News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
How should police have handled it?
The bodycam video shows the officer approaching with his gun holstered, drawing it while backing up, turning and trying to run away, while the kid quickly closes the distance and tries to strike the officer's face, head, and upper body with a long-handled tool.
How should the officer have handled this?
How would you have handled this?
If a random person were attacked in such a manner, is it possible that they could have lost an eye? Is it possible that they could have been permanently disfigured? Had their carotid artery severed and quickly bled out? Been knocked out?
Is it possible that a reasonable person could have reasonably believed this attacker posed a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm to an innocent person?
First of all, they got radios. He knew cop number 2 was a second behind him. So have the tactical patience to group properly.
Designate a lethal guy and a non lethal guy.
In the future, train actual hand to hand to trap an arm holding a weapon and neutralize it.
We don't pay police to kill us.
Ah. The Uvalde Gambit.
Oh so those are the choices? No engagement at all until a third party intervenes or charging in like a Call of Duty player?
That's not a good faith argument.
The other choice is what most humans would do. That's remove yourself from what you perceive as a dangerous situation. I know it hurts fee fees when ego is on the line but better than killing someone.
Right? The kid was no longer threatening the family. Lead him to your partner. Do a dance around the patrol car.
Nope straight to shooting kids.
Uvalde was a shooter attacking children while police stood by. This is a completely different situation.
Correct. I wasn't referring to this situation.
I was referring to the parent comment, where they suggested responding officers should wait around outside, while the kid is trying to kill his family members inside.
This kid charged as soon as the first officer made verbal contact with the occupants. So, when called to a domestic dispute, where a family member has been reported using a weapon, parent comment seems to suggest adopting a policy of "stick thumb up ass and wait until we have overwhelming force" before even approaching the scene.
Ignore that the enraged attacker is trying to kill people inside. Ignore that the occupants are calling for help. Just stand by and wait for more people.
That's what police did at Uvalde. Parent comment is recommending a policy consistent with the bungled response at Uvalde.
"Uvalde Gambit" concisely implies the problems with parent comment's suggestion: waiting consistently leads to worse outcomes than immediate actions.
A taser?
Are you asking or telling? Are you telling me that it would have been more appropriate to use a tazer, or are you asking me if a tazer would have been a feasible option?
Are you trained and qualified to determine when and how to employ a tazer? Are you qualified to discuss the conditions under which a tazer can or should be employed?
Basically, do you actually know what you're talking about when you mention a tazer?
I'm not trained in how to employ a tazer, but a cop probably should be.
It seems like there ought to be some way to safely help a teenager having a mental breakdown without killing them.
Clearly. If you had been trained on the proper use of a taser, you would recognize that they can't be effectively employed in the way you suggest.
You might as well be arguing that the cop should have just shot the weapon out of the kid's hands. It's just as feasible.
I'm not asking you. I'm phrasing it as a question because it's one of the most blatantly obvious answers to your question. A taser is better unquestionably when someone is coming after you with clearly not a gun. Yes. I'm not trained but I have enough common sense to realize that not killing someone who's chasing you with a clearly non lethal weapon is much better than killing them.
The weapon in question is a metal blade on a stick.
It is readily capable of destroying an eye. (Aka: "Grievous bodily harm") It is readily capable of severing the carotid artery. (Aka: "death") It is capable of causing a wide variety of similar permanently debilitating, disfiguring, or lethal injuries to the officer in a very short period of time.
The video shows that the kid was attempting to strike a retreating officer in the head or upper body. Any person in the officer's position would reasonably fear a significant possibility of death or grievous bodily harm from this attack.
I therefore reject your assertion that the weapon being employed against the officer can be reasonably described as "clearly non lethal".
How was that tool clearly non lethal? If fists are potentially lethal, then a long sturdy tool sure as hell is.
It would have been a better option than the gun.
Disagree?
How could a tazer have been employed in this situation?
<.< Well, y’see, a taser and a gun are very similar in these instances. You take it out, point it at the target, and pull the trigger.
Since there were two cops, that means there were two tasers. Funny how two guns were used though, as if they never even considered using their tasers?
Yes. Yes, they are.
Sometimes I forget that most people have zero training in defensive force.
Tell me: how accurately can well-trained personnel put rounds on target in immediate, defensive situations? How many hits can they land in the time it takes an attacker to land his first blow? How many misses? How about by his second blow? I know what I have been taught, but you're not going to trust me. Go find that number.
When you find the real-world hit percentages in close-quarters combat. multiply it times two for the number of times they can shoot their tasers.
If that number is less than 1, the attacker is more likely to land a blow than not.
Next, multiply it by 30 to 38, for the number of times they could shoot their handguns. Now you have a reasonable tool for stopping a deadly attack.
Most adults would take a knife to the arm to protect a child, but god forbid taking a garden tool to the arm to not shoot one.
This kid's own family was unwilling to take such a hit from this kid, but you expect it from a complete stranger?
Yes?
Would you save a child from being shot at the cost of being stabbed?
Nope.
This kid's family did the right thing when they asked people with guns to stop their child from murdering someone.
Shoot the tazer darts at the boy while he's approaching instead of bullets?
Did you watch the video? Remember: each and every blow the kid lands with that weapon has the possibility of permanently maiming, disfiguring, or killing the officer.
Watching the video, the officer was able to draw his gun, but was not able to get it on target before the kid was within striking distance, and swinging his weapon at the officer's head or upper body. The video ends before we see who actually fired the shots.
That's the risk of being in a job that isn't even in the top 20 most dangerous jobs in America.
As you were told elsewhere, soldiers in war zones wouldn't act this way and their job is far more dangerous.
You're just encouraging police cowardice. Not that it needs to be encouraged.
You always know you're going to hear some pig fellating boot sucking shit take when someone calls oinkers "officer".
Gotcha.
It is "cowardice" to take effective steps to stop an attacker from jamming a garden hoe in your neck.
Understood.
it is cowardice to conclude lethal force is the only option here.
So there are no possible effective steps that could have been taken without murdering the boy?
Amazing cops aren't murdered constantly in Europe.
By pulling it out of his holster instead of the gun.