Autistic suicidal Trans man murdered by police

[Rukh Whitefang]

1 hour ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

No warning shots? Not aiming at legs? Why not? Sounds better that than dumping the entire mag to upper torso, but what do I know, I'm not a US cop.

You ever carry a gun? You don't necessarily have time to aim for an appendage. If someone is rushing at you with a knife you aim for the chest. The cops were completely justified in shooting. Not to mention shooting to wound means instant lawsuit because people would demand that it wasn't a life threatening event.

 

 

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, 6tails said:

That kind of semantical bullshit is unacceptable. Protection implies armor. Also, the flak armor - still steel plates.

Different classes.  Saying 'Plate' implies some serious protection, typically only worn by tactical officers to defend against large caliber rounds.  When we're discussing the equipping of police there are implications that go with what kind of armor it is.  Frankly, street cops wearing carriers with plates in them is a pretty uncomfortable visual and force response in policing is a key topic in this thread.

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

Just now, Rukh Whitefang said:

You ever carry a gun? You don't necessarily have time to aim for an appendage. If someone is rushing at you with a knife you aim for the chest. The cops were completely justified in shooting. Not to mention shooting to wound means instant lawsuit because people would demand that it wasn't a life threatening event.

 

 

I have spent a year in the army and I know just how quick and easy it is to draw and take aim, trust me.

[Maug]

24 minutes ago, Snagged Cub said:

If a person attempts suicide for too many times, has rejected counseling multiple times or hasn't recovered from them and doesn't have relatives/friends who are willing to help then it should be considered to offer euthanasia (aka assisted suicide) for the person

I understand your concerns but you have to draw the end of the line somewhere when it comes to getting a suicidal person back on track

As for the OP, letting a policy arbitrarily decide on that matter because they felt threatened was definitely not right thing to do

Sorry I disagree with you. There is a reason such a law is not in effect, because it would be abused to get rid of people with mental disorders.

Again who decides how many suicide attempts are allowed before they are terminated? What is the person has a mental disorder and doesn't really want to die but has temporary bouts of depression forcing him to go off the deep end? What if his family are a bunch of dicks and have disowned him?

If a person really wants to kill himself , they will succeed eventually with or without any intervention.  But a law requiring the termination of someone who has attempted suicide too many times is too binary.

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by Maug

[Rukh Whitefang]

Just now, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

I have spent a year in the army and I know just how quick and easy it is to draw and take aim, trust me.

Then you should know that using a handgun its easier to aim for the torso than anything else. Police (and those with ccw) are taught to shoot to kill, not wound (lawsuit territory). Aim for the chest and bring the target down as quickly as possible.

This was a crappy situation all around. But the police are not murders because they shot someone running at them with a knife.

[Rassah]

 

 

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

7 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

Then you should know that using a handgun its easier to aim for the torso than anything else. Police (and those with ccw) are taught to shoot to kill, not wound (lawsuit territory). Aim for the chest and bring the target down as quickly as possible.

This was a crappy situation all around. But the police are not murders because they shot someone running at them with a knife.

Dude if you can aim at one point you can aim at any other. Center mass is easy enough since it doesn't flail around but you should at least try limbs first. If you are prepared to hammer that trigger to the chest you could also shoot the legs, it's pretty much a guaranteed hit with at least one round even with spam-mode the US people seem to love and it's usually enough to slow them down and defuse the situation.

In funland and MANY other countries shooting people is the last resort and they too have to deal with knife wielding maniacs, who are frankly much worse than just some depressed guy. Unsurprisingly people don't get shot as much.  It all boils down to what kind of training you get. I don't blame the cop for acting if he was doing what he was taught to, but then the issue goes even deeper and the training itself should be changed.

I am tired and it's late for me and I want you to open up that "lawsuit territory". You can't mean that they're taught to kill to avoid potential lawsuits, because that'd be insanity in itself.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Sarcastic Coffeecup

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, 6tails said:

Do Canadians not get Gall's magazine or something? Police have had segmented/tactical plate carriers on the inside of their uniforms available to them for ages for aesthetic purposes. You can barely tell they've got armor unless they're female.

