Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals
-
@jsl76
pffft, I'm not trolling, I am asking you to envision a situation in which the girl may have been completely justified in holding that knife. I didn't realize I was asking too much by sharing a personal story and asking you to think a little bit, my bad. 
If it was okay to kill people based on potentialities all of us would be dead by now.
-
@chanelkokoro said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:
@jsl76
pffft, I'm not trolling, I am asking you to envision a situation in which the girl may have been completely justified in holding that knife. I didn't realize I was asking too much by sharing a personal story and asking you to think a little bit, my bad. If it was okay to kill people based on potentialities all of us would be dead by now.
Did you watch the video? It seems you want to weigh in on leftist talking points without acutally apprehending the facts in the case. I'm not interested in debating counterfactuals with someone who hasn't even mastered the factuals. But thanks for playing.
-
@jsl76 said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:
Did you watch the video? It seems you want to weigh in on leftist talking points without acutally apprehending the facts in the case. I'm not interested in debating counterfactuals with someone who hasn't even mastered the factuals. But thanks for playing.
I had to go back and check because sometimes you guys say bs so confidently, I was like did I miss something? How can you blame me for not watching a video you didn't even link? My thoughts are based on what I've read about the case. If there is some kind of video floating around that you believe justifies this shooting why don't you share it?
You just hurt my feelings bro.
Maybe I just needed more information, jeez. "factuals" and "counterfactuals" what kind of pretentious... What are you even talking about? If you don't want to defend your argument just say so, don't make it seem like there's a problem with my intelligence. 
Why the mean girl energy, Regina George??
-
@chanelkokoro said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:
I had to go back and check because sometimes you guys say bs so confidently, I was like did I miss something? How can you blame me for not watching a video you didn't even link? My thoughts are based on what I've read about the case. If there is some kind of video floating around that you believe justifies this shooting why don't you share it?
You just hurt my feelings bro.
Maybe I just needed more information, jeez. "factuals" and "counterfactuals" what kind of pretentious... What are you even talking about? If you don't want to defend your argument just say so, don't make it seem like there's a problem with my intelligence. Why the mean girl energy, Regina George??
Well, if you're incapable of Googling "Bryant video" and you don't know what basic terms of argumentation actually mean, maybe there is a problem with your intelligence? I'm not obligated to spoon-feed facts to someone who's spouted off several times without bothering to do even basic research. Being informed is your job, sugarplum.
-
@jsl76 I was replying to you…
I actually teach a martial art… and one which uses knives. And no, I don’t teach my students that they’re going to get cut…
I’ve watched the video. I still think it is a complete failure of training and understanding that the officer ended up shooting an individual. Possibly also a failure of equipment.
For example, wouldn’t a taser be far more effective? Obviously not guaranteed to be non-lethal, but not as likely as a live round to kill.
By the by, I’m also firearms trained by a police force (the fun of being a diplomat in hostile countries!).
-
@calatar said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:
@jsl76 I was replying to you…
I actually teach a martial art… and one which uses knives. And no, I don’t teach my students that they’re going to get cut…
I’ve watched the video. I still think it is a complete failure of training and understanding that the officer ended up shooting an individual. Possibly also a failure of equipment.
For example, wouldn’t a taser be far more effective? Obviously not guaranteed to be non-lethal, but not as likely as a live round to kill.
By the by, I’m also firearms trained by a police force (the fun of being a diplomat in hostile countries!).
My instructor (who is an instructor for uechi-ryu karate, BJJ, krav maga, and escrima) and the various instructors who visit our dojo are pretty consistent that if you're going to be engaged in knife defense, you should assume you will be cut. There's a lot of reasons to teach that approach; you may find some value in exploring the question on behalf of your students. It's not obvious that knife defense without a presumption of injury makes a ton of sense -- because when they're injured, their reaction to the attack is compromised if they're not prepped for it -- but to each his own.
It's also not obvious that in the 10 seconds from arrival to gunshot, that the officer had any opportunity to strategize an alternative solution. I don't know how he could have deployed a taser in time, to be honest. It's standard training for most U.S.-based police forces to shoot to kill if a person is wielding a deadly weapon. People can disagree, legitimately, as to whether this approach is better or worse. But if you accept that this is the standard training, I don't see how we could expect the officer to do anything other than what he did.
What it really boils down to is this: Under the current policing and use-of-force logic in most U.S. police departments, the shooting of Bryant was appropriate and justified. It's tragic, to be sure. But it fell within the scope of the officer's training. There's room to disagree as to whether this ought to be the logic of most police forces -- but that's a different, broader argument. People will disagree, but given the reality of the situation, I don't see an alterative that makes any sense. The Bryant case is a very, very weak hook for "police should be less violent" arguments, because there are many other, better, cases to shoehorn that perspective.
