Autistic suicidal Trans man murdered by police

[AshleyAshes]

14 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

Edit: So far I haven't been able to find any stat regarding the effectiveness of tasers on mentally unstable people. What I have found however are multiple stories about how the tasers didn't do what they were supposed to do and lethal force ended up being used on the mentally disabled. And this isn't a U.S only thing. Finding news articles from New Zealand and the UK.

So basically your argument boils down to 'Tasers don't work 100% of the time so we should stop trying, forgetting anything about trying to preserve the lives of emotionally disturbed persons who are of the most vulnerable individuals and almost always a threat to themselves rather than others, and just shoot them.  Ya know, just incase.'

 

...Dude, you suck.

[Vallium]

2 hours ago, Sylver said:

If it's any consolation; I don't think he cares whether people misgender him.

And the asshole response of the year award goes to...

Edited February 7, 2016 by WolfNightV4X1

[Rukh Whitefang]

9 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

So basically your argument boils down to 'Tasers don't work 100% of the time so we should stop trying, forgetting anything about trying to preserve the lives of emotionally disturbed persons who are of the most vulnerable individuals and almost always a threat to themselves rather than others, and just shoot them.  Ya know, just incase.'

 

...Dude, you suck.

Not what I am saying at all, and don't put words in my mouth. Yet again you are trying to instigate a reaction by purposely being an ass. I grow weary of your crap. Either have a conversation like an adult, or don't. But I won't participate with someone who just wants to talk crap.

I have stated there is no hard stat that I can't find at this moment (its 1am). What I have been finding are many news stories of how tasers didn't work on a mentally ill person and lethal force was used, or more taser shots were fired, or the individual died being tased to death. So I will reiterate what I have said, tasers don't always work, they are not meant to be used in close quarters. And in a situation where 2 officers are looking for a deranged individual wielding a knife in a dark house who is hiding, a taser wouldn't be a viable option. Perhaps you should talk to your police buddies since you do those emergency drills and such and see what they say?

Edited February 7, 2016 by Rukh Whitefang

[Vallium]

OT: I dont blame the response to the event more than I blame them not planning on the possibility before going there of having to confront a dangerous person who isn't a criminal but a mentally unstable person. That's the part that gets me

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, Rukh Whitefang said:

I have stated there is no hard stat that I can't find at this moment (its 1am).

But you already clearly stated that based on that state, that you can't find, that if you were in that situation, you feel that lethal force is what you support.  You can't back this stat up but despite the fact that you couldn't confirm the stat in any which way, you feel that this non-existent stat is evidence that lethal force is a preference.  That line of thinking, frankly, scares the hell out of me and it should scare you too.

[Vallium]

6 hours ago, MissFleece said:

I hope their dog is okay :c

That was a loyal dog I'm sure he'll notice his human missing, that hurts. According to the article the dog was adopted from a shelter and taught by the guy to be an assistant dog. Amazing.

I wonder where the dog was at the time of the incident.

Very sad situation indeed. >.> Poor guy too, he was pretty handsome, if only he got the help he needed.

[AshleyAshes]

3 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

Perhaps you should talk to your police buddies since you do those emergency drills and such and see what they say?

The 2014 Toronto Police Services report, skip to page 39 for it's usage of tasers.

http://www.tpsb.ca/Board_Agenda_March_19.pdf

I'll cut the mustard because you probably won't ACTUALLY read it and just go Google some vague news article to support your views instead.  I mean really, who needs police reports when you can get like three paragraphs in a news article?

Tasers were used 205 times in Toronto (They were not yet deployed to frontline constables at any time) and were used on emotionally disturbed persons 108 times. That's 52%.  Because that's what they're for.  They are less lethal weapons to use against those who the police should have no need to use lethal force against.  Because usage of lethal force by police services should be minimized.

[#00Buck]

In a situation where lethal force is being used against you any level of force including lethal force can be used in defence. That is the law and it is perfectly fair. It applies to everyone including the police. You can even choose to be non-violent and use zero force and let the other person kill you. That is your choice. 

However, when given the choice in a life and death situation people including police officers tend to escalate to the higher levels of force. This is because of the natural human survival instinct. They don't want to die and want to minimize that chances that they will die. 

I saw a study once that had people drive two types of cars. One had lots of airbags. The other had a metal spike in the middle of the steering wheel pointed at the drivers chest. The test was to determine which car was "safer." When driving the car with the metal spike the drivers drove perfectly and with extreme caution. When asked if they would like a metal spike installed in their cars to make them safer on a daily basis 100% said they would refuse. 

Sane people will always be concerned with their survival first even if it is at the expense of the safety of others and society in general. That's human nature. What took place was simply a result of the human condition. Any sane person put in the same situation would have done the same thing. Is the human condition sad? Yes it it. It can even be called tragic. But you can't hold people at fault for being human. 

[KryptoKroenen]

http://news.yahoo.com/officer-oregon-shot-while-serving-warrant-suspect-wounded-080031602.html

This just happened, but no one cares...let's all cry over the suicidal psycho who got shot.

