f13.net

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/new_jersey/7894722.html

It's dangerous.

don't they have tasers for that kind of thing? or do they only reserve those for unarmed students?

even a nightstick to the face, or a boot to the ass. a flying boot attached to a policeman.

Aww damn, the cop knew the kid was a mentally ill student and still shot him in the chest and abdomen. There are almost always better ways of handling such situations. :-(

I wanted to know how old the kid was.

I don't know, if somebody attacks me with a weapon that could seriously harm me, I would use lethal force as well.

I see no reason to put my own life at risk even more. As far as I know, that is how German policemen are trained as well.

It's pretty much the only way anyone is trained who might need to use lethal force as part of their job and everyone who spends 30 seconds thinking about the subject usually agrees that's the best way to handle it.

They had no choice.  He had to be stopped.  He was RUNNING with SCISSORS! 

Did the policeman have pepper spray? If not I'd say shooting the guy was the best idea. I wouldn't try to tazer someone with a sharp object if you paid me, but pepper spray I can see. If he didn't have pepper spray I'd say that needs to be looked into. If he DID have pepper spray then they probably need to better drill it into their heads to use that as the first resort when possible. 19 years on the force is a lot of years spent with your gun being your only reliable defence. I don't think you can really blame the officer making the decision under pressure to shoot even if he did have other options that were better.

You don't try to stop someone who is attacking you with a potentialy lethal weapon with pepper spray.

How close to you have to be to the guy for pepper spray to work? 

The headline should have read "Edward Scissorhands Involved in Fatal Shooting."

Yeah, I got nothing.

5 yards unless you have points in Liquid-Fu, in which case it increases by .5 yards per level of Hardened Force Veteran

Pepper spray is about 5-10 feet, but it unleashes a cloud. One of my good friends I work with is a firefighter/EMS response and had to be pepper sprayed before he went on active-duty (some sort of police/firefighter/ems thing). The interesting thing I didn't know about pepper spray is that it is a cloud effect: basically both people, the one firing the spray and the target both feel the effects. Granted the one firing the spray isn't taking the liquid to the eyes, but it still burns.

I do think that there are many more options than lethal force in this instance. I've seen many tazers/electric force videos and I know damn well that if I tazered/shot you with an electric deal, you'd be on the ground and incapacitated. I couldn't offer you enough money to move after you got tazed. Electricity doesn't fuck around, kids. Literally, you stagger and fall. Check out youtube if you don't believe me.

Clearly, for the safety of our children, we need to establish a scissors free safety zone around all schools.  This of course would include the usual zero tolerance stance that would punish those that even drew pictures of scissors.

V

First point: Why in the hell does a school with Mentally and Behaviorly disordered students give access to objects that can fatally injure others? You don't leave matches lying around next to a bunch of pyros.

Second point: Someone runs at you with a crazed look in your eye while you are holding a gun, tell me what you would do. Then, tell me if you lived.

I have mixed feelings about this. I support the use of deadly force, but I think that it could've been handled better by using an alternate method than gunfire.

A barrage of baseballs perhaps?

I thought we were discussing tazers. Possibly rubber bullets or tear gas in seriousness?

Horseshit would be a good one if we're trying to think of silly ways that might still be effective.

Meh, one less psycho to sponge my tax dollars.

These conversations always devolve into the same thing.

"They should have done something else."
"OK, What?"
"Well, something."
"Yeah, let us know when you think of it."

Also, I've seen people get pepper sprayed.  If you are waiting until the last 10 feet of someone's knife/scissors wielding charge to pepper spray them then you probably deserve your multiple stab wounds.

That is the biggest thing about this to me.

I went to a regular public school, and they did not let us have non "safety" scissors until jr. high. I can't see why a place like this would not just take that to the logical end scenario.

Some school administrator is going to lose their job over this incident I bet.

I think they should have pepper sprayed the kid.  To death.  That'd keep the other ones in line.

Running with scissors is serious business. Keep trivial discussions of deadly force out of it. In any case, if you advocate that the police should use deadly force in all threatening situations, you should find the cop to be at fault here too. He failed to kill his attacker, twice. Pretty pathetic. He needs to go back to school to learn how to defend against somebody armed with a piece of fruit.

What about pointy sticks?

Did you miss the point about bananas?