Magazines? ^^';  My women's PSP 1120 with Helix II-F inserts sure as hell doesn't fit under the shirt and it's pretty common or a lot of police forces.  But hey, you read a magazine or something, that's cool.  Good for you. ^^;

 

 

[Cingal]

Protip for survival: Don't run at people who have guns if you've only got a knife.

[AshleyAshes]

'Police Dog', get it?

[willow]

police are trained to try and subdue an assailant before shooting them. or even if they do shoot, they're supposed to use non-lethal shots. if police were trained to kill every person who tries to attack them, then a lot of those mass shooters wouldn't be alive would they? but uhm, most if not all of them are still alive. 

 

also in some regard if the victim was trans or mentally ill, I believe journalists are obligated to report it.

[Rukh Whitefang]

7 minutes ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

Dude if you can aim at one point you can aim at any other. Center mass is easy enough since it doesn't flail around but you should at least try limbs first. If you are prepared to hammer that trigger to the chest you could also shoot the legs, it's pretty much a guaranteed hit with at least one round even with spam-mode the US people seem to love and it's usually enough to slow them down and defuse the situation.

In funland and MANY other countries shooting people is the last resort and they too have to deal with knife wielding maniacs, who are frankly much worse than just some depressed guy. Unsurprisingly people don't get shot as much.  It all boils down to what kind of training you get. I don't blame the cop for acting if he was doing what he was taught to, but then the issue goes even deeper and the training itself should be changed.

I am tired and it's late for me and I want you to open up that "lawsuit territory". You can't mean that they're taught to kill to avoid potential lawsuits, because that'd be insanity in itself.

Shooting center mass means less possibility of missing your target and hitting something else. IE like the case of the cop who missed and accidentally killed a 12 year old instead of shooting the man wielding a gun at the cops.

I take it you are not from the U.S? Here people are lawsuit happy. If I shoot and wound an intruder in my7 house I can and will have a civil lawsuit against me and can lose. Because it can somehow be proven that if I had enough time to shoot to wound then it wasn't immanently life threatening.

Also, its proven that if you wield a knife within 21 feet you have a chance of killing a person wielding a gun. Within 21 feet you may not have enough reaction time to shoot. Which again points to life threatening and shooting for center mass because its to fastest on target area..

[Toboe]

22 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

[...] Not to mention shooting to wound means instant lawsuit because people would demand that it wasn't a life threatening event.

Said lawsuits can't be made incase of a lethal shot (by the bereaved)?

That sounds majorly broken. Cause more damage to have less legal liability.

[Rukh Whitefang]

9 minutes ago, Toboe said:

Said lawsuits can't be made incase of a lethal shot (by the bereaved)?

That sounds majorly broken. Cause more damage to have less legal liability.

Look up civil lawsuits from home break ins that the person who broke in was shot and won a lawsuit due to being wounded. It happens. It shouldn't, but it does. If you have time to aim to wound, then the argument is it wasn't a immediate life threatening situation and another option should have been taken. Rather, shooting center mass, means little to no reaction time, meaning life threatening situation.

Also, its not known how close the person who was wielding the knife was. That is kinda important info.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Rukh Whitefang

[Toboe]

2 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

• If you have time to aim to wound, then the argument is it wasn't a immediate life threatening situation and another option should have been taken.
• Rather, shooting center mass, means little to no reaction time, meaning life threatening situation.

...

The problem is: I can actually believe such bullshit could have been successful.

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

3 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

Shooting center mass means less possibility of missing your target and hitting something else. IE like the case of the cop who missed and accidentally killed a 12 year old instead of shooting the man wielding a gun at the cops.

I take it you are not from the U.S? Here people are lawsuit happy. If I shoot and wound an intruder in my7 house I can and will have a civil lawsuit against me and can lose. Because it can somehow be proven that if I had enough time to shoot to wound then it wasn't immanently life threatening.

Also, its proven that if you wield a knife within 21 feet you have a chance of killing a person wielding a gun. Within 21 feet you may not have enough reaction time to shoot. Which again points to life threatening and shooting for center mass because its to fastest on target area..

This is fucking insane. I have just about no respect for the US at this point. I knew it was bad already, but killing people to avoid a potential failure in court is just beyond humanity.

I'm fucking done.

[AshleyAshes]

4 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

I take it you are not from the U.S? Here people are lawsuit happy. If I shoot and wound an intruder in my7 house I can and will have a civil lawsuit against me and can lose. Because it can somehow be proven that if I had enough time to shoot to wound then it wasn't immanently life threatening.

