I don't. But most people don't charge cops with knives. Those who do tend to be folks who want to suicide by cop. They aren't dumb, they just have a specific purpose.
His point is that some people to things that seem "dumb" on purpose.
For example, I have a buddy that drive large vehicles for an oil field service company. He was in an accident on a single lane highway in Alberta. The vehicle coming towards him swerved into his lane just before impact. Clear day, clear roads no traffic. The vehicle was so close he said he could see the driver turn the wheel. To me that reads suicide by vehicle.
The vehicle purposely veered into the lane of travel.
Perhaps this fella stole those items and stayed around waiting for the police, hoping/knowing what their response would be.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Someone already posted the famous video that should be required viewing for anyone disputing the actions of the police. At 20 feet, with a knife I can kill a person with a holstered gun. At 20 feet, with a knife I can kill everyone without a gun.
I don't have a solution for what the police should do, but until there is a better option for the police they will be forced to use lethal force. Gun defeats knife only at a set distance. It unfortunately is not a hard lesson to learn, but deadly if you forget it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Nage Waza For This Useful Post:
Honestly, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Columbine fundamentally changed how police do business and respond to active threats.
Insulting to anyone at Columbine? Spare me the drama.
Can you expand on this? A Columbine type event is a very rare situation for a police officer. How and why would this change how you approach someone acting threateningly with knife on the street? Are the police quicker to use deadly force now? Was this fundamental change for the public safety or the safety of the police? At face value it's hard to see the connection for a lay person.
Someone already posted the famous video that should be required viewing for anyone disputing the actions of the police. At 20 feet, with a knife I can kill a person with a holstered gun. At 20 feet, with a knife I can kill everyone without a gun.
I don't have a solution for what the police should do, but until there is a better option for the police they will be forced to use lethal force. Gun defeats knife only at a set distance. It unfortunately is not a hard lesson to learn, but deadly if you forget it.
"Tueller Drill" apparently this is called.
The Following User Says Thank You to puckedoff For This Useful Post:
Can you expand on this? A Columbine type event is a very rare situation for a police officer. How and why would this change how you approach someone acting threateningly with knife on the street? Are the police quicker to use deadly force now? Was this fundamental change for the public safety or the safety of the police? At face value it's hard to see the connection for a lay person.
No sarcasm - I'm just throwing things out there. I suppose if they sat back and waited for backup; without confrontation is it easier for the armed suspect to leave the scene which could in turn begin to involve more civilians? For example the guys holding the camera?
During a peaceful night of protesting a cop goes nuts. He has now been removed from this security detail.
Not a defense of the officer, but I suspect he is extremely stressed and possibly fatigued. Good work by the officer that removed him, and good work by whoever removed him from the detail.
That being said, the people at the scene are idiots. They clearly are trying to goad the officer. What can be gained from doing that?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
Last edited by undercoverbrother; 08-21-2014 at 02:39 PM.
He's pointing an assault rifle at them while their hands up are, peacefully protesting.
They are more than allowed to peacefully assemble. No amount of 'goading' justifies that type of response and I would hope that officer is more than just removed from the security detail, he should be removed from the force.
It is unjustifiable for a police officer to aim a weapon at you and tell you he's going to ####ing kill you.
Edit: it's just another shocking double standard. If you did that to me in the presence of police officers, you'd be arrested.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
He's pointing an assault rifle at them while their hands up are, peacefully protesting.
They are more than allowed to peacefully assemble. No amount of 'goading' justifies that type of response and I would hope that officer is more than just removed from the security detail, he should be removed from the force.
It is unjustifiable for a police officer to aim a weapon at you and tell you he's going to ####ing kill you.
I didn't say they were not allowed to peacefull assemble, nor did I support the officer or defend him.
I fully support their right to peaceful protest.
I think we can both agree the office is not acting in an appropraite manner to the situation. There is no excuse to have his weapon raised. If I was a peaceful protester and I saw that I would attempt to put as much space between me and that officer. I am not sure I would follow him yelling "Officer Go #### Yourself is going to shoot me".