(http://www.clisham.com-a.googlepages.com/cleese.jpg)

In old cartoons and comedies and stuff, sometimes they throw a bag of marbles at the bad guy and he always slips on them and falls over.  Why wouldn't this sort of thing work?  Seriously.

Wasn't he hit in chest and abdomen ? That is the area you should aim for if you want to stop an attacker.

Oh come on. That's like saying that the body is the place you want to hit. Or New Jersey. The heart is nice and big for that range. A miss is a miss.

It actually would work if you could get the marbles to stay in the path of the person chasing you.

So heat seeking marbles then?

This discussion reminds me of ... (http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=4382766522092008539)

Willingboro is generally not a nice area, so I would think the cop would be preconditioned to respond with force to a threatening situation.

Well, the follow up article said that the student lunged at the officer, so the cop probably had no other choice at that point. The thing is, we don't know the particulars, but most likely the cops were pumped up, screaming and yelling at the kid in a threatening manner that would only tend to result in further escalating the situation. Some basic communication and negotiation skills can go a long ways towards preventing violent outcomes like this, sometimes even when faced with raving lunatics.

Making light of this sad situation is pathetic. Where does distasteful humor cross the line: a mentally ill guy smearing himself with feces? homeless people beatings? rape? Columbine? 9/11? Holocaust?

Welcome to the internet, pussy.

Edit by Trippy: cut it out

You do not need to hold the emotion back Chedder. Tell us how you really feel. How did you feel about that post? What were your feelings?

hal is a robut.

Voodoolily, would you say that if the kid that got shot was yours?

The sons of Saddam Hussein didn't spend much time on f13 calling him a psychopathic madman either. Sometimes personal experience colors what some people will do or say. But it doesn't mean that other people shouldn't comment, pass judgment or make jokes.

The last time you posted something this idiotic, it was some daft rant about somebody calling their studio "Stray Bullet" because stray bullets are known to kill people. Are you fucking retarded or just another snotter troll?

Zzzzz. If the kid has a relative here we should all be careful what we say. But I'm pretty sure none of them post here. Pretty sure. Our words don't magically cross into the real world and spit on the relatives of the dead, and they sure as hell don't spit on the dead in whatever mythical place you believe they go. The kid wasn't a real person, he is just a news story, our words are as meaningless as his life was to us, so I don't see why there's a problem.

HAHAHA! I'm Christian, and a considerably compassionate person, but that's just idiotic.

Read the Monkeysphere, then you can rant on with your ridiculous "but what if you knew them" arguments. (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html)

I'm not sure what you mean by this or how its relevant (it isn't), maybe that means I'm fucking retarded?


In the past I worked with a schizophrenic kid who one day was throwing rocks, not directly at people, but in the general area of some cops who certainly should have known of his condition, he got shot to death. Sweet kid when his meds were properly adjusted. I find it upsetting that most cops have no clue when it comes to situations involving agitated people, when a little common sense, understanding, and communicating could often prevent violence. I guess that makes me a snotter troll?

It seems odd to me that behaviour that many would consider unacceptable in most "IRL" situations is somehow ok when its posted on the internet. I'd find jokes about this kid just as distasteful at a dinner party, at an office during work, on the radio, or wherever.

I have no problem with any of that, I just wanted to question the sentiment that seems to say any kind of insensitivity is OK as long as its on the internet. (Pulling up that stray bullet stuff here is low, fwiw I have no problem with the newly announced studio named "Big Guns" or somesuch, total difference.)

No, it really isn't. I find it unlikely that somebody who has been on this forum since the start of 2005 is so hypersensitive, and yet in the course of a couple of recent threads you have called a company "douchebags of the highest order" on the basis of their name, and respondents in a thread "pathetic" for making light of something that has no direct bearing on their situations but which contains humorous value. For some reason you appear to be adopting such a trolling personality. So I'm led to believe that its either been a slow week on Corpnews or something has made you rather too touchy of late and you shouldn't be arguing with a bunch of wankers on a gaming forum.

 :heart:

What the fuck does a rock throwing retard have to do with anything? You need to reign in the righteousness.

Glad to hear that police officers in your part of the world have some common sense.  If a kid requires the perfect balance of medication in order to not throw rocks at police officers, the shooter made the right call.  What would happen when this kid grew up and could obtain a car/gun/bigger rock/blog? 