[#00Buck]

6 minutes ago, KryptoKroenen said:

http://news.yahoo.com/officer-oregon-shot-while-serving-warrant-suspect-wounded-080031602.html

This just happened, but no one cares...let's all cry over the suicidal psycho who got shot.

Nobody on the internet cries when anyone dies in a news story. They project their own problems onto the story and get offended and upset and type a rant. They next day they totally forget that a human being tragically died and get interested in what kind of coffee they want to go with their muffin. 

Again this is the human condition. Is it pathetic? Yes. Do people really care about these issues? No. They just care about their own issues and need a platform to blow hot air. Will the people who rant do anything about these issues? No. Will someone else die tragically the very next day? Yes.

That's life people. You can't stop people from being themselves. In other words humans are pathetic. Get used to it. 

[KryptoKroenen]

1 hour ago, #00Buck said:

Nobody on the internet cries when anyone dies in a news story. They project their own problems onto the story and get offended and upset and type a rant. They next day they totally forget that a human being tragically died and get interested in what kind of coffee they want to go with their muffin. 

Again this is the human condition. Is it pathetic? Yes. Do people really care about these issues? No. They just care about their own issues and need a platform to blow hot air. Will the people who rant do anything about these issues? No. Will someone else die tragically the very next day? Yes.

That's life people. You can't stop people from being themselves. In other words humans are pathetic. Get used to it. 

In other words, the OP is basically blowing steam to help release his inner feelings of contempt for authority and those who enforce it...that's what I though.

[Vallium]

I admit news stories are biased and skew in favor of some propoganda in some political mindset by touching people's sympathies.

The story is always less saddening because its a random person and not someone you have been in proximal connection and interaction with. Yet people often feel obligated to show concern or sympathy despite not feeling some direct loss

However, I still find it at least upsetting when people die, because being totally apathetic to humanity's condition is the opposite of what one wants to do to make our everydays lives better as we can and prevent tragedy. 

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by WolfNightV4X1

[PastryOfApathy]

I really do get annoyed by this shit.

Motherfucker lunged at them with a knife. I don't give a shit if he's transgender, autistic, or the second coming of Christ, there's only one reason you would charge someone with a knife and it's one of the only situation where using a guns is perfectly justified.

Of course none of that matters cause "HE DIDN'T DO NUFFIN'! HE'S A GOOD BOY!1" and the cops are a bunch of evil racists or something...until you actually need them yourself. I'm insanely skeptical of our police force because we should all be, but I'm not dumb enough to seriously take this shit at face value. Especially when it's coming from an article so unbelievably biased I would think it was written by Breitbart or something.

[MalletFace]

I would give more input other than this, but this thread is hovering around issues where I can find no verifiable evidence, no unbiased sources, and no useful information.

I'll keep looking, but I'll comment on the frivolity of cases by saying this:

5 hours ago, 6tails said:

Let's add more info on frivolous lawsuits:

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/top-ten-frivolous-lawsuits

Case in point, your ass is at risk no matter what. Shoot to kill eliminates most of those risks in the USA.

Most of those cases only seem frivolous, but involve very serious issues and a media spin.

Liebeck in Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaraunts was only one of many people that had been injured by the coffee. They only wanted to cover her medical bills, and the jury chose to add the punitive damages to punish the defendant; they were especially eager to do so after finding out that an infant had been injured when a cup burst beside it and being informed that the coffee was legally supposed to have chemical and heat warnings.

The two men in Falkner v. Para-Chem were working with a chemical with which they had no idea was explosive, not just flammable; this is a type of chemical which requires very specific labeling in Ohio. Punitive damages were awarded by the jury when they heard this fact as a punishment for Para-Chem because of R.C. 2307.76.

In Honda of America Mfg., Inc. v. Norman/ Norman v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., Karen was killed because of an actual issue with safety, and there have been other deaths because of this. Karen's family was awarded damages meant to punish Honda, but an appeals court found that Honda had no alternatives to the design, so it reversed the decision.

The fourth was is not even close to frivolous, but it was odd. He was attempting to get a recall and ban on something he felt was unsafe being marketed directly at minors. Happens all the time, and I do not see why it should not.

In the fifth case the man was killed by traps placed around a property. In that particular case, it is very clear in the state's code that such devices are illegal; one cannot defend property with deadly force, and preemptive traps are equally forbidden.

The sixth case did not even make it into court.

This case was unnecessary, but that's because U.S. corporations are ridiculous when it comes to brands. It barely even got into court, but I wish it had never happened. There were no laws broken.

In the eighth case, the court was not awarding or judging on the criminal charges. It was only acting on the discrimination. Appeals decided the discrimination did not actually happen and reversed the decision. He went to jail for the robbery either way.

The ninth case was frivolous, and likely the result of detox. No civil or criminal law was broken.

The tenth case was frivolous as he could not prove the woman's breasts did that. If he could have, though, it was an honest claim.

