• Police shoot crazy guy waving a knife in the middle of times square, all of it was caught on film
    282 replies, posted
[QUOTE=xxncxx;37191195]they attempted pepperspray.[/QUOTE] One instance of non-lethal force doesn't strike me as enough
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37191278] yelling at someone isn't a "non lethal" takedown, it's a verbal warning like seriously this is the dumbest shit ever[/QUOTE] A non-lethal takedown is a verbal takedown. Tasers/nightsticks, physical force in general isn't non-lethal, it's less-lethal and a retarded way to respond to a lethal weapon.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;37191150]I'm starting to think that you're PUI.[/QUOTE] far from w/e im not even going to bother arguing since im not allowed to have an opinion
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37191209]if the taser doesn't work then aight go and shoot the guy i'm just saying you should at least give it a shot?[/QUOTE]No, you shouldn't. When an individual poses a serious threat, they are trained to shoot to kill to guarantee it will neutralize the threat. Any time lost by using an alternative method is time that can be used to inflict harm on others.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;37191295]One instance of non-lethal force doesn't strike me as enough[/QUOTE] Dude... He shrugged off fucking pepper spray. He would have probably shrugged off the tazer.
[QUOTE=xxncxx;37191304]far from w/e im not even going to bother arguing since im not allowed to have an opinion[/QUOTE]You can have an opinion, but we're going to tell you why your opinion is crap.
[QUOTE=xxncxx;37191304]far from w/e im not even going to bother arguing since im not allowed to have an opinion[/QUOTE] Uh, nobodies saying that. We're saying your opinion is stupid and wrong.
Hell they could have used a water-cannon, there is lots of shit they could have done, but didn't. Maybe it was logistical or they were under pressure, I don't know, the fact is that someone died which is always unfortunate
[QUOTE=xxncxx;37191304]far from w/e im not even going to bother arguing since im not allowed to have an opinion[/QUOTE] It's just that we find your extended defense of risking people's lives unnecessarily rather annoying.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;37191314]Hell they could have used a water-cannon, there is lots of shit they could have done, but didn't. Maybe it was logistical or they were under pressure, I don't know, the fact is that someone died which is always unfortunate[/QUOTE] Where the fuck would they get a water cannon? Why would they use a water cannon on one guy with a knife? Could you start thinking logically for one second?
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;37191314]Hell they could have used a water-cannon, there is lots of shit they could have done, but didn't. Maybe it was logistical or they were under pressure, I don't know, the fact is that someone died which is always unfortunate[/QUOTE]You mean spend the time to roll out a fire truck, connect a hose to a hydrant, then actually have to fire it at him? You're just getting regressive now.
I remember an old image (not going to search it up) but it was a comparison between how two countries handle a situation where a person is going to jump. The first one was in America, where they blocked off a whole city block and spent 5 hours negotiating, arrested the guy, and spent a bunch of money on a trial. Then the other was in china or some Asian country, where the negotiator came up to the person threatening to jump, shot him in the head, and everyone went on with their day. I don't get why people make such a big deal about people being shot, if your crazy enough to threaten random people and law enforcement then you fully know well that it's not going to end well for you. If a person goes to those lengths then by all means kill him, life goes on. Same goes for people who murder others and then get caught, if I was a officer I would shoot a guy dead if he had killed 4 people prior, there is really no point in allowing them to live from what I understand, no chance of rehabilition. Its one person, why does it matter so much if they get shot or not. Just stating my option on the subject, feel free to elaborate on how I'm wrong or tell me about your point of view and how it conflicts with mine, helps to broaden my view.
[QUOTE=CAPSMAN!;37191303]A non-lethal takedown is a verbal takedown. Tasers/nightsticks, physical force in general isn't non-lethal, it's less-lethal and a retarded way to respond to a lethal weapon.[/QUOTE] you don't know what non lethal means [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;37191305]No, you shouldn't. When an individual poses a serious threat, they are trained to shoot to kill to guarantee it will neutralize the threat. Any time lost by using an alternative method is time that can be used to inflict harm on others.[/QUOTE] ye thats fair
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;37191314]Hell they could have used a water-cannon, there is lots of shit they could have done, but didn't. Maybe it was logistical or they were under pressure, I don't know, the fact is that someone died which is always unfortunate[/QUOTE] Well gee, I'm sure these cops just decided not to use the water-cannon they had lying around. Cops don't improvise when it comes to people's lives. More people get killed if cops can't make the decision to take a life. Sure, it fucking sucks that this guy lost his life. But if he didn't get shot at that very moment, he could've slashed someone. I'd rather have a world were violent lunatics get shot and killed, than a world where people get slashed by said lunatics because the cops didn't dare hurt him.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37191355]you don't know what non lethal means [/QUOTE] Uh, no, those are the technical terms. [editline]12th August 2012[/editline] I dont think you guys get this. Police are trained to protect people, not criminals/armed psychos on drugs.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37191355]you don't know what non lethal means ye thats fair[/QUOTE] You don't know that there's no such thing as non-lethal weaponry anymore, and that any weapon not MEANT to kill is a less-lethal weapon. [editline]12th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=AaronM202;37191366] I dont think you guys get this. Police are trained to protect people, not criminals/armed psychos on drugs.[/QUOTE] Fucking this. Have fun trying to tackle or mace an armed robber, be it with a knife or a gun, just because you didn't want to kill him.