Sometimes I think the world needs more cost-benefit analysis.

I'm kind of curious as to how the cops were supposed to know the kid was schizophrenic.  Magical cop intuition like on TV?  A psychic radio dispatcher?

Want to change the police force and they way they operate?  Best way is probably from the inside as a shining example to the rest of them.  Good luck in your new career.

I  :heart: you guys/girls.

If V-Lily had a kid and it was running with scissors and she had to shoot him (she isn't the type to let anyone else do her stuff), I'm sure after the smoke cleared, she would whisper in that soft low voice of hers, "hal is a robut." 

hahaha!

Can't we all just get along?  :cry:

This IS getting along.

It was a comedic bit.  The officer should've given him a shot, I understand this kid can be a real cut-up.

Puns. Need. To. Die.

I could get into contact with Scissors Kid, he might could help with the to be killings the pun.

Priceless.  :-D

Yep, yesterday morning in Luton (in Englandshire) a bloke - presumably mentally ill to some degree - stabbed a window cleaner on his early rounds.  The police turned up, tried to deal with him in a "measured" manner, and one of them got stabbed to death, despite his body-armour.  Armed response were present, and eventually tasered him and shot him with a plastic baton round.

They should have done that first.  If that didn't work, or he approached anyone before the taser and baton round were available, they should have had the option to shoot him with firearms, right in the centre body mass.  Now the policeman's baby kid has no dad.

Yes, it's wrong that we don't provide the mental health care - unfashionable institutional mental health care - to stop crazies forgetting their meds, listening to the angel in their head, and offing people.  But until society works that out, people who act aggressively with potentially deadly weapons, then run at officers with those implements, will either wound/kill or be wounded/killed.  If someone is going down, I'd rather it was the one who started it by acting mad with a penetrating weapon.

There is a vast gap between Endie's example of an unarmed policeman getting stabbed and the US policeman that just flat out shot someone. Both are stupid responses to arme blanche or cold steel threats.

Um, if the policeman in Endie's example had defended himself vigorously he would be still alive.  I think you are reading a bit much into the story to say, "flat out shot someone."  Not a vast gap.  More like a teeny tiny gap.

^^^ This ^^^

Huge Edit:  It's all a matter of judgement.  Should the US policeman have waited until the kid actually stabbed someone, as in the UK case?  Both involved someone aggressively approaching police with blades, should the judgement on whether to use deadly force depend on the size of the blade?  How close the attacker gets?  I really can't see the info in the OP's link that allows me to judge how big the gap is between the situations.  But children murder people with sharp objects not infrequently - I can think of a couple of recent incidents in the UK - and a kid with a weaponacting crazy-like-a-loon aggressive is going to provoke a response in any but those with the iciest of nerves.

I am dreadfully uncomfortable about police allowed to use deadly force.  Really.  But in that situation I'd want to have the option of shooting to defend myself and others.  Getting killed by a kid with learning difficulties sticking scissors into the upper thigh would, I imagine, be just as unpleasant as it would when done by a straight-A student with a stanley-knife.  And the police should be citizens with uniforms: I shouldn't expect them to take risks I would view as unreasonable to take in their situation.

Just taze them. Bzzt. Scissors and the perpetrator drop to the ground. Problem solved.

Up to a point, I agree: if there are reliable, non-lethal methods that officers are confident with, then that's great.

On the other hand, the taser wasn't enough for the guy that killed the policeman yesterday.  They had to hit him with a baton round too, to put him down.  Whether that was strictly necessary might be an issue.

There's also a slight problem in my head about distributing tasers freely: there are some stories (I've not seen formal studies) that officers might be too quick to use them, due to their non-lethal nature.  I'm not denying that I'd rather be inappropriately tasered than shot, of course, but it's still a concern.

Police should be all about non-lethal methods. The fact that a lot of departments resemble what would've been SWAT twenty years ago is disturbing.

On the other hand, we are forcing these guys to risk their lives against drug dealers with few scruples facing decades in prison under mandatory minimum sentencing. Rather than 'fix' the 'War' on drugs, the police state becomes more lethal to citizens and police.