Can you cite any examples of this?  SUCCESSFUL examples?  I'm searching but I can't find any examples, though there's a LOT of cases in the news online so it's easy to miss something.  But I'm going to have to put the burden of proof on you.  I can just find examples that were thrown out of court for obvious reasons.

[Luka]

Would tasing be advisable for a person wielding a knife?

[KryptoKroenen]

1 hour ago, Toboe said:

Not to start that discussion, but Darwin's Discovery of processes can be accepted regardless of ones opinion whether those processes should be used in a society. Darwinian evolution =/= Social Darwinism

True, and being a Social Darwinist, that's partly the reason I support the cops in this instance.

3 minutes ago, 6tails said:

We had a lawsuit where a homeowner was sued by a burglar because the burglar tripped and injured himself. The burglar won.

Also: http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/06/can-a-burglar-sue-the-homeowner-for-injuries.html

http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2009/11/robber-can-sue-store-that-he-robbed.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_20605_5-victims-horrible-crimes-who-got-sued-by-criminal.html

See, in the USA, you can sue for ANYTHING. Whether you win or not is a different matter. Most criminals are indigent and can't ever repay your fees, so you get fucked on the legal costs. it becomes a lose-lose situation.

That's another reason I say shoot to kill, dead men tell no tales, nor can they sue you for anything.

[Rukh Whitefang]

8 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Can you cite any examples of this?  SUCCESSFUL examples?  I'm searching but I can't find any examples, though there's a LOT of cases in the news online so it's easy to miss something.  But I'm going to have to put the burden of proof on you.  I can just find examples that were thrown out of court for obvious reasons.

I'll start looking. Ive personally never seen shooting cases that have won. I recall some but don't remember if they were rumors not not. But the fact that there are dozens of excessive force lawsuits against homeowners is ridicules in itself. I can say with certainty the training I have received has always taught me to shoot center mass (shoot to kill). Partially because of lawsuit happy people, and because wounding doesn't always work.

1 minute ago, Luka said:

Would tasing be advisable for a person wielding a knife?

No, tasing doesn't always work, especially in the cases of mentally unstable persons. Plus, tasers can kill too. That happened in my city a couple years ago. And that family STILL sued to police for wrongful death.

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, 6tails said:

Also: http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/06/can-a-burglar-sue-the-homeowner-for-injuries.html

http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2009/11/robber-can-sue-store-that-he-robbed.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_20605_5-victims-horrible-crimes-who-got-sued-by-criminal.html

The first link fairly clearly states that a hypothetical burglar can't sue unless you're a wackjob that goes all Home Alone on their ass.

The second link only discuss a law suit that is being filed and can proceed, it does not state if it was successful or not. 

The third link, four out of five examples were dismissed.  The only successful example was where an employee successfully sued in response to his boss catching him stealing and, well, I'll just quote it: "Cremer and Gilbert marched to the police station, with Gilbert forced to wear a cardboard sign around his neck that read "THIEF I Stole 845 POUNDS AM ON MY WAY TO PoLice Station."  ...Yeah, you can't do that.

So, you linked that in response for me asking for examples of SUCCESSFUL lawsuits after injuring a home invader.  I can only assume that you had the wrong links on your clipboard when you hit CTRL-V.

 

5 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

I'll start looking. Ive personally never seen shooting cases that have won. I recall some but don't remember if they were rumors not not.

You might want to actually do some research into this.  Because 'I made sure I killed him so I wouldn't get sued' is a super way to find yourself the subject of a wrongful deathlaw suit.  ...Or murder charges.  I'm just sayin' man, you should make 100% sure on this instead of 'Could be a rumor' before you kill a person. 

[AshleyAshes]

2 minutes ago, 6tails said:

The burglar wins because you essentially can't recover legal fees from a broke, indigent person.

Legal fees are generally covered by the home insurance in cases like this.   Also, ya know, one could suffessfully FILE a law suit for lots of things assuming they had sufficient representation.  I could literally FILE a law suit against ANYONE for ANYTHING even if it'd be promptly dismissed.  By that reasoning you should just not... Do... Well, anything. 