This goes more to show that you are only at risk if you break an actual law. In most of these cases, a civil or criminal law was clearly broken and punished. In the ones that weren't, the case was rightfully dropped.

 

[WileyWarWeasel]

This sort of police situation is a good indicator of why police should be issued with more things like optiwands and beanbag guns.

[Spot]

3 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Nobody on the internet cries when anyone dies in a news story.

I do.

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

7 hours ago, Khaki said:

What on earth were they teaching you in the Finnish Defence force?

I thought centre of mass was the general standard everywhere when it came to the use of firearms.

 

The army =/= the police, but let me open the door and give you a bit of insight into it.

If you want to kill, hold on let me emphasize that, to kill and be sure of that, you go for the torso assuming you can. Headshots happen in the movies and in entrenched positions where it's literally all you can see, so obviously you'd target the more certain part. That is in a proper firefight though, where you fight for your survival and to fulfil orders given. Fun fact: 70% of bullet/shrapnel wounds are to the extremities to begin with.

In the army we are taught to use the least amount of force necessary to defuse the situation, and I think guard duty/civic aid/law enforcement aid would be pretty nicely comparable to this since it basically gives similar rights as police do, and more (given that it's already a dire situation since the army was called in). In a nutshell, it's fairly straightforward, and moves in the vein of basic self defense and can be applied to raids too. You start by raising your voice, then threats (more like giving the guy a heads up of what will follow), then the application of force to apprehend the subject, which means to grab and hold. If he is unarmed and acts hostile, throws a jab at you you are allowed to hit back and go back to the earlier stage. With a weapon you can use a weapon back, and again it's intimidation, show of force, and appliance of force depending on how severe the case is. The ideal outcome is that the subject can be captured alive.

Example A. You are on a checkpoint and there's a guy wielding a knife, acts hostile and approaches you. What do you do? You order them to stop, point your rifle at him and tell him what you want him to do, and you also tell you are authorized to use lethal force. If he does not stop despite being aimed at, you would shoot off a warning shot, and only if the guy gets close would you shoot them in the leg or wherever, and done, no need of a magdump.

Example B, same case,but this time the guy has a gun. At the stage where he's drawing on you or takes aim you are allowed to take the pre-emptive shot. This is generally a lethal shot because the guy could kill you even while injured. Guns don't look at the shooter's condition, the bullet is a bullet and forever lethal. You use force a step above the subject and that's it. Protocol was followed and it saved your life. Just having a knife does not mean you are in immediate danger so there's a difference.

Example C, you are at your post in wherever, lets say guarding an immigration center due to unrest, and some drunken bastard flings a rock at you or comes at you with his fists. You DO NOT START SHOOTING HIM because that's way too many steps above ine the usage of force ladder. Instead you either tough it out, or preferably you pin him down and wait for the police to arrive to take them away.

Example D, you are at a warzone devoid of civilians you are supposed to protect, in a pothole, and have identified an intruder of the opposing force. You can use your element of surprise by taking a shot at his center torso, where the hit is most certain. By doing this you have immediately jumped through so many usage of force steps it's pretty impressive, but the key difference is that it is fucking war and operates on a different set of rules. His very presence was a threat in itself. Wartime pothole defense line checkpoint procedures are different, and I'm not allowed to bring them forth for secrecy's sake, but I assure you they are fair.

Let's apply US logic for the next example.. well you can just watch for yourself and see how well the use of force ladders work there. I wish I could say this is out of the norm, but sadly it isn't.  WARNING GRAPHIC

It seems to me the way it works in the states is that if you don't do what the police say, they've the right to shoot you regardless, simply because they can if they so much as suspect you have a weapon. It's pure abuse of authority. Why do I think this? This is why. (Also graphic) Our principle should work with close quarters too, only faster. Use one step above the subjects hostility at all times. And do correct me if I'm wrong, but the police work in pairs with house calls, so the guy should've at least had another guy to back him up.

I have not been through police academy and I don't know what variations of this they teach there, but they're obviously doing something differently here than in there and it works, since while knife-wielders are relatively common, so very few of them get so much as bruised, let alone shot. The authorities are here to keep its citizens safe and alive.

I really do think the suicidal guy was not with the intent to harm the cops. If I know anything about being depressed and suicidal, and I know a fair bit, it's that in that slope you don't want others to go through the same shit as you're in. He literally had no motive to attack the officers which makes me doubt the validity of lethal force as a solution. Until we get hands on recordings of the situation, nobody can truly say what went down. I would wager on the police radio they got word of an unstable individual, who's potentially armed and the cops were jumpy to begin with and given the nature of US-land they thought everyone's out to get them.