There's also a slight problem in my head about distributing tasers freely: there are some stories (I've not seen formal studies) that officers might be too quick to use them, due to their non-lethal nature.  I'm not denying that I'd rather be inappropriately tasered than shot, of course, but it's still a concern.
[/quote]

I agree, but I think the ultimate responsibility lies with the people in charge. I personally feel that I'd rather have an officer be too quick to taze someone rather than have him/her shoot someone.

I'm also skeptical that someone could not be incapacitated with a tazer. I've witnessed people being tazed multiple times as I have friends in the services in Florida. Five seconds and a few fish hooks makes you do one or all of the following: scream, drop to the ground, cease moving. I will submit that I have seen a man not be dropped by a tazer charge, but he was by no means going to run up and stab me. He simply lacked the power to do so.

It's not unknown for someone to ignore a taser.  Especially when extremely drunk or hopped up on various substances.

Fair enough. I wonder if there are studies done with drugs that cause synapses to cease firing (this would cut down on electrical incapacitation I assume) in relation to tasers. But I would be willing to wager that someone might be seriously harmed in such an experiment.

Again, put yourself in the policeman's shoes. A man wielding a stabbing object is charging you, and you are holding a gun COMMANDING him to stop.

Now, think about this for a second before your politics kicks in. This is all you know, this is all that is happening. A man is running at you with a stabbing device, and you have a gun.

You know how that ends up? You take him out, and you know why? Fear. You're deathly afraid of dying, and you're deathly afraid that you won't be able to stop him before he puts those blades into your chest because he's not responding to logical stimuli.

Let's also talk about logic. ANYBODY who's reasonable knows the cops in the US carry guns, and this idiot probably had a few pointed at him. The police said DROP IT! He didn't. He's dead. Should we mourn that fact because he's mentally challenged? Should we mourn the cop who died for hesitating if the mentally challenged man lived and sits in an asylum?

We're human. We want to survive. When it comes down to it, you don't want to be shooting beanbags at a psycho when your ass is on the line.

It's really a shame that laser-taser never worked out. The idea was neat: have a dual laser ionize the air and send the pulse down it... if you can make the beam wide enough it would be perfect -- no aiming needed. All you would need is for it to touch any exposed skin. With the ability to sweep, instead of a one-shot taser barb, it's as close as we'd get to a real non-lethal weapon.The microwave gun unfortunately isn't as good of an option, as it uses pain as a motivator, which can be overcome. Unfortunately, they couldn't get a strong enough laser to ionize the air without additional problems, such as the laser having to be strong enough to cause eye damage.

I think we really need SOMETHING that is entirely non-permanent, short duration, a dozen yard range, with complete incapacitation. Unfortunately, right now, non-lethal does not mean non-damaging. There are tons of injuries and effectiveness is not guaranteed, so they end up having default to lethal force for their own protection.

EDIT: Screw you Bhodi, no I'm not going to read your reply and rewrite just because you got a post in while I was writing. :x Imagine this was right after Paelos.

I agree totally, which is why I think that any questions should be leveled at how they are outfitted, their training, and their standard procedures. When a guy is running at you with scissors and you have a gun you put him down, no question that is a fair response. It's even fair to say you wouldn't really want a tazer (I had forgotten about the ones that fire out before, I was thinking of the ones where eyou have to touch them with it, making it fairly useless for the situation) or pepper spray once they're charging because what if it doesn't work, he's obviously out of his mind to begin with who knows what he could shrug off? Maybe they should have just tazered him straight off, just as soon as they arrive to the scene tazer the guy and arrest him. It seems the first thing to do at a scene is try to talk the crazy out of being crazy. Why? With non-lethal methods you can just put him down and have a shrink talk to him while he's tied down to a bed somewhere.

Personally I've never had a problem with police shooting people when they or others are at risk, but now that there should be non-lethal options they might as well use them. That the police officer could not have been expected to react differently is fine for him, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

This is a devil's advocate question, and a completely unhumane one at that. However:

"Explain to me how these police actions will hurt society?"

Which actions? Right now, every death that might have been prevented with the use of an alternative non-lethal weapon hurts society. It hurts in terms of "bad press", increased animosity towards police, and you have to consider the psychological effects -- dead men tell no tales, especially of police brutality and/or mistakes, which encourages bad or risky behavior. That's not even considering family, friends, and the victim's future benefit on society. I'm not sure even an extremely cynical person is willing to say that most people who get shot by police are better off that way.