Edited February 7, 2016 by AshleyAshes

[willow]

15 minutes ago, Luka said:

Would tasing be advisable for a person wielding a knife?

Generally a taser can be used to subdue people, yes. 

 

[Rukh Whitefang]

13 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

 

You might want to actually do some research into this.  Because 'I made sure I killed him so I wouldn't get sued' is a super way to find yourself the subject of a wrongful deathlaw suit.  ...Or murder charges.  I'm just sayin' man, you should make 100% sure on this instead of 'Could be a rumor' before you kill a person. 

There are cases where buglers were injured (failing, tripping etc..) and won cases. There are cases were home owners had to go to court to defend a justified shooting (yes the home owners won) but still had to fight it out in court.
Its a lose-lose situation. If I fire my gun in self defense and wound someone I will more than likely be sued for excessive force, and if I kill someone in self defense I can be sued for wrongful death. Welcome to the U.S (where people sue over hot coffee cups).

All the training I have received has said over and over, shoot center mass. And shoot at least 2 rounds). Heck some instructors teach to empty an entire clip.

 

Edit: Also if in court if it can be argued that you fired to protect property and not self defense, you lose. So the plaintiff (the burglar) has to argue that your life was not in danger.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Rukh Whitefang

[Snagged]

1 hour ago, Maug said:

Sorry I disagree with you. There is a reason such a law is not in effect, because it would be abused to get rid of people with mental disorders.

Again who decides how many suicide attempts are allowed before they are terminated? What is the person has a mental disorder and doesn't really want to die but has temporary bouts of depression forcing him to go off the deep end? What if his family are a bunch of dicks and have disowned him?

If a person really wants to kill himself , they will succeed eventually with or without any intervention.  But a law requiring the termination of someone who has attempted suicide too many times is too binary.

 

You're right.

But the world isn't ready yet

[AshleyAshes]

4 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

There are cases where buglers were injured (failing, tripping etc..) and won cases.

It's not though.  The whole myth of 'If a burglar falls down your stairs, you're responsible!' is just that, a myth.  It's actually regarded that in legal circles.  It's never actually HAPPENED.  (Again, excluding crazy examples where someone literally laid booby traps and Home Alone type stuff)

[Rassah]

Don't call police on people or for help. They're dangerous!

[AshleyAshes]

4 minutes ago, 6tails said:

No, it is not. If your home is in such negligent disrepair or disarray as to present a hazard to ANY person entering the property, legally or not, you are responsible.

Again, do not speak on USA topics when you are not a USA citizen. You only serve to make yourself look ignorant and stupid.

Just quoting your own link here.

Quote

Trespassers, including burglars, are people who do not have permission or a lawful right to be on a homeowner's property. Homeowners, generally, have no duty to protect trespassers from dangers.

Kinda why you can't sue for falling into a hole after breaking into a construction site to steal the copper wiring.

[Rukh Whitefang]

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

It's not though.  The whole myth of 'If a burglar falls down your stairs, you're responsible!' is just that, a myth.  It's actually regarded that in legal circles.  It's never actually HAPPENED.  (Again, excluding crazy examples where someone literally laid booby traps and Home Alone type stuff)

You really don't understand how it works in the U.S do you? Wrong. Robber got cough in Patrick Walsh's house, and a fight broke out. Robber broke a window trying to get out of house fell to the ground. Officers arrested Mr Walsh on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Had to fight it out in court and then had to fight a civil lawsuit on top of that.

Also better not have a dog in your house cause if a burglar gets attacked and mauled he can sue you for damages too... This is the U.S, you can and will get sued for anything and have to fight it out in court. Every gun instructor I have spoken too (one is a close friend) has said the same thing. Shoot center mass.

[Snagged]

1 minute ago, 6tails said:

No, it is not. If your home is in such negligent disrepair or disarray as to present a hazard to ANY person entering the property, legally or not, you are responsible.