I'll just toss this out here since it's a decent read. http://www.sott.net/article/299124-SOTT-Exclusive-Finnish-police-fired-guns-just-6-times-in-2013-US-cops-have-killed-over-500-people-so-far-in-2015 I only did just google this page out and haven't dug too deep into it, but whatever is in the article seems well backed out.. While funland has mere half of the percentage of firearms to populace America does, our police still only fired six shots in 2013, most of which were warning shots. In the span of ten years three finns have been killed by the police, and twenty injured. Crunching numbers, if funland was as large as US was, it would equal to 177 deaths by the police in ten years time. Worth noting the same number in the US last year was 990  Also under direct fire there have been cases where our law enforcement didn't even choose to open fire back. Iceland is even better and only had their first case when a police had to gun down a person in 2013, and it was nation shattering news. With this post and in this light I hope you can understand why I really think what's going on in the US is pretty unforgivable and fucked up, especially when you start tallying in all the police brutalities in addition to these fatalities.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Sarcastic Coffeecup
added the compilation video, typo fixes

[Hux]

@Khaki Your sarcasm cuts deep, man. I liked you, I sincerely did. I wish we could've been buddies

 

[Khaki]

1 hour ago, Hux said:

@Khaki Your sarcasm cuts deep, man. I liked you, I sincerely did. I wish we could've been buddies

What are you talking about?

I found your joke to be genuinely funny.

@Sarcastic Coffeecup

It's ok, I do understand the procedure for the application of force nor am I defending the US police force for their actions.

I'm just surprised that you have actually been instructed to use firearms to purposefully wound an perpetrator in order to de-escalate a conflict scenario as

I have just never heard anyone instructed in such areas, advocate such an action, only against it, 

[Machine]

I legit thought I was reading satire for a minute there.

Granted, I'm pretty pro-gun ownership for self-defense and hunting, and I think it would've been better for the cops to have used a tazer. But I'm not surprised about outcome, given the apparent unchecked state of America's police force.

Also, as a general tip, most autistic people are almost stereotypically law-abiding people, but suicidal ideation can put people in some pretty nightmarish places. Not saying that this person is blameless, but yeah. Pretty shitty.

[Rassah]

10 hours ago, KryptoKroenen said:

Mhmm, I call cop-out.

I'm fine with you thinking I don't want to waste my time on you as a cop-out. You win 1 Internets.

9 hours ago, KryptoKroenen said:

http://news.yahoo.com/officer-oregon-shot-while-serving-warrant-suspect-wounded-080031602.html

This just happened, but no one cares...let's all cry over the suicidal psycho who got shot.

I care. Fuck him. It's part of the job. Don't like it? Don't get a job where you harass and intimidate people.

 

@MalletFace Thank you! I hate all the frivolous lawsuits bs. Just big cops trying to convince dumb idiots that they're being sued too much, so government gives them more protections to do whatever the hell they want.

[KryptoKroenen]

22 minutes ago, Rassah said:

I'm fine with you thinking I don't want to waste my time on you as a cop-out. You win 1 Internets.

I care. Fuck him. It's part of the job. Don't like it? Don't get a job where you harass and intimidate people.

 

@MalletFace Thank you! I hate all the frivolous lawsuits bs. Just big cops trying to convince dumb idiots that they're being sued too much, so government gives them more protections to do whatever the hell they want.

I think this post pretty much exposes Rassah's true character, nothing more need be said.

Also thanks for that 1 Internet.

Edited February 7, 2016 by KryptoKroenen

[#00Buck]

7 hours ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

Example A. You are on a checkpoint and there's a guy wielding a knife, acts hostile and approaches you. What do you do? You order them to stop, point your rifle at him and tell him what you want him to do, and you also tell you are authorized to use lethal force. If he does not stop despite being aimed at, you would shoot off a warning shot, and only if the guy gets close would you shoot them in the leg or wherever, and done, no need of a magdump.

Example B, same case,but this time the guy has a gun. At the stage where he's drawing on you or takes aim you are allowed to take the pre-emptive shot. This is generally a lethal shot because the guy could kill you even while injured. Guns don't look at the shooter's condition, the bullet is a bullet and forever lethal. You use force a step above the subject and that's it. Protocol was followed and it saved your life. Just having a knife does not mean you are in immediate danger so there's a difference.

Example C, you are at your post in wherever, lets say guarding an immigration center due to unrest, and some drunken bastard flings a rock at you or comes at you with his fists. You DO NOT START SHOOTING HIM because that's way too many steps above ine the usage of force ladder. Instead you either tough it out, or preferably you pin him down and wait for the police to arrive to take them away.

Example D, you are at a warzone devoid of civilians you are supposed to protect, in a pothole, and have identified an intruder of the opposing force. You can use your element of surprise by taking a shot at his center torso, where the hit is most certain. By doing this you have immediately jumped through so many usage of force steps it's pretty impressive, but the key difference is that it is fucking war and operates on a different set of rules. His very presence was a threat in itself. Wartime pothole defense line checkpoint procedures are different, and I'm not allowed to bring them forth for secrecy's sake, but I assure you they are fair.

 

Example A:

People who fire warning shots go to jail. Firing a gun is lethal force. You can only use lethal force if you feel you are in danger of being killed. If you shoot your gun in the air it clearly demonstrates to the judge that you did not fear for your life. If you did you would have fired at the attacker. If you then shoot the attacker you go to jail for murder. It is clear to the judge you were not afraid for your life and shot the person anyways.