As I said above, because non-lethal methods aren't totally effective, the default is to use lethal force whenever an officer is threatened. I'd much rather give officers a completely safe and effective means of temporary control.

You do realize you're arguing "future technology" as a reason for society's failings? Who the hell cares? We operate with the tools we have, and that doesn't hurt society at all. HINDSIGHT hurts society in the historical sense. My point was that a cop shot someone who wouldn't respond to normal stimuli. This hurts us how?

EDIT: Ah, you revised, well then...

Crazies wielding weapons have no place in society. Who cares if there's one less human? Seriously, why does this always turn into a morality debate?

It's not trying to, i'm just trying to force the moralists out of their comfort zones. They want to believe every life is special and doesn't deserve to be ended, when in fact they are the ones trying to decide how long a life should last.

See my post above; I explained how it hurts -- yes, we operate with the tools we have and because of that we are willing to side on the extreme side of safety of the people in blue by authorizing lethal force any time an officer's life is conceivably threatened (a good example of this would be a child getting shot by drawing a toy gun on a cop). I'm suggesting future technology at the very least would mitigate "mistakes" such as that. Considering the public outrage that caused, a LOT of people cared.

Yeah, I edited for some specific examples off the top of my head. You think I'm a moralist? I just don't want to be on the receiving end of one of those mistakes. My friends wonder why I have a healthy fear of police and our court system, and I wonder how they couldn't. There are mistakes and miscarriages of justice made every step of the way.

Edited for some less personal-attackishness :) (whoops you already quoted, oh well)

I don't think you're a moralist, but you know that so forget it. You brought it up as a laugh. What I wonder is what we know as a grouping. You're arguing that we SHOULD be able to stop something in the face of tragedy. It's simple and meaningless. It's the hindsight of any unpopular war, it's the question of an abortion of a great leader, it's a talking point in a freaking speech. My point is we're taking a small situation and making it larger than it is.

My point is simply this. Was an insane person who willingly charged armed men in uniform an adequate reason to assume we need drastic changes in the way society operates?

It's not a drastic change, and what change it would be makes it closer to the intended mission. The goal of police has always been to keep the peace and enforce the laws of the land. It does not include killing people; lives taken are deemed regrettable but necessary to guarantee the safety of the officer. They are the enforcement arm of the law, and killing in the line of duty and thus making them judge, jury and executioner goes contrary to our entire system of law.

It's a nice point and it even makes sense, but it seems rehearsed. Keeping the peace is easy when you're holding all the cards, so to speak. Regrettable but necessary is a term used by those who agree but want to seem distant of the simple vulgarities. I'd like to get to the nitty gritty of what you think. I'd like to know when we should spill blood to keep the peace. Make all the nice technological advances you want, but that won't stop the nutballs from coming at you with bells on.

Like Gattaga? God I fucking hope so. Weed that shit out of the fucking genome.

I'd like enough technological advances so that if I'm ever on the receiving end of 'judicious use of force' it involves me waking up the next morning. With any current interaction with police there is always the risk of deadly force, unleashed with only a single officer's snap judgment and fully backed by the law of the land. Mistakes happen. I don't want to ever be a mistake. If a mistake happens, I at least want it to be one I can live through.

When should we spill blood to keep the peace? Never. Not only is that a terrible phrase and a leading question, but it also implies spilling blood actually keeps the peace. A better question would be "When do we put the lives of suspects before the lives of officers?" The answer to that, for me, is never as well. It's an imperfect world, and the simple fact is that officers lives come first. It sucks, but it's the only way the system could possibly work. If we started putting lives of suspects before lives of officers, pretty soon there wouldn't be any officers left and thus no one to keep the peace.

It often hurts the police themselves mentally/emotionally when they shoot someone, which is why they always get counseling after the fact. Often they retire as well just to get away from the shitstorm. Then there's the bad press, the resources wasted in an inquest, the grief of family members and possible legal action taken against the police. Plus if he is someone whose mental illness is manageable with drugs but for some reason he didn't take them (which could also be because they're not diagnosed yet) then it's basically no different than killing anyone, beyond the fact that it's justifiable. It's very rarely a good thing overall for someone to get killed by a police officer even if that person is crazy and/or a dirt-bag.

