Don't run with scissors

[hal]

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?

[voodoolily]

hal is a robut.

[Sir Fodder]

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

[Righ]

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?

[Calantus]

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

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.

[Paelos]

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

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.

[Sir Fodder]

The sons of Saddam Hussein didn't spend much time on f13 calling him a psychopathic madman either.

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

Sometimes personal experience colors what some people will do or say.

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.

But it doesn't mean that other people shouldn't comment, pass judgment or make jokes.

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.)

[Righ]

Pulling up that stray bullet stuff here is low

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.

[WindupAtheist]

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.

 

[bhodi]

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

[Oban]

Sometimes personal experience colors what some people will do or say.

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.

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.

[Murgos]

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.

[Der Helm]

I  you guys/girls.

[Signe]

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." 

[voodoolily]

hahaha!

[Chimpy]

Can't we all just get along? 

[Signe]

This IS getting along.

[Llava]

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

[Calantus]

Puns. Need. To. Die.

[Llava]

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

[DraconianOne]

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.

Priceless.  :-D

[Endie]

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.

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.

[Engels]

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.

[Murgos]

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.

[Endie]

^^^ 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.

[cmlancas]

^^^ 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.

[Endie]

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.

[Sky]

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.

[cmlancas]

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.

[Lantyssa]

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

[cmlancas]

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.

[Paelos]

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.

[bhodi]

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.

[Calantus]

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. 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.

[Paelos]

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?"