People need to use their brains when dealing with people that appear to not be using theirs.
To my mind it appears they are trying to get a reaction out of him, and I doubt it is a positive reaction that they seek.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Someone already posted the famous video that should be required viewing for anyone disputing the actions of the police. At 20 feet, with a knife I can kill a person with a holstered gun. At 20 feet, with a knife I can kill everyone without a gun.
I don't have a solution for what the police should do, but until there is a better option for the police they will be forced to use lethal force. Gun defeats knife only at a set distance. It unfortunately is not a hard lesson to learn, but deadly if you forget it.
I haven't actually watched the video, as I have absolutely zero desire to watch anyone die, but what kind of a knife are we talking about?
Because I'd argue a knife is a whole heck of a lot less lethal than a gun is. Look at the mass stabbing that happened right here outside of Pittsburgh a few months back--he injured plenty of people, for certain, but no one died. Not a single person died, and he was stabbing people without them even realizing there was a problem.
I feel like there are non-lethal ways for two officers to handle a guy with a knife, if they have any kind of proper training. Just like there are non-lethal ways of stopping someone who may or may not be resisting arrest, or running away from you, or especially one who is surrendering.
That's the root of this issue: lethal force is all too regularly used by a whole lot of police forces in the US, not just in Ferguson/St Louis/Missouri. Why is it that police forces world over have such low rates of homicide by police while the US has such a high rate of it? How is it that other countries can go years without a death by police, while in the US it happens on a very regular basis? Why is it that our police forces seem to have a shoot-to-kill mentality rather than a less lethal apprehension procedure?
Perhaps the man who killed Michael Brown isn't a cold-blooded killer, but I think it's safe to say he certainly used excessive force, which is a problem for police throughout the entire US, and the ensuing protests and the incredibly excessive police reaction proves that point.
Why do US police forces treat citizens as the enemy?
I haven't actually watched the video, as I have absolutely zero desire to watch anyone die, but what kind of a knife are we talking about?
Because I'd argue a knife is a whole heck of a lot less lethal than a gun is. Look at the mass stabbing that happened right here outside of Pittsburgh a few months back--he injured plenty of people, for certain, but no one died. Not a single person died, and he was stabbing people without them even realizing there was a problem.
I feel like there are non-lethal ways for two officers to handle a guy with a knife, if they have any kind of proper training. Just like there are non-lethal ways of stopping someone who may or may not be resisting arrest, or running away from you, or especially one who is surrendering.
That's the root of this issue: lethal force is all too regularly used by a whole lot of police forces in the US, not just in Ferguson/St Louis/Missouri. Why is it that police forces world over have such low rates of homicide by police while the US has such a high rate of it? How is it that other countries can go years without a death by police, while in the US it happens on a very regular basis? Why is it that our police forces seem to have a shoot-to-kill mentality rather than a less lethal apprehension procedure?
Perhaps the man who killed Michael Brown isn't a cold-blooded killer, but I think it's safe to say he certainly used excessive force, which is a problem for police throughout the entire US, and the ensuing protests and the incredibly excessive police reaction proves that point.
Why do US police forces treat citizens as the enemy?
People certainly have died from knife injuries before.
I don't think it's fair to expect police to gamble that they will only be injured, but may not be killed by a knife attack. I wouldn't want to take that risk with my life, and I don't think they want to risk it with theirs either.
Someone already posted the famous video that should be required viewing for anyone disputing the actions of the police. At 20 feet, with a knife I can kill a person with a holstered gun. At 20 feet, with a knife I can kill everyone without a gun.
I don't have a solution for what the police should do, but until there is a better option for the police they will be forced to use lethal force. Gun defeats knife only at a set distance. It unfortunately is not a hard lesson to learn, but deadly if you forget it.