If you fire the warning shot and they run away you have still used lethal force without proper cause. Again you go to jail. You also can't shoot at people who give up or people who are running away. The only time in a self defence situation where you can shoot and not go to jail is if you fear for your life and you shoot directly at the attacker. Never fire a warning shot. 

Example B:

If someone is drawing their weapon your shot is not "pre-emptive."

Drawing or holding a lethal weapon shows intent to use deadly force. Shooting them is justified.

You don't put on a condom unless you're going to fuck. Right? 

Example C: 

Defending a piece of property is not self defence so this does not apply. 

Example D: 

War is not self defence so this does not apply. 

Edited February 7, 2016 by #00Buck

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

1 minute ago, #00Buck said:

Example A:

People who fire warning shots go to jail. Firing a gun is lethal force. You can only use lethal force if you feel you are in danger of being killed. If you shoot your gun in the air it clearly demonstrates to the judge that you did not fear for your life. If you did you would have fired at the attacker. If you then shoot the attacker you go to jail for murder. It is clear to the judge you were not afraid for your life and shot the person anyways.

If you fire the warning shot and they run away you have still used lethal force without proper cause. Again you go to jail. You also can't shoot at people who give up or people who are running away. The only time in a self defence situation where you can shoot and not go to jail is if you fear for your life and you shoot directly at the attacker. Never fire a warning shot. 

Example B:

If someone is drawing their weapon your shot is not "pre-emptive."

Drawing or holding a lethal weapon shows intent to use deadle force. Shooting them is justified.

You don't put on a condom unless you're going to fuck. Right? 

Example C: 

Defending a piece of property is not self defence so this does not apply. 

Example D: 

War is not self defence so this does not apply. 

I sincerely hope you are joking

[#00Buck]

Just now, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

I sincerely hope you are joking

Nope. This is actually how the legal system works. 

In your army you follow the rules of your army. That's fine.

On the street if you want to stay out of jail you only ever fire your gun if you are in direct threat of being killed. You only shoot at the attacker.

Shooting at someone  who is drawing a weapon is not "pre-emptive." They are demonstrating intent to use lethal force. 

Defending property is not self defence. If someone wants to steal your skateboard and you shoot them that is murder. 

War is not self defence. 

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

Just now, #00Buck said:

Nope. This is actually how the legal system works. 

In your army you follow the rules of your army. That's fine.

On the street if you want to stay out of jail you only ever fire your gun if you are in direct threat of being killed. You only shoot at the attacker.

Shooting at someone  who is drawing a weapon is not "pre-emptive." They are demonstrating intent to use lethal force. 

Defending property is not self defence. If someone wants to steal your skateboard and you shoot them that is murder. 

War is not self defence. 

That's just it, I spoke of the authority's viewpoint. Not a random street guy's. Your points are all moot in that regard and don't really prove anything.

This is minor but I find this somehow aggravating, it's just the thread's nature forgive me, but IF YOU SHOOT A GUY DOWN BEFORE HE CAN KILL YOU THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE DEFINTION OF PRE-EMPTIVE RIGHT THERE. The other alternative would be to return fire, which obviously isn't pre-emptive. Also if defending a property and shooting people is oh-so wrong in muricaland, then please do explain why people are armed to the teeth and wait for a burglar to come home and steal their property so that they could shoot them and get away basically scot-free.

I mean, how morally bankrupt is a legal system that discourages warning shots and encourages you to kill people instead? There is no fucking way to sugarcoat and pretend it's fine when the police kill more people inland than soldiers die abroad (or at least similar numbers), but that's just the way 'murica seems to work and I'm just so fucking done with this right now I won't frequent this thread anymore. I need a place where I can seeth in rage at the system in peace. I am bursting up in flames over here from the sheer amount of stupidity I need to calm down before I burn my house down.

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

That's just it, I spoke of the authority's viewpoint. Not a random street guy's. Your points are all moot in that regard and don't really prove anything.

This is minor but I find this somehow aggravating, it's just the thread's nature forgive me, but IF YOU SHOOT A GUY DOWN BEFORE HE CAN KILL YOU THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE DEFINTION OF PRE-EMPTIVE RIGHT THERE. The other alternative would be to return fire, which obviously isn't pre-emptive. Also if defending a property and shooting people is oh-so wrong in muricaland, then please do explain why people are armed to the teeth and wait for a burglar to come home and steal their property so that they could shoot them and get away basically scot-free.

I mean, how morally bankrupt is a legal system that discourages warning shots and encourages you to kill people instead? There is no fucking way to sugarcoat and pretend it's fine when the police kill more people inland than soldiers die abroad (or at least similar numbers), but that's just the way 'murica seems to work and I'm just so fucking done with this right now I won't frequent this thread anymore. I need a place where I can seeth in rage at the system in peace. I am bursting up in flames over here from the sheer amount of stupidity I need to calm down before I burn my house down.

Shooting a person who shows intent to use deadly force on you is not "pre-emptive." 