[QUOTE=Valon Kyre;37191334]I remember an old image (not going to search it up) but it was a comparison between how two countries handle a situation where a person is going to jump. The first one was in America, where they blocked off a whole city block and spent 5 hours negotiating, arrested the guy, and spent a bunch of money on a trial. Then the other was in china or some Asian country, where the negotiator came up to the person threatening to jump, shot him in the head, and everyone went on with their day. I don't get why people make such a big deal about people being shot, if your crazy enough to threaten random people and law enforcement then you fully know well that it's not going to end well for you. If a person goes to those lengths then by all means kill him, life goes on. Same goes for people who murder others and then get caught, if I was a officer I would shoot a guy dead if he had killed 4 people prior, there is really no point in allowing them to live from what I understand, no chance of rehabilition. Its one person, why does it matter so much if they get shot or not. Just stating my option on the subject, feel free to elaborate on how I'm wrong or tell me about your point of view and how it conflicts with mine, helps to broaden my view.[/QUOTE] The right to life is pretty high up on my list of cool things so I take a moral stance against killing because it violates this right
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;37191418]The right to life is pretty high up on my list of cool things so I take a moral stance against killing because it violates this right[/QUOTE] Well, actually, you're morally in the wrong because if they failed, more people could have been seriously injured or killed.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;37191418]The right to life is pretty high up on my list of cool things so I take a moral stance against killing because it violates this right[/QUOTE] So you'd rather civillains and policemen are killed by some nutjob with a knife instead of 1 nutjob. Great fucking logic.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;37191418]The right to life is pretty high up on my list of cool things so I take a moral stance against killing because it violates this right[/QUOTE] Okay buddy. What the fuck do you do when someone tries to kill you, then?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;37191430]Well, actually, you're morally in the wrong because if they failed, more people could have been seriously injured or killed.[/QUOTE] Or they might not have, who knows.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;37191449]Or they might not have, who knows.[/QUOTE] It...Probably wouldnt have worked, he shrugged off pepper spray/mace completely.
[QUOTE=KnowProblem;37191435]So you'd rather civillains and policemen are killed by some nutjob with a knife instead of 1 nutjob. Great fucking logic.[/QUOTE] No, I'm not against the use of force, it's just shitty when that force translates to someone dying.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;37191449]Or they might not have, who knows.[/QUOTE] What the shit. So because there was this slight chance that the guy [I]didn't want to hurt anyone[/I], he shouldn't be stopped?
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;37191449]Or they might not have, who knows.[/QUOTE]They are not allowed to risk it. End of story. You can't just try to handwave it away with "who knows". If we're going to do that, then we can just retort with "Well he could have been armed with a gun, or the taser could have not shocked him, or he might have rigged himself up with explosives. WHO KNOWS!"
I dont think you get this, they already tried less than lethal meathods, he showed no signs that they did anything to him, he appeared to have felt no pain, he shrugged it off completely, why would they try a different less than lethal meathod if the previous one had no ill effect on him? Think rationally for a second, then get back to me.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;37191474]I dont think you get this, they already tried less than lethal meathods, he showed no signs that they did anything to him, he appeared to have felt no pain, he shrugged it off completely, why would they try a different less than lethal meathod if the previous one had no ill effect on him? Think rationally for a second, then get back to me.[/QUOTE] Actually, try processing that for a week or so.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37191278]yelling at someone isn't a "non lethal" takedown, it's a verbal warning like seriously this is the dumbest shit ever[/QUOTE] Well, if you had actually read the article you would have known that the police did in fact attempt to use pepper spray on the suspect but it had no effect.
Because the methods don't all act in the same way and therefore can't be considered to not work because of another method no working
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;37191493]Because the methods don't all act in the same way and therefore can't be considered to not work because of another method no working[/QUOTE] If he didnt feel the effects of mace/pepper spray, why do you think he would feel the effects of a tazer? Which i might add probably could have missed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.