If the passenger side police officer moved to the back of his SUV he would have placed an obstacle in front of himself and forced Powell to either make a hard turn and slowing him down, or walk parallel to the SUV. In both cases the officers would have more time and better opportunities to withdraw or defend themselves. If anyone actually googles Dennis Tueller rather than Tueller drills than you would know that he was trying to emphasis using obstacles and movements to reduce the effectiveness of a straight line attack .
If the passenger side police officer moved to the back of his SUV he would have placed an obstacle in front of himself and forced Powell to either make a hard turn and slowing him down, or walk parallel to the SUV. In both cases the officers would have more time and better opportunities to withdraw or defend themselves. If anyone actually googles Dennis Tueller rather than Tueller drills than you would know that he was trying to emphasis using obstacles and movements to reduce the effectiveness of a straight line attack .
I think the knife thing depends on the number of cops and their dress, one cop without body armour and the cop has to shoot to kill, two cops or more and it isn't necessary.
British police routinely disarm knife wielding assailants without guns and are rarely killed
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
I haven't actually watched the video, as I have absolutely zero desire to watch anyone die, but what kind of a knife are we talking about?
Because I'd argue a knife is a whole heck of a lot less lethal than a gun is. Look at the mass stabbing that happened right here outside of Pittsburgh a few months back--he injured plenty of people, for certain, but no one died. Not a single person died, and he was stabbing people without them even realizing there was a problem.
I feel like there are non-lethal ways for two officers to handle a guy with a knife, if they have any kind of proper training. Just like there are non-lethal ways of stopping someone who may or may not be resisting arrest, or running away from you, or especially one who is surrendering.
That's the root of this issue: lethal force is all too regularly used by a whole lot of police forces in the US, not just in Ferguson/St Louis/Missouri. Why is it that police forces world over have such low rates of homicide by police while the US has such a high rate of it? How is it that other countries can go years without a death by police, while in the US it happens on a very regular basis? Why is it that our police forces seem to have a shoot-to-kill mentality rather than a less lethal apprehension procedure?
Perhaps the man who killed Michael Brown isn't a cold-blooded killer, but I think it's safe to say he certainly used excessive force, which is a problem for police throughout the entire US, and the ensuing protests and the incredibly excessive police reaction proves that point.
Why do US police forces treat citizens as the enemy?
So now we are asking police to decide whether a knife is large enough to be lethal?? Really?!! Or have I misunderstood you.
What is your understanding of "apprehension procedures"?
We could discuss the violence in the US at length, but that might derail this thread... oh wait... nevermind.
Last edited by Bent Wookie; 08-21-2014 at 05:15 PM.
I think the knife thing depends on the number of cops and their dress, one cop without body armour and the cop has to shoot to kill, two cops or more and it isn't necessary. British police routinely disarm knife wielding assailants without guns and are rarely killed
That's untrue. However, you do realize UK police aren't armed don't you. I would suggest that may have something to do with a lack of shootings of armed assailants and the fact they are put in situations where they may have to disarm someone.
And at least they are "rarely" killed. Thank god. I guess they are doing it right.
You do know who gets called in the UK when there's a guy with a knife don't you? Armed response units.
Last edited by Bent Wookie; 08-21-2014 at 05:16 PM.
That's untrue. However, you do realize UK police aren't armed don't you. I would suggest that may have something to do with a lack of shootings of armed assailants and the fact they are put in situations where they may have to disarm someone.
And at least they are "rarely" killed. Thank god. I guess they are doing it right.
You do know who gets called in the UK when there's a guy with a knife don't you? Armed response units.
While there are armed police available in the UK the reality is it takes probably an hour to get them to the scene, virtually every time the cops in the UK handle armed assailants they do it with no more than a truncheon, they are trained to keep their distance until support arrives, once you get a couple of cops they move in one to each arm and take them down. British cops accept getting hurt as part of the job, not killed mind you, although it does happen, but taking a thump or getting cut is part of the job.
Cops in the US seem congenitally unable to back away from the suspect and wait a few minutes, nine times out of ten if you don't do or say anything to escalate it the anger disapates and things end well, point a gun though and you escalate things.
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 08-21-2014 at 05:27 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
