "fuck I've been shot" (FIBS).

Also plenty of footage of hesitation or nonlethal defensive tools that don't end up well for the defender. Knives are not something you gamble with.

Real life isn't John Wick.
Click to expand...

So tell me, how the fuck is the USA the only country living in reality? Why can police officers in other countries handle it fine? How in the fuck did other countries magically turned their country into a John Wick reality?
 
O

Octavia

Unconfirmed Member
If you can't handle the risks of putting yourself in danger to save others, don't be a cop.

It's simple. Don't be a cop. Do something else where you will be useful. Nobody has a gun to your head forcing you to be a cop or similar profession.

If your solution is to just shoot everyone, including a young mentally disturbed college kid with a pocket knife, don't be a cop, please.
 
M

Mahonay

Banned
Forerunner said:
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.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
 
I

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Don't threaten people with knives while acting deranged and you wont' get shot. On the other hand, police have all sorts of gadgets to non fatally neutralize a single individual fairly easily but they always pick the gun, and more importantly, shooting with the intent to kill first and foremost

My verdict? Police obviously have the responsibility as public servants to act with restraint, but usually abuse their power.
 
V

Violet_0

Banned
dofry said:
I disagree a bit on that rule. Drawing a gun is to show the possible force. The intent at that point, in Finland, is still not to kill. Escalation goes in steps, like in the US but with more focus on disabling the person. Alive. Not center mass. Unless it goes to that level. That is the point of the gun for a police officer. The less uses, the better of course. Taking a human life is the last resort. And I trust the cops in my country. I actually can.

Even the terrorist who stabbed people in a marketplace in Turku, was shot in the leg.

UK has nice rules though too.

But this thread, I feel like I am taking crazy pills at some replies but at least we are discussing.
Click to expand...

it's nice to see that after so many years people finally start to question the usual "you only draw your weapon with the intent to kill", "you always aim for the chest" comments from the self-proclaimed experts. Maybe this place has become more aware of how other countries frequently manage these situations differently, without killing anyone
 
M

Mahonay

Banned
blu said:
I don't think I could've made it any more apparent.
Click to expand...
Sorry. It's not you it's this thread. Coming from a different poster that could have been said completely seriously.

Lots of people seem to be of the mind that this person "had it coming".
 
blu

blu

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Mahonay said:
Sorry. It's not you it's this thread. Coming from a different poster that could have been said completely seriously.

Lots of people seem to be of the mind that this person "had it coming".
Click to expand...
I have to agree, unfortunately. Some of the posts in this thread are really something else.
 
M

mcarlie

Banned
Mahonay said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's not what happened here.

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.
Click to expand...

All police force around the world are trained to do this if their lives are in danger. Police, firemen etc are trained to follow certain protocol based on previous experiences of things that put their lives at unnecessary risks.
 
M

mcarlie

Banned
ShironRedshift said:
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.
Click to expand...

A firefighter does not take unnecessary risks either. If the risk to their life is too great they may have to decide to not run into the building even if it means that some people inside might die. It is of course unfortunate that this person was killed, but it is not reasonable or moral to sacrifice the life of an innocent police officer in order to save him / her. It's easy to be an armchair policeman and claim that they had this or that alternative, but you haven't received the training they have and you don't have the same experience that they have, you don't know how situations like these typically end.
 
blu

blu

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
mcarlie said:
That's not what happened here.



All police force around the world are trained to do this if their lives are in danger. Police, firemen etc are trained to follow certain protocol based on previous experiences of things that put their lives at unnecessary risks.
Click to expand...
FYI, police force "around the world" would've done a few other things before killing the kid.

And their "lives were put at unnecessary risk" by multi-purpose pliers. For Pete's.
 
blu

blu

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
mcarlie said:
Not long ago a very similar thing happened close to where I live here in Sweden. This certainly does happen all around the world.
Click to expand...
A "very similar thing" as in a college student approached armed cops, shouting 'shoot me' and got shot for not dropping some deadly pliers? How did the investigation go?
 
J

JoeBoy101

Member
blu said:
I don't think I could've made it any more apparent.
Click to expand...

Well you could always
/Sarcasm
?

Blu said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you find it so mind-boggling because the textbook in question you are using is not one from the US. In the US, this is a textbook case of proper application of force.

Its just me, like many others here, are taking issue with the system for making it a proper application. I don't blame the specific cops here because the response you saw is EXACTLY what they were trained and drilled to do. Hell, they showed more restraint than your average US cop.
 