If things were done your way you could only shoot a person after they have already shot you. The problem is that if you have to wait for them to shoot you first you are already dead! The legal system of every western nation takes "intent" into determining guilt. That's why there is a difference between a crime and an accident. In an accident there is no intent to do harm. In a crime there is intent to do harm. Demonstration of intent to kill is enough to justify using the same level of force against the attacker.

If you actually have to wait for the knife or bullet to pierce your body before you fight back then self-defence is impossible. You're asking people to allow themselves to be murdered. That is insane. 

The legal system does not "discourage warning shots." A warning shot is irresponsible and demonstrates that you are not scared for your life. It also sends a bullet flying through the air where it can kill innocent people. That is why you go to jail for "warning shots." If you are holding a gun and point it or say you are going to use it that is warning enough. Shooting at nothing and putting everyone in danger is stupid and should be punished by law. 

 

 

[PastryOfApathy]

10 minutes ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

This is minor but I find this somehow aggravating, it's just the thread's nature forgive me, but IF YOU SHOOT A GUY DOWN BEFORE HE CAN KILL YOU THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE DEFINTION OF PRE-EMPTIVE RIGHT THERE.

So you have to wait for someone to kill you before you can defend yourself for it to be preemptive?

wat

Edited February 7, 2016 by PastryOfApathy

[#00Buck]

3 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

So you have to wait for someone to kill you before you can defend yourself for it to be preemptive?

wat

Yeah, the logic fail is epic here. 

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

5 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Shooting a person who shows intent to use deadly force on you is not "pre-emptive." 

If things were done your way you could only shoot a person after they have already shot you. The problem is that if you have to wait for them to shoot you first you are already dead! The legal system of every western nation takes "intent" into determining guilt. That's why there is a difference between a crime and an accident. In an accident there is no intent to do harm. In a crime there is intent to do harm. Demonstration of intent to kill is enough to justify using the same level of force against the attacker.

If you actually have to wait for the knife or bullet to pierce your body before you fight back then self-defence is impossible. You're asking people to allow themselves to be murdered. That is insane. 

The legal system does not "discourage warning shots." A warning shot is irresponsible and demonstrates that you are not scared for your life. It also sends a bullet flying through the air where it can kill innocent people. That is why you go to jail for "warning shots." If you are holding a gun and point it or say you are going to use it that is warning enough. Shooting at nothing and putting everyone in danger is stupid and should be punished by law. 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

So you have to wait for someone to kill you before you can defend yourself for it to be preemptive?

wat

What is so unclear?

Person A, the authority, has a suspect aimed down the sights. Person B, the suspect, begins drawing a weapon on you with the intent to shoot you. Person A prevents that from happening by shooting before the suspect can do harm.

Now let's look at dictionary definition. "taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive; deterrent: " Maybe it's just me but that matches up pretty well.

I have no idea how you two fuck that up and say I want you to get shot before it can be called pre-emptive what the fuck guys.

[Kinare]

It's pretty bad when the fear of lawsuits because "injured instead of killed with gun" is more powerful than "should at least try to stop him without lethal force".

 

In the heat of the moment, I think the cops probably just had a normal human reaction to someone trying to kill them. Should they be trained to fight these reactions and actually try not to kill people when they have that chance? Sure, but at the end of the day they're still human and mistakes will be made. Split second judgement calls of "is this person going to kill me if I try not to kill him" are probably very difficult to make.

 

I feel sorry for the dead guy, I really do, and I wish he could have gotten help instead of going out like this. He knew what would happen when he did that, that's why he did it. It is a shame that he got proven right, but I hope his spirit finds some peace now at least.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Kinare

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

 

What is so unclear?

Person A, the authority, has a suspect aimed down the sights. Person B, the suspect, begins drawing a weapon on you with the intent to shoot you. Person A prevents that from happening by shooting before the suspect can do harm.

Now let's look at dictionary definition. "taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive; deterrent: " Maybe it's just me but that matches up pretty well.

I have no idea how you two fuck that up and say I want you to get shot before it can be called pre-emptive what the fuck guys.

In order for there to be a crime there must be intent and action. 

Person B demonstrates intent by drawing a deadly weapon. 

Person B demonstrates action by physically picking up the weapon. 

They are literally in the middle of attacking. They have not completed the attack. They are in the process. 

It isn't possible, anticipated, or feared. It is actually happening at that exact moment. 

It is not pre-emptive. 

Pre-emptive is if you shoot them before they even touch the weapon. 

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

1 minute ago, #00Buck said:

In order for there to be a crime there must be intent and action. 

Person B demonstrates intent by drawing a deadly weapon. 

Person B demonstrates action by physically picking up the weapon. 

They are literally in the middle of attacking. They have not completed the attack. They are in the process. 

It isn't possible, anticipated, or feared. It is actually happening at that exact moment. 

It is not pre-emptive. 

Pre-emptive is if you shoot them before they even touch the weapon. 