A burglar shouldn't be in your home in the first place for "a surprise inspection"

I think that the trauma/damages of the intrusion to home owner and injury of the burglar ought to financially offset each other depending on how much damage was taken

However, I am not opposed of the burglary setting off an authentic inspection into neglective homeowner's house and then getting fined for the negligence. Because a dangerous home is dangerous for everyone and that issue should be fixed ASAP

[Rassah]

I used to be in the insurance business. 6tails is right with regards to people being hurt on your property, regardless of why they were there. You do need liability insurance for those cases. But home insurance does usually include a liability component.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Rassah

[AshleyAshes]

7 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

You really don't understand how it works in the U.S do you? Wrong. Robber got cough in Patrick Walsh's house, and a fight broke out. Robber broke a window trying to get out of house fell to the ground.  Officers arrested Mr Walsh on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Had to fight it out in court and then had to fight a civil lawsuit on top of that.

Okay... Uhm, a few things?

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/no-action-over-burglar-death-1000583

Patrick Walsh was BRITISH, so why did you say 'You really don't understand how it works in the US?' and then cite something that happened in England?  You guys won the Revolutionary war, remember?   Also, Walsh was never criminally charged and while he was briefly arrested, he never had to fight anything out in court.  Also he was never sued. 

Or is there an ENTIRELY different Patrick Walsh who had a burglar fall to his death out his window? o____o

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by AshleyAshes

[Rukh Whitefang]

Just a question, has anyone here been forced to pull a gun (or nearly had to) for self defense? Its not a fun/easy situation. And its always a fluid fast moving situation, and stressful.

[AshleyAshes]

 

2 minutes ago, 6tails said:

The US system of justice is based off of the British system of Justice. *facepalm* They mirror each other fairly uniformly.

This totally jives with how you've constantly insisted that we should be talking about how it works in America.  Especially the part about how there was no criminal or civil trial in the UK while you insist the opposite about America.

 

[Clove Darkwave]

It's awful this is what it came to. Shitty sensationalist headlines as always. Awful to see the US Police failed its citizens yet again.

[Rukh Whitefang]

Just now, Clove Darkwave said:

It's awful this is what it came to. Shitty sensationalist headlines as always. Awful to see the US Police failed its citizens yet again.

First, not all the facts are public. Making an assumption like this is just the mob mentality problem. Second the guy rushed at the cops with a knife in close quarters. Its a well established fact that a knife wielding individual poses a very real threat under 21 feet to someone who has a gun. In fact there was an entire episode of Mythbusters that had proven a knife can win a gun fight in close range.

Rushing a cop in close quarters with a knife means you are going to get shot.

[Clove Darkwave]

6 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

First, not all the facts are public. Making an assumption like this is just the mob mentality problem. Second the guy rushed at the cops with a knife in close quarters. Its a well established fact that a knife wielding individual poses a very real threat under 21 feet to someone who has a gun. In fact there was an entire episode of Mythbusters that had proven a knife can win a gun fight in close range.

Rushing a cop in close quarters with a knife means you are going to get shot.

The person is dead. That's a fact.

The Police is "To Serve and Protect". That's also a fact.

That's all I have to say. I'm not going to argue semantics with you.

[Rukh Whitefang]

3 minutes ago, Clove Darkwave said:

The person is dead. That's a fact.

The Police is "To Serve and Protect". That's also a fact.

That's all I have to say. I'm not going to argue semantics with you.

Yes, a person is dead. It could have been cops dead too. Cops also have to protect themselves.

If people think the cops are doing a horrible job, then get of your butts and go join the police force, and see what a day in their shoes is like.
A local state cop was murdered at a traffic stop the other year. Pulled over a speeding car and was shot in the head. You have no idea the stress they go through on a daily basis.
I'm tired of police bashing.

[willow]

21 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

In fact there was an entire episode of Mythbusters that had proven a knife can win a gun fight in close range

how close though? because 21 feet is still considerably far unless you plan to throw it, which also requires a bit of skill and accuracy. 

Edit: yes the police have to protect themselves but like I've already mentioned, lethal force is supposed to be a last resort for self defense, not the first thing you go for. 

Edited February 7, 2016 by willow

[Therapy Sergal]

Knew it's going to be USA even before clicking the link.
 

[Rukh Whitefang]

10 minutes ago, willow said:

how close though? because 21 feet is still considerably far unless you plan to throw it, which also requires a bit of skill and accuracy. 

Mythbusters tested at 21 feet and then moved closer. Running with a knife at someone within that range at a person who has to draw a gun and aim, then shoot the knife has a good chance of winning.