A

AlexFlame116

Member
This may sound incredibly stupid and I probably completely missed the mark, but if I was a police officer my priority would be too keep people safe. And if that requires me to sacrifice my own life to keep an innocent safe then I know what I must do.

I'm not a police officer so I can't speak for them in that sense but you have to know how to act when the moment comes. You have to think of the best possible outcome to a developing situation. Some cops unfortunately don't do that.
 
S

Seductivpancakes

Member
AlexFlame116 said:
This may sound incredibly stupid and I probably completely missed the mark, but if I was a police officer my priority would be too keep people safe. And if that requires me to sacrifice my own life to keep an innocent safe then I know what I must do.
Click to expand...

Apparently this brave mentality of self sacrifice does not extend to people wielding weapons, that are obviously trying to get themselves killed via by the police.
 
J

J-Rzez

Member
ShironRedshift said:
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.
Click to expand...

When you sign up to be a police officer you dont forfeit your life, as much as people here may like it to be. You're there to serve and protect, that's citizens and themselves. Its absolutely disgusting that people think like you where they signed their life away.

Guess why people say ok the cop lived? Because not everyone is a cop hater like many on GAF express. They respect they put their life on the line just by gearing up and going out as a visual icon in the first place becoming a target alone. They would rather see someone who is risking their live for them live another day than a criminal or someone threatening violence and is mentally unstable that who knows how far they would escalate it. And yes, firefighters that are always heroes, even they're not told to rush into a dire situation. They do, they do, and an officer can do the same. Not all firefighters will run in btw, oh, and how about those few that start fires for excitement, brand all firefighters as that as well while you're at it.

Its one thing to arm chair this stuff like the people who all know the better way. Its another to be out there on the job. So if you would be the better officer, suit up, good people are always welcome. If not, well then don't know what to tell you other than if this bothers you that much, protest outside of gov buildings that can make a change, or go where the grass is supposedly greener. Its so easy to tap a screen or type on a keyboard.

Anyways, if this kid had a multitool with the blade retracted, then theres issues, and those cops need to be addressed, jailed even. But ill wait for the full video and report to say which should be done.

And there are LEOs that may attempt to handle situations without lethal force, talk down, and walk away. You just don't know because that's not as juicy as a headline.
 
M

Mahonay

Banned
mcarlie said:
That's not what happened here.
Click to expand...
It happens all the time in other situations. It's why people are being so critical, even though this case is not as heinously wrong as others. People are tired of the high percentage of lethal response from the police.
 
M

manhack

Member
Any time police have to use deadly force it should be considered a failure and there should be consequences; even if the action was "justifiable".
 
M

mantidor

Member
I don't think anecdotal evidence of other cases is really relevant, each confrontation is different, each situation is different. We only have the video of this one to really judge.
 
T

Temeculan3000

Member
LookAtMeGo said:
Even if you had to use your gun, cant you shoot to incapacitate and not shoot to kill?
Click to expand...

Generally in the US the answer is no for several reasons.

1. Using your gun is considered deadly force, the situation must warrant use of deadly force. If you shoot to maim, or fire a warning shot you open yourself up to a lawsuit. They can say that you should not have pulled your weapon since you didn't go for a kill shot you clearly didn't fear for your life and deadly force was not warranted.

2. More likely to miss and send bullets down range that could hit someone else.

In Europe it seems they are not trained the same way. In the US it seems mostly there to prevent a lawsuit.
 
K

Kinsei

Banned
Prost said:
I'm wondering how it even escalated to that point if all he had was a utility/pocket knife that wasn't even out? Campus police really should have tazers, or another non-lethal weapon. They're dealing with students most of the time.
Click to expand...

12 pages in and people are still misgendering Scout. The proper pronouns should really be added to the OP.
 
Bumblebeetuna

Bumblebeetuna

Member
MugiwaraCole said:
Because many examples have been made as to how the officers in this situation may not have had to kill anyone. Beyond shooting to maim instead of kill, there are other options. You're zeroing in on the possibility of someone dying from a bullet to the leg instead of acknowledging aiming for center mass to kill is a more likely way to put someone under.

Now maybe quit being an idiot.
Click to expand...

Except I just said right in that reply you quoted that the cops went with the more effective solution, so obviously I understand shooting to kill is uh, you know, a "more likely way to put someone under".

Try reading a bit if you're going to throw out salty insults :)
 
Amory

Amory

Member
Unfortunate and it wouldve been exactly the right time to have a taser or other less than lethal weapon. If that wasnt available, it shouldve been and thats something the GT police need to fix

But if he didnt have a taser, the cop did what pretty much anyone else would do when youre holding a gun and a person is coming at you with a knife, saying things that imply they believe they have nothing to lose.