-
@jsl76 said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:
What it really boils down to is this: Under the current policing and use-of-force logic in most U.S. police departments, the shooting of Bryant was appropriate and justified. It's tragic, to be sure. But it fell within the scope of the officer's training. There's room to disagree as to whether this ought to be the logic of most police forces -- but that's a different, broader argument. People will disagree, but given the reality of the situation, I don't see an alterative that makes any sense. The Bryant case is a very, very weak hook for "police should be less violent" arguments, because there are many other, better, cases to shoehorn that perspective.
The real question isn't whether the officer did what he was trained to do: when presented with a potentially dangerous situation, escalate to the point of forced action, then overwhelm the offender with lethal violence. (Let's be clear: he brought a gun to a knife fight!)
No, the real questions are these:
- Are we properly training our police... at all (regardless of the role we want them to play!)?
- Do we want to train our police officers to be "protectors" or to be para-military "enforcers"?
- Are we enabling our police officers to do anything BUT escalate and control?
- Are we glorifying the "SWAT" and other violence-based, militarized police units (which have a role, no question) to the detriment of the increasingly rarefied "beat cop" who establishes relationships with citizens and seeks to "keep the peace" (vs. "enforce the law")....
When a cop today encounters an enraged woman flashing a knife, should he:
a) draw his weapon and eliminate the threat - real or potential - with lethal force, as quickly as possible, or
b) try to de-escalate the situation: try to calm her down, convince her to drop the weapon and then arrest her, or
c) get other people away from the situation (to safety) & then try to get more information about what led to the current crisis... try to understand the situation, and find a non-violent solutionWhen the situation is over, what is the desired (most likely to be rewarded) result?
a) the perpetrator is in a body bag and everyone else is safe
b) the perpetrator is in handcuffs and everyone else is safe
c) the perpetrator is in the back of the squad car, on the way to a hospital to be evaluated, and everyone else is safe?Honestly, in today's policing, the answers here are a) and a)... and that is frightening!
-
@bi4smooth said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:
Honestly, in today's policing, the answers here are a) and a)... and that is frightening!
I think that's a bit too blithe, though. You're acting as if a high-level principle is all we need. That's a dangerously naïve view. For example, if a cop encounters an enraged woman flashing a knife, what matters is the context of the individual situation. If the woman is standing alone in a parking lot and a half-dozen officers have encircled her and keep 10 paces of distance, there's zero need for lethal force. If a woman is five feet from another woman she's actively attacking -- as with the Bryant case -- and there's one officer approaching from a distance, that's a completely different calculation.
It's intellectually dishonest to suggest that a context-free one-sentence scenario requires a specific one-sentence outcome when you haven't made any accommodation whatsoever for the tactical situation.
And it's not as if the police have sole accountability here. In that litany of "say their name" people, most of them were lawfully detained for some reason, and the situation got out of hand when they resisted arrest. That's not to suggest that resisting arrest ought to be addressed by lethal force, but it is to acknowledge that police go into a job with a reason to want to protect themselves. In 2018, law enforcement as a profession had a annual fatality rate of 13.7 per 100,000 workers -- the 16th most dangerous profession in the United States (see: https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/money/2020/01/24/25-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america/41041127/). And that's with all the SWAT teams, body armor, and overwhelming responses. What do you think is the most likely outcome if U.S. cops act like British constables? Like it or not, the evidence is strongly suggestive that low socioeconomic status correlates strongly with criminal behavior and with resistance to apprehension. You can't just focus on the "supply" side of the argument (police violence) without accounting for the "demand" side (criminality with specific U.S. characteristics that don't easily map to other advanced countries).
-
@jsl76 said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:
@bi4smooth said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:
Honestly, in today's policing, the answers here are a) and a)... and that is frightening!
I think that's a bit too blithe, though. You're acting as if a high-level principle is all we need. That's a dangerously naïve view. For example, if a cop encounters an enraged woman flashing a knife, what matters is the context of the individual situation. If the woman is standing alone in a parking lot and a half-dozen officers have encircled her and keep 10 paces of distance, there's zero need for lethal force. If a woman is five feet from another woman she's actively attacking -- as with the Bryant case -- and there's one officer approaching from a distance, that's a completely different calculation.
It's intellectually dishonest to suggest that a context-free one-sentence scenario requires a specific one-sentence outcome when you haven't made any accommodation whatsoever for the tactical situation.