 

And a better video shows why Cops shoot someone with a knife rather than use a taser. And shows that a minimun of 21 feet is necessary to react with a holstered firearm.

So the cops in the OP must have had them already drawn at their sides since the guy was in a room (bedroom) and rushed at them with a knife. Thats the only reason those cops didn't get stabbed.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Rukh Whitefang

[Rassah]

34 minutes ago, 6tails said:

The liability insurance, I was under the impression, covered things like things you've done to the property, such as additional construction, and did not cover things like negligent disrepair.

Liability would cover things like someone slipping and falling on ice, tripping on your stairs, or having your tree fall on them or their property. You're right, the "negligence" gets tricky. If you were really careless and it was something you could have easily prevented, then you probably won't be covered.

[willow]

5 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

Mythbusters tested at 21 feet and then moved closer. Running with a knife at someone within that range at a person who has to draw a gun and aim, then shoot the knife has a good chance of winning.

 

And a better video shows why Cops shoot someone with a knife rather than use a taser.

 

It looks like they're shooting downwards in some of those instances which would imply they intend to hit their legs. 

[Rassah]

14 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

If people think the cops are doing a horrible job, then get of your butts and go join the police force...

First, cops are SUPPOSED to expect that they will be in dangerous situations, and should act accordingly, not like some scared shitless civilians.

Second, if you join a police force, and try to improve things, including by keeping check on corrupt cops and cops who use excessive force, you'll probably get killed yourself.

[Rukh Whitefang]

9 minutes ago, willow said:

It looks like they're shooting downwards in some of those instances which would imply they intend to hit their legs. 

These cops are just reacting trying to just fire their gun off. At that close range and under that level of duress aiming is not going to be very feasible. Its point and fire at close range. If, you can even get your gun out and fire. And the video shows that unless the gun is already drawn, you will get stabbed unless the individual if 21 feet or more away when the knife is pulled.

These cops were not aware what has going to happen, they were just told to investigate something.

6 minutes ago, Rassah said:

First, cops are SUPPOSED to expect that they will be in dangerous situations, and should act accordingly, not like some scared shitless civilians.

Second, if you join a police force, and try to improve things, including by keeping check on corrupt cops and cops who use excessive force, you'll probably get killed yourself.

Yes, they are trained. That doesn't mean that they can always react with super human abilities though, nor does it mean that they won't make mistakes. Human after all. I am just sick of all the vitriol against police. I have friends that put on the uniform everyday. If people think being a cop is easy, then they themselves should go and join up.

Second if you are suggesting that police forces would kill someone who is trying to get corruption under control, you veering down  the conspiracy theory tunnel. This isn't the 1920's where Al Capone had entire police forces in his pocketbook.

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by Rukh Whitefang

[Rassah]

Can the cops, like, step back? Maybe ask questions and assess the situation before going in?

[KryptoKroenen]

1 hour ago, 6tails said:

Their next of kin/spouse can sue you for all kinds of crap from unlawful estrangement to wrongful death.

You apparently fail at inference (and are great at quote failing.) The burglar wins because you essentially can't recover legal fees from a broke, indigent person.

That's a success. You've caused monetary damage to your victim on top of whatever crime you have committed.

There is ALWAYS going to be some way that you lose, but it's sure better than dying. If someone attacks you with a deadly weapon, and you cannot run, the best response is to kill them. 

[Rukh Whitefang]

1 minute ago, Rassah said:

Can the cops, like, step back? Maybe ask questions and assess the situation before going in?

The cops were bum rushed outside of a dark room in the house. Are you actually saying that if someone is rushing at you with a knife your reaction would be to take a step back and go "hold on, you might not want to do this"? Meanwhile in the real world you would have been stabbed and/or slashed to death (if you are you are incredibly foolish). Look at the videos I just posted.

[Crazy Lee]

If we want to really figure out the problem with events like this, we may want to go back to the 70s. Back then we had something called Deinstitutionalisation. State run mental hospitals were shut down and people released. This was driven by both civil rights liberals who decried the bad conditions of said hospitals, and conservatives who wanted to shut down the hospitals to save money. In some ways, this was good, because people in those hospitals were often mistreated and it was very easy to be put in one without due process, and harder to get out. However, what ended up happening is people who were incapable of taking care of themselves were tossed on the streets. Private outpatient mental health facilities were underfunded under people like Regan and incapable of taking care of mental patients. So guess who had to deal with them? The police and the prison system.