At this point you are just intentionally missing the point to incite a reaction. If we want to nitpick the authority figure was anticipating the shot and firefight 8^)

You know there was a time when I thought you were an ok dude, but that's going downhill pretty fast.

[PastryOfApathy]

5 minutes ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

What is so unclear?

Person A, the authority, has a suspect aimed down the sights. Person B, the suspect, begins drawing a weapon on you with the intent to shoot you. Person A prevents that from happening by shooting before the suspect can do harm.

Now let's look at dictionary definition. "taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive; deterrent: " Maybe it's just me but that matches up pretty well.

I have no idea how you two fuck that up and say I want you to get shot before it can be called pre-emptive what the fuck guys.

That's what we've been saying, he had a knife and lunged at him. There's nothing to argue.

[willow]

to be fair, not every person who draws a weapon has the intent to shoot or kill you.

21 minutes ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

Also if defending a property and shooting people is oh-so wrong in muricaland, then please do explain why people are armed to the teeth and wait for a burglar to come home and steal their property so that they could shoot them and get away basically scot-free.

it depends on the state. but you're actually supposed to call 911 first before you take any action, and if they can't dispatch anyone within a reasonable amount of time they'll give you permission to defend your property. and then of course some states have stand your ground laws where if you feel threatened you are allowed to use any means necessary to stop the threat; which most people view as "kill them".

it's all pretty flawed because well, the assailant can't testify against you if they're dead or there are no other witnesses.

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

6 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

That's what we've been saying, he had a knife and lunged at him. There's nothing to argue.

Well good to know at this point that you are talking about the fucking knife guy and not hypotheticals like I have, because if you read up on this little debate after I replied to Buck, there is nowhere a mention of the knife guy

The knife guy thing brings another case of a question mark to this story. As far as I know there is no recorded footage of that available for us so all that we have is the word of the guys who shot him, and from past experiences with similar cases I'm a bit wary in trusting the statement.

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by Sarcastic Coffeecup

[#00Buck]

9 minutes ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

At this point you are just intentionally missing the point to incite a reaction. If we want to nitpick the authority figure was anticipating the shot and firefight 8^)

You know there was a time when I thought you were an ok dude, but that's going downhill pretty fast.

Faster please.

[KryptoKroenen]

10 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

That's what we've been saying, he had a knife and lunged at him. There's nothing to argue.

Why do I have a feeling that although Coffecup spent a year in the military he never saw any real action or had any experience with real self-defense situations? He talks like a textbook, with theories and claims that look good on paper but don't generally work in the real world.

[#00Buck]

11 minutes ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

Well good to know at this point that you are talking about the fucking knife guy and not hypotheticals like I have, because if you read up on this little debate after I replied to Buck, there is nowhere a mention of the knife guy in the OP.

The knife guy thing brings another case of a question mark to this story. As far as I know there is no recorded footage of that available for us so all that we have is the word of the guys who shot him, and from past experiences with similar cases I'm a bit wary in trusting the statement.

 

I'll give you another situation to demonstrate the stupidity of you logic. 

Pre-Emptive:

A group of people who are suspected of being suicide bombers want to bomb a building 10 km away from their home. 

The police arrest them all even though they have almost no proof that they are terrorists. This is pre-emptive. 

During:

A group of people who are suspected of being suicide bombers want to bomb a building 10 km away from their home. 

They buy bomb making materials. They make a giant bomb in their basement. they load it into a van. They attach a detonator. They drive the van 5 KM in a straight line towards the building. 

The police arrest them. This is not pre-emptive. They are in the middle of committing their crime. Arresting them is totally reasonable. A crime was in the act of being committed. 

Coffee Cup Insanity Scenario:

They build the bomb and drive it to the building. They blow it up and kill themselves and everyone in the building dies including the suicide bombers. At this point the police are allowed to arrest them.

Oh wait. Everyone is dead. But it isn't pre-emptive. 

Edited February 7, 2016 by #00Buck

[PastryOfApathy]

7 minutes ago, KryptoKroenen said:

Why do I have a feeling that although Coffecup spent a year in the military he never saw any real action or had any experience with real self-defense situations? He talks like a textbook, with theories and claims that look good on paper but don't generally work in the real world.

To be fair, loads of people join the military and never see any kind of "action". Namely people in the airforce, mechanics and that kind of thing.

EDIT: I'm speaking mostly in terms of the US military. Of course it's doubly true in countries like South Korea.

Edited February 7, 2016 by PastryOfApathy

[#00Buck]

4 minutes ago, KryptoKroenen said:

Why do I have a feeling that although Coffecup spent a year in the military he never saw any real action or had any experience with real self-defense situations? He talks like a textbook, with theories and claims that look good on paper but don't generally work in the real world.

Socialist military that never fights anyone. 

The most important thing they teach you is "wait until the bullets shred your body before you shoot back." 

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

4 minutes ago, KryptoKroenen said:

Why do I have a feeling that although Coffecup spent a year in the military he never saw any real action or had any experience with real self-defense situations? He talks like a textbook, with theories and claims that look good on paper but don't generally work in the real world.