And it's not as if the police have sole accountability here. In that litany of "say their name" people, most of them were lawfully detained for some reason, and the situation got out of hand when they resisted arrest. That's not to suggest that resisting arrest ought to be addressed by lethal force, but it is to acknowledge that police go into a job with a reason to want to protect themselves. In 2018, law enforcement as a profession had a annual fatality rate of 13.7 per 100,000 workers -- the 16th most dangerous profession in the United States (see: https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/money/2020/01/24/25-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america/41041127/). And that's with all the SWAT teams, body armor, and overwhelming responses. What do you think is the most likely outcome if U.S. cops act like British constables? Like it or not, the evidence is strongly suggestive that low socioeconomic status correlates strongly with criminal behavior and with resistance to apprehension. You can't just focus on the "supply" side of the argument (police violence) without accounting for the "demand" side (criminality with specific U.S. characteristics that don't easily map to other advanced countries).
So... let me get this right... it's OK in your world to shoot first and ask questions later if the person under suspicion is poor?
Look, I get it - I have a nephew in law enforcement. Believe it or not, there are plenty of officers who agree that they are under-trained, and often trained in the wrong ways.
And I'm not some "defund the police" guy... Contrary to your opinion otherwise, what's needed in America today is EXACTLY a change in the high level principles that apply to our police! And they need MORE funding, not less... but more funding for training... training in policing that focuses on DE-escalation, not escalate-and-take-control!
Many police jurisdictions have a motto akin to "To Protect and To Serve" imprinted on the sides of their vehicles... these mottos are not new - they date from the 1940s and 1950s.... when the image of a policeman was not so easily confused with that of a warrior.
Policing is a dangerous job... but sometimes (and more and more often recently), the danger (and the escalation of a bad situation) comes as much from the police as from the perpetrators. That doesn't mean there aren't violent offenders out there that need a strong response! The issue isn't all-of-one and none-of-the-other...
The system as-is is BROKEN ... not just for the communities tired of living in fear of the police (or tired of using tax dollars to pay-off multi-million-dollar judgements against local police)... it also isn't working for the men and women in uniform!
But, little tweaks aren't going to solve the problem either! We need a fundamental change in the approach to policing... it's taken decades to evolve to the policing we have today, and I doubt the public will have the patience to wait so long for it to "swing back"...
Regardless of the pace of change, we need find a way to return to police as protectors and walk back from police as enforcers.
-
@bi4smooth said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:
So... let me get this right... it's OK in your world to shoot first and ask questions later if the person under suspicion is poor?
I never said that, or implied it, and it's dishonest of you to suggest to the contrary with a deliberately misleading question. Please read and engage with what I said before you respond with your panties in a bunch.
De-escalation is a nice idea, in theory. But it's not at all obvious that a unilateral stand-down by cops will suddenly make the world a better place. In fact, there's a ton of evidence that when police pull back, crime soars.
You're focusing on one side of the problem: police culture. I happen to agree that there are material defects in training and focus. But those defects are, at least in part, responsive to trends in criminal conduct. Police aren't getting aggressive for the fun of it. Unless and until there's an equal push by activists to reduce resistance to apprehension and break networks of criminality that pervades many low-income communities, unilateral "de-escalation" is simply another word for "crime wave."
-
It is quite clear we will not agree here - for a very fundamental reason.
from my viewpoint:
Policing today is broken - the modern police have become militarized and overly aggressive towards the population. Further, they focus more on "enforcement" and less on "protect and serve".
from your viewpoint:
There is nothing wrong with the status quo - in fact, the police should "step it up a notch" because crime is "so bad"
Thus, I'm posing possible solutions to a problem you do not believe exists... and that is "a bridge too far"... to go on would be pointless.
Might i suggest you buy a bullet-proof vest... LOL
-
No matter what the cop did in this situation, liberals would have demonized him.
It's the way of the modern world.
A black cop repeatedly tazes a handcuffed black homeowner and liberals ignore it because they can't racialize it.
A black cop guns down an unarmed white teen who was no threat and liberals don't care because only black lives matter that can be racialized.
73yo white woman with dementia is brutalized by police, getting her arm broken and shoulder dislocated, liberals don't care about that either because she has the wrong skin color.
More than twice as many (both armed and unarmed) whites, than blacks, were killed by cops last year, but the narrative is that blacks are being hunted down.
-
@raphjd said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:
No matter what the cop did in this situation, liberals would have demonized him.
It's the way of the modern world.
A black cop repeatedly tazes a handcuffed black homeowner and liberals ignore it because they can't racialize it.
A black cop guns down an unarmed white teen who was no threat and liberals don't care because only black lives matter that can be racialized.
