04-24-2021, 04:29 PM
It’s not admirable to kill a child, sorry. At best it’s the easy out. This fascination with certainty and guaranteed but narrow outcomes isn’t enforcement, it’s artificial justification based on pre-determined criteria, NOT situational criteria.
The other day cops killed a dude when they came to his house to arrest him on an outstanding warrant. He decided to get into his car and drive away. 14 shell casings later he’s dead. The fact that he was unarmed didn’t matter because the cops said his situation was pre-determined risk based on their training. Their training apparently does not include imminent threat, but assumed threat. Nothing situational, nothing “in the moment, how could they know” about it!
These guys are not making split-second decisions under hyper stressful conditions. That’s a myth and a lie. They see X, they do Y and to hell with the circumstances. It’s all in a training book somewhere. Probably a video.
Anything else, while we’re speculating?
I wasn’t aware tasers at close range were unreliable enough to not even be worth a try. She looked like she had plenty of area and thin clothing for taser probes to find purchase, no? I’d be shocked (no pun intended) that someone would still have both the strength and coordination after such an encounter. Anything that stops someone, even if it’s just a shoulder tap, remains perfectly capable against a lethal weapon, right? Then again, bullets can also miss. Maybe that’s why 4 is better than just one? Still no reply to that.
The other day cops killed a dude when they came to his house to arrest him on an outstanding warrant. He decided to get into his car and drive away. 14 shell casings later he’s dead. The fact that he was unarmed didn’t matter because the cops said his situation was pre-determined risk based on their training. Their training apparently does not include imminent threat, but assumed threat. Nothing situational, nothing “in the moment, how could they know” about it!
These guys are not making split-second decisions under hyper stressful conditions. That’s a myth and a lie. They see X, they do Y and to hell with the circumstances. It’s all in a training book somewhere. Probably a video.
RAMd®d wrote:
While not a deescalation, a Taser is a less-lethal tool that is a poor choice against a deadly weapon.
If both probes don't strike the suspect properly, or if it doesn't immediately stop the suspect, he/she is still a threat to a victim.
Not to mention, I'm not even sure that department has Tasers.
Anything else, while we’re speculating?
I wasn’t aware tasers at close range were unreliable enough to not even be worth a try. She looked like she had plenty of area and thin clothing for taser probes to find purchase, no? I’d be shocked (no pun intended) that someone would still have both the strength and coordination after such an encounter. Anything that stops someone, even if it’s just a shoulder tap, remains perfectly capable against a lethal weapon, right? Then again, bullets can also miss. Maybe that’s why 4 is better than just one? Still no reply to that.