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.
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.
I disagree.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.
That's because the uk guy was not shouting 'shoot me!'. If he was he'd have been fair game.UK police handle guy with machete : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...le-machete-wielding-man-with-wheelie-bin.html
Please be sarcasm.That's because the uk guy was not shouting 'shoot me!'. If he was he'd have been fair game.
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.
I don't think I could've made it any more apparent.Please be sarcasm.
Sorry. It's not you it's this thread. Coming from a different poster that could have been said completely seriously.I don't think I could've made it any more apparent.
I have to agree, unfortunately. Some of the posts in this thread are really something else.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".
I have to agree, unfortunately. Some of the posts in this thread are really something else.
That's not what happened here.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.
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.
FYI, police force "around the world" would've done a few other things before killing the kid.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.
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.
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?Not long ago a very similar thing happened close to where I live here in Sweden. This certainly does happen all around the world.
UK police handle guy with machete : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...le-machete-wielding-man-with-wheelie-bin.html
I don't think I could've made it any more apparent.
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.
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.
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.
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.That's not what happened here.
Fact campus police only got lethal options is fucked up.Even if you had to use your gun, cant you shoot to incapacitate and not shoot to kill?
Even if you had to use your gun, cant you shoot to incapacitate and not shoot to kill?
Even if you had to use your gun, cant you shoot to incapacitate and not shoot to kill?
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.
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.
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?
Machete =/= knife.UK police handle guy with machete : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...le-machete-wielding-man-with-wheelie-bin.html
Machete =/= knife.
It's a lot easier to stab someone with a knife than with a machete, and stabbing is easier than hacking.
Sounds like suicide by cop. RIP.
They couldn't just shoot them in the leg? Fucking garbage police.
But this sounds like suicide by cop / mental illness
I saw it in a movie once.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.
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.
Well, that doesn't seem to have passed lightly for the officer, which was precisely my point - in other parts of the world police is not expected to behave that way.
In the video they keep shouting 'drop the knife' but looking at those multi-tool pliers, that was just a poor judgement on the part of the police.Do we know whether or not the police knew that they were pliers?
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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.
I didn't say you had to agree with me mate. There are some obvious things that I don't have to explain.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?