The laws of the land include the right to self defense.  And in the case of this officer, his first thought was very likely the desire to be able to go home to his family that night.  Alive.

Now please continue to explain why he should care about an undeveloped phaser technology.

HE WAS RUNNING WITH SCISSORS!

The truth is that most police go their entire careers without ever firing (or even drawing) their weapon.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of police officers in the US. (close to a million by some estimates)  Freaking out over the 1% that get involved in a shooting and the 1% of those that are unjustified as a requirement for changing the entire system is a complete waste of everyones time and resources.  You can change the system all you want and you will still get an occasional unjustified death.

About this specfiic technology? He shouldn't, unless like me he likes keeping his eye on and speculating about technology. It was just something that I kept my eye on; About the idea of better funding for non-lethal technologies? If something similar comes down the road, everyone would embrace it with open arms. Removal of a life-shattering mistake possibility? Being able to finally "shut the anti-gun nuts up"? I really can't see any downside for the public unless it's overly expensive. For the individual officer himself, I'm sure that not only would they be overjoyed at a new toy to play with, and as Calantus says, it removes the remorse aspect for the officer and at the same gives them a bit more flexibility with use of force than they have right now.

I have to say I agree with this.  The only thing is, in most cases, the police officers SWAT like tactics are what create the danger.  Two am no-knock raids complete with flash bang grenades and automatic weapons is a bad recipe for disaster. 

V

I think I saw this thing on Futureweapons one time about a laser-type-weapon that heats your skin so much that you become so uncomfortable you have to stop what you are doing. I think it was some sort of riot weapon.

I posted about that, the problem is that it uses pain as a motivator, which can easily be overcome by someone on drugs or just plain angry enough, which are two situations that cops are likely to face.

(http://bighugelabs.com/flickr/output/motivator6918015.jpg)

I want to try this game this time.
(http://af.lygo.com/d/common/logo.gif)

(http://jobs.gamasutra.com/media/accounts/125/BHG_Gamasutra.jpg)

You know, Angelfire had the best 1.0 logo, imo.

Please stay on topic.

(http://www.clisham.com-a.googlepages.com/thumb_scissors1.gif)

When I was a youngster and just learning HTML, my first homepage was on angelfire.

Mine was on a prototype DEC 5100 Vax.  Gods I hated that machine.  I hated it soooo much.  At least hackers had no clue how to do anything even if they did manage to get in.

Exactly. Bunch of humorless twats fucking up a perfectly good serious thread with their politically correct twaddle.

If you run with scissors its dangerous. Gun beats scissors.

You know what would be cool? 

A gun that shoots scissors.

I disagree.

Ok, ALMOST every death.

Yep.  I am pretty sure there are large swaths of the population that are in fact a huge detriment to society.  I'm even related to some of them.

See, the thing that keeps me from trying to apply general rules to self-defense situations is that you have to trust the judgement of the guy who is about to die.  I'd rather a man be able to make a decision for himself rather than be glued to a rulebook, especially if that man was me.  Then again, I'd shoot someone for just entering my house without an invitation so I might not be in the middle of the bell curve here.

You live in backwoods Florida too Yeg? That's more or less the law in certain parts of Central Florida. Hell, it's even POSTED in some residences.

Not quite Florida.  I live in Georgia, within the Atlantan radius of influence, plus I work nearly downtown.  Georgia recently instituted the "You can shoot them in the yard" law, replacing the previous one requiring them to be inside your house, so I'm actually being pretty generous by letting them invade my home before I plug them.

I like Atlanta.  It's beautiful.  I had some friends who lived near Atlanta in a house right on a cliff.  One side of the house was just a huge window that overlooked a cliff.  I couldn't get close enough to see the view, but I bet it was wonderful!

Does my mid-80s BBS ran from my C64 count?

Fine with me.  It's not HTML, but I'd say it gives you network-geek cred.

Oregon has the "shoot the burglar law" as well.  I think they have to be "inside the line of your home" or somesuch odd term.  Safe in the yard, not on the walk.

I'm going to Atlanta in November, we should do lunch or somesuch.

Just remember to call ahead, would not want him to go all Cheney on you.