73yo white woman with dementia is brutalized by police, getting her arm broken and shoulder dislocated, liberals don't care about that either because she has the wrong skin color.
More than twice as many (both armed and unarmed) whites, than blacks, were killed by cops last year, by the narrative is that blacks are being hunted down.
I do wish you'd just stop the fantasy and start each sentence with "What about"....
We (@js76) and I weren't talking about race-based policing, we were talking about militarized policing!
What about inflation? Are we going to have to start paying higher taxes to pay for the new police anti-terrorist weapons? Won't that cost jobs? What about college education? Won't the higher taxes make that more expensive, too? What about all the kids being taken into foster care? Shouldn't their parent's have to pay?
-
Um, did I direct my comments to you?!
I know you are a liberal and you think the world revolves around you, but you will find that I didn't.
-
@bi4smooth said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:
from your viewpoint:
There is nothing wrong with the status quo - in fact, the police should "step it up a notch" because crime is "so bad"
Thus, I'm posing possible solutions to a problem you do not believe exists... and that is "a bridge too far"... to go on would be pointless.
Might i suggest you buy a bullet-proof vest... LOL
The reason "we will not agree here" is, indeed, fundamental -- you literally misconstrued everything I said and attribute opinions to me that I have not claimed for myself, and have -- in fact -- explicitly disclaimed earlier in the thread. It's clear that there's no point engaging with you; you've arrived at a caricature of what I've been saying that very obviously doesn't match the actual words I've typed in this thread. It's like you're deliberately lying about the plain text of things I've written because it's easier to argue with a straw man than with an actual human being.
-
@jsl76 very kind of you to suggest what I should be learning to assist my students... but I suspect you don't know my knowledge or training... and might, as a student, not think you want to go around suggesting what teachers with more experience than you should want to learn. For context and background: I've been training for 15 years, teaching for 6. I've been attacked with a real, very sharp, knife in training and in demonstrations, by someone who knows what they are doing - and not only have I not been cut, they haven't either and nor has anyone else around me been harmed. The same goes for my students. My teacher has been teaching for 40 years - and he has taught 100s of students the same capability. Some of what we teach is taught to police forces around the world - to great success, particularly in situations with edged weapons (swords turn up sometimes!). So thank you - but I think we got this covered.
I agree with @bi4smooth here - when you are taught how to use a firearm as a trained officer, you are taught many things. I can tell, from the 10 seconds of the video, that this officer was either badly trained or not trained (I don't know which - but either is horrendous). For example, he fired 4 shots. This is unnecessary - and would result in immediate criminal proceedings in several countries (including some states in the USA). Indeed, in many countries you would need to explain why a 2nd shot was required - let alone the 3rd and 4th. The only answer here is that he panicked, drew his firearm and used it in fear. There are a number of other clues in the video I've seen that show there is a significant issue there with what he chose to do - and I would not at all be surprised if he is not facing rather tough questions about his actions. Anyone with firearms training at a decent level would see the same things I do on watching it. I can understand that a lay-person would see it like he was simply doing the right thing and protecting himself; but this would be incorrect simply by dint of him being a trained person, not a lay-person, and has access to higher level skills (or, at least should!).
I think I need to make clear here: I do not blame the officer. He really is obviously just acting like any other citizen would given the circumstances: panic and fear. What I am saying is that the training he has received was clearly insufficient in order to not act this way. I think bi4smooth has said the same. I also feel very badly for him: to kill another human is a very difficult thing and he will have to deal with that for a long time. I'm certain he wouldn't have wanted to do it.
I don't really understand your point about not using a taser... if he had time to draw his gun and fire it, he most certainly had time to draw a taser and fire that. Requires the same level of thought process (I've been taser trained too...).
I don't think we need to bring in the socio-economic status of the supposed perpetrators of any crime here... that is not, and should never be, an excuse for excess force.
Also, I think you confuse using police to de-escalate with getting the police to stand down... those are simply not the same thing. One is about having more, better trained police, the other is about removing police. The former I support, the latter is... silly. But I don't think anyone is talking about the latter except you? So you can probably put that aside too.
I like that you agree that the USA is a dangerous and violent place - and that the police force is a particularly perilous job. I agree. However, the large majority of the deaths in the police force are not from knife wielding angry kids... it is from organised crime (forgive me if you already are aware of this... your posts suggested you were glossing over this). So again, pertaining to this situation, I think you can not worry about this here. A different topic dealing with organised crime would be a worthy one!
Could you detail what you think should be done about this issue (I hope you agree it is an issue... you may not... I don't think you've mentioned if you have any police or firearms experience as a police officer/trained firearms officer?)?
