Started By
Message
re: Auburn Police Shoot Mentally Ill Woman
Posted on 4/12/16 at 3:15 pm to AUbagman
Posted on 4/12/16 at 3:15 pm to AUbagman
quote:
I'm aware of how far 21 feet is. And no, unless it's Usain Bolt holding a knife, they've got over 2 seconds on average.
I take it you didn't watch the video I posted.
I'm not arguing a theory here. I'm giving absolute, easily demonstrated facts. If an attacker is 21' away and charges, there is a good chance you won't even get your weapon raised if it is holstered.
0
Posted on 4/12/16 at 3:19 pm to AUbagman
quote:
It's that simple. I don't know why this has become such a long and drawn out argument.
It's not actually that simple. You are trying real hard to make it that simple though.
When she charged the officers in a threatening manner where was she? Were there any other civilians around? Is their safety important?
Currently, lethal force is met with lethal force. I have no problem with that.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 3:27 pm to AUbagman
quote:
I don't know why this has become such a long and drawn out argument.
Maybe because you continue to talk out your arse, as demonstrated by
quote:
What's funny, the most effective weapon against a fricking 600 lb charging grizzley is pepper spray.
Just curious if you know the range at which bear spray is supposed to be employed? Hint - it is further out than the 21' we've been discussing. Almost as if that's too close. Interesting.....
Posted on 4/12/16 at 3:34 pm to JustGetItRight
Surely you don't think a person would continue on their path of momentum as a 600 lb grizzley would? Surely you jest!?
This post was edited on 4/12/16 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 4/12/16 at 4:03 pm to AUbagman
quote:
Surely you don't think a person would continue on their path of momentum as a 600 lb grizzley would? Surely you jest!?
I certainly don't think that a person would bring the same momentum, but at the same time an animal does not typically bring the same determination to continue an attack that people possess.
About 20% of people aren't affected at all or are mildly affected by pepper spray. An even higher percentage (some studies say as high as 50%) continue to resist/attack after being sprayed.
Someone's charging you with a knife. Are you willing to bet they're not the 1 in 5?
Posted on 4/12/16 at 4:56 pm to JustGetItRight
quote:
but at the same time an animal does not typically bring the same determination to continue an attack that people possess
I don't know why we're arguing still, but that's a foolish statement. A mother with a cub will not stop until she's physically unable.
As for the 20% figure, where are you pulling these stats? It seems you just want to argue against any and all means of non-deadly force. I just don't understand that mindset. They walk into these situations a lot of times being told point blank the person is mentally unstable. If you can't see there is a problem in how a lot of these situations are handled, or you don't think there could be better alternatives, I'd rather not continue the conversation with you.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 5:07 pm to AggieDub14
What a tragedy. 
You're right, she didn't have to die-- cops should know how to handle high pressure situations better than this, especially considering they knew they were responding to a request to help hospitalize someone mentally ill.
You're right, she didn't have to die-- cops should know how to handle high pressure situations better than this, especially considering they knew they were responding to a request to help hospitalize someone mentally ill.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 5:42 pm to jbond
Cops know how to handle lethal force being displayed just fine. It was met with lethal force.
Whole lotta James Bond believers up in here.
Charge an armed person with a knife and this, sadly, is what happens. It's completely justified based on their training to protect the public. Can't have crazy knife wielders killing cops or individual citizens when the tripping device fails.
Whole lotta James Bond believers up in here.
Charge an armed person with a knife and this, sadly, is what happens. It's completely justified based on their training to protect the public. Can't have crazy knife wielders killing cops or individual citizens when the tripping device fails.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 7:36 pm to Supravol22
quote:I agree.
I think blame should be placed on the person threatening others with a deadly weapon.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 7:50 pm to jbond
Tragedy? No.
What would be a tragedy is if they resorted to none-lethal force and it failed. Then In failing it led to an officer or civilian being severely or mortally wounded. That's a tragedy, and we'd be discussing why they didn't resort to leathal force in the 1st place.