I agree cops need to be held to a higher standard than private citizens, and need proper training and equipment to do their job as effectively and safely as possible. But no amount of training turns life into a turn based video game in that situation where you can take time to think about how to safely disarm this mentally unstable person, or talk them out of doing what theyre doing

They made an effort to talk and unfortunately it didn't work
 
S

Seik

Banned
There's supposed to be lots of options to neutralize the menace before resorting to killing the guy with a gun. Wtf USA?
 
Krappadizzle

Krappadizzle

Member
ronaldthump said:
They couldn't just shoot them in the leg? Fucking garbage police.

But this sounds like suicide by cop / mental illness
Click to expand...

Lol. Always loved this one. People who've never had to do law enforcement offering armchair enforcement techniques.

They should of just shot the blade out of the hand.
 
P

Polioliolio

Member
Pankratous said:
In the UK they would either be talked out of doing anything, tazed, or wrestled to the ground. Even if a firearm team had to respond the guns would never be used.

It's called training. There was no need for anybody to die here.
Click to expand...

But guns and ammo are cheaper than training.
 
D

Darksol

Member
Couldn't someone just walk towards them with a riot shield and taze/pepper spray/tear gas them? Seems like quite the escalation to go straight to shooting.
 
blu

blu

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
M

mantidor

Member
UrbanRats said:
This is even a thing.
What a time to be alive.

It's like cops are supposed to be wild animals or something, like someone jumped in the Tiger cage at the zoo.
Click to expand...

This is not necessarily true, even whatever ideal police force you can come up with will shoot at someone being threatening with a firearm, so people who want to do this will use a toy gun to make the police act accordingly.

Which is why I don't think this was a suicide by cop situation, Schultz was unstable and the situation unfortunately scaled, there is no way the cops would've known the exact details without taking a big risk on their lives and everyone else on campus, let's not forget the initial call said Schultz had a knife and a gun.
 
N

Night Angel

Member
AlexFlame116 said:
This may sound incredibly stupid and I probably completely missed the mark, but if I was a police officer my priority would be too keep people safe. And if that requires me to sacrifice my own life to keep an innocent safe then I know what I must do.

I'm not a police officer so I can't speak for them in that sense but you have to know how to act when the moment comes. You have to think of the best possible outcome to a developing situation. Some cops unfortunately don't do that.
Click to expand...
So in this case you're gonna let someone stab you because they're innocent (of what? Coming at you with a weapon?) rather than protect yourself as you've been trained?

I wish our police were better trained and equipped to deal with these situations non-lethally, but given the training and equipment of the officers in this situation, I can't say they acted inappropriately. The results suck for everyone involved.
Darksol said:
Couldn't someone just walk towards them with a riot shield and taze/pepper spray/tear gas them? Seems like quite the escalation to go straight to shooting.
Click to expand...
In a world where every cop in every department has all of these things, maybe. But given the effective range of pepper spray/TASERs and the equipment these officers had, it's not a reasonable suggestion.
 
R

Rigbones

Neo Member
mantidor said:
This is not necessarily true, even whatever ideal police force you can come up with will shoot at someone being threatening with a firearm, so people who want to do this will use a toy gun to make the police act accordingly.

Which is why I don't think this was a suicide by cop situation, Schultz was unstable and the situation unfortunately scaled, there is no way the cops would've known the exact details without taking a big risk on their lives and everyone else on campus, let's not forget the initial call said Schultz had a knife and a gun.
Click to expand...

It was suicide. Schultz was the one to call themself in, and they reported themself to have the gun.

http://www.ajc.com/news/gbi-georgia-tech-student-called-911-before-shooting/WTH4NAGX30oJJEAEK98biN/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Prolific swatter (17 yr old from CA) arrested in conjunction with hundreds of swatting offences
49
4K
DavidGzz replied
NYPD: Man arrested in death of Frank Cali, reputed Gambino crime family boss
4
681
Papa replied
  • Locked
Some stories of recent anti-catholic violence and threats?
28
2K
rivv3r replied
Cops claim black man advanced on them with knife. Vid shows them shooting him in back
3 4 5 6 7
321
38K
Temeculan3000 replied
  • Locked
Mask Efficacy |OT| Wuhan!! Got You All In Check
763 764 765 766 767
38K
2M
EviLore replied
Top Bottom