I have an inescapable conclusion to this... but I would be more interested to hear what you think can actually be done about this? Your responses to @bi4smooth suggest you think nothing should be done, but you also seem to think that there is some problem...?
-
Geez, where to begin?
-
It's amazing that you're an experienced martial artist with real-life knife skills, trained by police trainers in firearms and tasers, and a danger-zone diplomat to boot. Yet, you have time to write lengthy reubttals anonymously on a gay-torrent forum? Color me skeptical. Everything you say about your expertise sounds suspect. If you'd like to prove your claims, I'm happy to retract and apologize, but for now, you sound like the 98 million other forum-dwelling trolls who claim omnicompetence about every aspect of an argument as a way of avoiding inconvenient facts about the matter.
-
National news correspondents and law-enforcement commentators on television and in print have asserted that the officer's response was justified. (See: https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/crime/2021/04/22/columbus-police-shooting-makhia-bryant-appears-lawful/7318300002/). I suspect that part of the reason you claim omnicompetence about knives and guns and tasers is to pretend that your plucked-from-the-air assertions are just as valid as the documented, broad consensus among real experts that the officer reacted appropriately and according to training.
-
The socioeconomic status question is absolutely relevant. Police use-of-force incidents are a response to something -- i.e., criminal behavior wherein officers have legitimate fear of being attacked or killed. And in the United States and Canada, criminal behavior is strongly correlated to low socioeconomic status (see: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/crime/rr06_6/p2.html). If we want to reduce use-of-force problems, we absolutely need to do something about police training, but we also need to do something about the cultural systems surrounding the people most likely to commit a crime. When people refuse to submit to apprehension or think that they'd rather go down swinging because it'll increase their street cred, the risk to officers increases -- and officers' incentive to prioritize their own safety also increases. You simply cannot look at this as a police-only situation and retain any sense of intellectual honesty.
-
Officers killed in the line of duty don't come from "organized crime" as you assert. FBI statistics for 2019 show 48 dying from felonious acts by criminals and 41 by on-the-job accidents. Of the 48, 15 relate to law-enforcement activities, 9 to tactical situations, 5 from unprovoked attacks, etc. See https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2019-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-in-the-line-of-duty for more information.
-
I've never said police should stand down. From where do you source that mischaracterization?
-
I've also never said that I think nothing should be done. I have not outlined a comprehensive "If I were in charge" reform plan in this thread, nor do I think (at present) that such is useful for me to share. For now, I'm more interested in correcting the falsehoods about the Bryant shooting that everyone really, really, really wants to shy away from so they can shout from their generic anti-gun/anti-police soapboxes.
Sigh.
-
-
Anyone who hasn't seen the video from the police cams and neighbor's CCTV really has no business telling us what's what.
Only a liar or an idiot would say that this conversation would be the same if it was a black cop who shot a knife-wielding white girl. Hell, this wouldn't even make the news.
I do love how little value liberals put on the girl in the pink's life.
Hell, no one is complaining about the guy doing a football kick to the girl on the ground's head.
Unlike you nasty liberals, I'm glad the cop saved the girl in the pink.
-
@raphjd said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:
Anyone who hasn't seen the video from the police cams and neighbor's CCTV really has no business telling us what's what.
Only a liar or an idiot would say that this conversation would be the same if it was a black cop who shot a knife-wielding white girl. Hell, this wouldn't even make the news.
I do love how little value liberals put on the girl in the pink's life.
Hell, no one is complaining about the guy doing a football kick to the girl on the ground's head.
Unlike you nasty liberals, I'm glad the cop saved the girl in the pink.
OMG - what a LIST OF false and misleading assertions here!
It's not an either-or equation!
- Why couldn't the cop have saved them both?
- Was a fatality a necessary component of this call?
It's not like the cop arrived and had a split-second decision to make: which one do I kill?
The question (the right question) is whether police misuse of deadly force (some force, and some lethal force, is necessary in policing - no doubt!) is out-of-control in the US today.
The liberal media are just the messengers here... are they biased? Maybe! But that doesn't mean the facts that they're reporting are false!
When the lunatic runs through the theater shouting FIRE, it's not a crime if there really IS a fire! (Neither does the fact that there really is a fire detract that he's a lunatic - the fact is, he's just a messenger!)
-
Did you see the video?
That knife seemed to come from nowhere and it went to the girl in pink's throat/face real quick.
Also, the cop had to deal with the guy who did the football kick to the other girl's head. She was lying flat on her back and the guy kicked her in the head so hard that he doubled her over.
Also, as you support BLM, black lives only matter to you when you can racialize it.