What would be a tragedy is if they resorted to none-lethal force and it failed. Then In failing it led to an officer or civilian being severely or mortally wounded. That's a tragedy, and we'd be discussing why they didn't resort to leathal force in the 1st place.
This post was edited on 4/12/16 at 7:51 pm
Posted on 4/12/16 at 8:47 pm to memphisplaya
Right, the suicidal, mentally unstable person isn't worthy of compassion.
I understand LE has a hard job, but they're paid to do it and they assume the risks when they decide they want to do it. Them being killed during the course of their work is no more fricking tragic than a truck driver that is killed in an auto accident during the process of delivery groceries for you to pick off the shelves.
I understand LE has a hard job, but they're paid to do it and they assume the risks when they decide they want to do it. Them being killed during the course of their work is no more fricking tragic than a truck driver that is killed in an auto accident during the process of delivery groceries for you to pick off the shelves.
This post was edited on 4/12/16 at 8:48 pm
Posted on 4/13/16 at 4:40 am to terd ferguson
quote:
You fail to include time and distance.
No. I used common sense for that one. I *am* assuming she's not a fricking cheetah, so speed of movement shouldn't be significantly faster than an officer. Then, typical procedure would not have had the police officers approach a woman with a weapon in hand prior to attempting to assess the situation at a distance and de-escalate the situation verbally, so I can't envision a scenario where they were so close to her that they wouldn't have had sufficient time and distance to utilize a taser.
Posted on 4/13/16 at 6:39 am to AUbagman
quote:
they're paid to do it
not very well for putting themselves in to danger, but they are paid
quote:
they assume the risks when they decide they want to do it
yes, but that risk does not entail being required to take on a knife wielding person charging them without using their gun.
If we pay them more to put themselves in greater danger and have better training in place then we can start to hold them to such a standard.
Posted on 4/13/16 at 7:16 am to DrunkerThanThou
quote:
family called the cops with the express intent so they could stop her from hurting herself.
This is always a danger.
Be absolutely sure your loved one is in serious danger before calling the cops to come shoot them.
Posted on 4/13/16 at 10:06 am to Realistic Ag
quote:
It probably is pretty tough for a bipolar person already in a bad mental state.
Darwin has an explanation for this - wanna hear it?
Posted on 4/13/16 at 1:45 pm to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
yes, but that risk does not entail being required to take on a knife wielding person charging them without using their gun.
Did I ever say they shouldn't protect themselves, or have every right to do so? My argument has been there has to be a better way that's not lethal. Sheesh.
Posted on 4/13/16 at 2:04 pm to AUbagman
I never pretended you said they shouldn't protect themselves, just that
or being required to protect themselves and stop the person using non-lethal force as another way of putting it, would inherently increase the risk to themselves. One way we could expect that, would be to pay the officers a lot more to take on that additional risk.
I'd love for there to be a better way, but I'm not sure what that is that would provide officers the same level of personal protection / safety.
quote:
being required to take on a knife wielding person charging them without using their gun.
or being required to protect themselves and stop the person using non-lethal force as another way of putting it, would inherently increase the risk to themselves. One way we could expect that, would be to pay the officers a lot more to take on that additional risk.
I'd love for there to be a better way, but I'm not sure what that is that would provide officers the same level of personal protection / safety.
This post was edited on 4/13/16 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 4/13/16 at 2:20 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
People suffering from mental illness don't think rationally
That doesn't mean officers have a responsibility to risk death due to the threat of lethal force against them. Often times, people with mental illness, are having those episodes, because they CHOSE not to take their medication.
Officers or anyone for that matter, have a right to protect themselves or others from anyone threatening lethal force. Despite the mental reservation of the person threatening it.
Posted on 4/13/16 at 2:57 pm to AggieDub14
Posted on 4/14/16 at 9:50 am to Alahunter
quote:
That doesn't mean officers have a responsibility to risk death due to the threat of lethal force against them. Often times, people with mental illness, are having those episodes, because they CHOSE not to take their medication.
It's weird because EMS and nurses will handle these folks on the reg. Perhaps we need to arm our nurses.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News