"Don't generally work in the real world"

I would kindly suggest you look up firearm, police and death statistics of any northern/scandinavian country. Many EU countries are also similar and fare pretty well in comparison with the US.

It fucking works, and there's some pretty solid proof of that to back it up.

 

[willow]

5 minutes ago, KryptoKroenen said:

Why do I have a feeling that although Coffecup spent a year in the military he never saw any real action or had any experience with real self-defense situations? He talks like a textbook, with theories and claims that look good on paper but don't generally work in the real world.

what does that have to do with anything though?

[#00Buck]

3 minutes ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

"Don't generally work in the real world"

I would kindly suggest you look up firearm, police and death statistics of any northern/scandinavian country. Many EU countries are also similar and fare pretty well in comparison with the US.

It fucking works, and there's some pretty solid proof of that to back it up.

 

Many EU countries are tiny and insignificant compared with the US. 

[KryptoKroenen]

6 minutes ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

"Don't generally work in the real world"

I would kindly suggest you look up firearm, police and death statistics of any northern/scandinavian country. Many EU countries are also similar and fare pretty well in comparison with the US.

It fucking works, and there's some pretty solid proof of that to back it up.

 

Yeah, you know what the funny thing about all those countries is? They aren't loaded up with non-white minorities who contribute significantly to the crime rates (like African Americans who comprise 13% of the population yet are responsible for 52% of all homicides according to the Department of Defense). Generally speaking, the whiter the country is, the lower the crime rate. Let's give credit where credit's due...unfortunately, facts are pretty racist. It's sad but true.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

3 minutes ago, willow said:

what does that have to do with anything though?

That wasn't an ad hominem as I wasn't trying to refute anything he said. I was merely making an observation.

Edited February 7, 2016 by KryptoKroenen

[willow]

1 minute ago, KryptoKroenen said:

That wasn't an ad hominem as I wasn't trying to refute anything he said. I was merely making an observation.

it was implied

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

7 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Many EU countries are tiny and insignificant compared with the US. 

 

4 minutes ago, KryptoKroenen said:

Yeah, you know what the funny thing about all those countries is? They aren't loaded up with non-white minorities who contribute significantly to the crime rates (like African Americans who comprise 13% of the population yet are responsible for 52% of all homicides according to the Department of Defense). Generally speaking, the whiter the country is, the lower the crime rate. Let's give credit where credit's due...unfortunately, facts are pretty racist.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

And so you both reveal your true colours. Not that I take Buck seriously on that

As racist as it sounds, minorities do amount to a fair number in the crime statistics that much is correct. Nonetheless you can crunch numbers and make "equal" comparisons to find the same answer, police fatalities are far more common in the US than anywhere else regardless of colouration and ethnicity. That's just the way it is

Edited February 7, 2016 by Sarcastic Coffeecup

[AshleyAshes]

2 minutes ago, KryptoKroenen said:

homicides according to the Department of Defense

Despite being a Canadian I have a really strong feeling that you don't know what the United States Department of Defense is and what statics it does not report on...

[#00Buck]

1 minute ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

 

And so you both reveal your true colours.

As racist as it sounds, minorities do amount to a fair number in the crime statistics that much is correct. Nonetheless you can crunch numbers and make "equal" comparisons to find the same answer, police fatalities are far more common in the US than anywhere else regardless of colouration and ethnicity. That's just the way it is

You're wrong. The police forces in Afghanistan and Iraq  have far more fatalities than any other police forces on the planet right now. 

Speaking of the middle east I like the way you totally avoided responding to my suicide bomber scenario as it illustrates very clearly that you have no clue what "pre-emptive" and "self-defence" actually mean. 

[KryptoKroenen]

7 minutes ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

 

And so you both reveal your true colours. Not that I take Buck seriously on that

As racist as it sounds, minorities do amount to a fair number in the crime statistics that much is correct. Nonetheless you can crunch numbers and make "equal" comparisons to find the same answer, police fatalities are far more common in the US than anywhere else regardless of colouration and ethnicity. That's just the way it is

The colors of a realist? Good.

First you say, "Minorities do amount to a fair (no, LARGE) number in the crime statistics that is much correct" and then you say, "police fatalities are far more common in the US than anywhere else regardless of colouration and ethnicity." You are contradicting yourself, the fatalities cannot be "regardless off" ethnicity if you admit to the fact that certain ethnic groups contribute significantly to the number of fatalities, and that this number would therefore drop if said ethnic groups were non-existent. ALSO you completely ignore what Buck said, that "Many EU countries are tiny and insignificant compared with the US." OF COURSE the fatality rates are going to be higher in the US considering we have a much higher population than any EU country, that's why you have to look at the percentages, not the numbers. And percentage-wise, judging by the crime statistics from the DOJ, if you removed all non-white ethnic groups from the picture we would have a crime and police fatality rate equal to that of your average European country. This is a documented fact.

Edited February 7, 2016 by KryptoKroenen