Many people with mental health issues were able to cope and live mostly normal lives, but many of them self-medicated using drugs, or became homeless. They ended up becoming afoul of the law, and the cops only had one option to deal with them, which was just toss them in prison, which fixed nothing. Often they would end up in solitary which would just make them worse. But I ramble a bit.

 

One of the biggest problems I have with the way cops are trained today is the fact they seem unable to be trained to handle situations like this. As Rukh has mentioned, there's that 21 foot rule... the idea that if someone's 21 feet or closer that they could run and reach an officer before the officer is capable of pulling out his gun. It seems that police training emphasizes a shoot first, ask questions later attitude. Training like that 21 foot rule teach cops to be afraid of being killed at any time. Police have it beaten into their skulls that at any moment, someone might kill them. That someone might be concealing a weapon. That they may not see their family and children, that their beat will be their last. With that kind of training, what do you expect? Police will assume that there are threats all around them when there are none. They'll be on edge, afraid of the possibility of dying.

But that's the thing. The whole purpose of being an officer is to serve the public, not yourself. It's like being a soldier in the military. The point is that you might DIE sometime during your service, which sucks, but it's part of the job. You're there to protect the innocent, not yourself. You should be ready to sacrifice your own life to protect others. That's why I say a lot of police today have no testicles. I don't want to see a cop die, but as a cop they should not be putting the importance of their own life ahead of the people they are serving. But when police are trained to be sensitive on the trigger and see threats everywhere where there are none, they will be afraid and shoot threats that weren't threats. Police need to be trained to diffuse situations, not use their guns out of fear of dying.

(I will say that I believe that such training is a result of our failed War on Drugs and tough on crime policy, and we see how much that helped).

But when you have bad training of cops and a mental health system that fails the people and often puts people in prison instead of helping them, shit like this happens.

 

3 hours ago, Vae said:

I believe that people should be allowed to kill themselves if they wish. Personal autonomy is all we really, truly have, and no one has to live your life at the end of the day except you.

While I believe in people choosing their own paths in life, I have trouble agreeing with this entirely. When someone commits suicide, it doesn't just affect them. They don't live in a vacuum. Family members and friends will likely be severely emotionally scarred because of the suicide, not to mention the high financial bill to bury the suicide victim (funerals are NOT CHEAP by a long shot). We live in a society where all our actions affect the people around us and if you're going to be a normal member of that society, you need to take into account how your actions may screw over the people around you.

2 hours ago, Zerig said:

I knew OP was retarded but I'm surprised so many people agree with them

Rude!
Should I be offended? Or just dismiss you as petty and silly for using insults instead of debate. I think the latter...

1 hour ago, Sylver said:

I don't particularly care, but I find it interesting. This is my thought trail:

 - Question: why do the news websites all use keywords such as "Transgender" "Woman" "Aspergers"

Clickbait, as it draws sympathy. It may be suggesting that the police officer's decision to shoot her was affected by those traits.

HIM.

I noticed the vast majority of the news sites out there referred to him by his birth name and gender, which is why I mentioned it.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Crazy Lee

[KryptoKroenen]

9 minutes ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

These cops are just reacting trying to just fire their gun off. At that close range and under that level of duress aiming is not going to be very feasible. Its point and fire at close range. If, you can even get your gun out and fire. And the video shows that unless the gun is already drawn, you will get stabbed unless the individual if 21 feet or more away when the knife is pulled.

These cops were not aware what has going to happen, they were just told to investigate something.

Yes, they are trained. That doesn't mean that they can always react with super human abilities though, nor does it mean that they won't make mistakes. Human after all. I am just sick of all the vitriol against police. I have friends that put on the uniform everyday. If people think being a cop is easy, then they themselves should go and join up.

Second if you are suggesting that police forces would kill someone who is trying to get corruption under control, you veering down  the conspiracy theory tunnel. This isn't the 1920's where Al Capone had entire police forces in his pocketbook.

 

Agreed, you know all these people are suppressing a deep dislike for police in the first place merely because they are authority, and this is just an excuse to let their anger out. It's an inherent rebelliousness towards authority which motivates intense dislike for anyone who enforces it.