Teen girl in Columbus killed by police

[masonbengals fan]

(04-21-2021, 05:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't say that was his intent.  I don't believe it was his intent.  I can absolutely see a large number of people interpreting it that way.  Regardless, the main point is that this officer performed their duty in admirable fashion and likely saved a person's life.  For them to be targeted by anyone for that, let alone a person of James' public stature, is reprehensible.

 & he will face no repercussions of it whatsoever. That officer has plenty of good reason to be scared IMHO. 
 World (America) has gone bat shit crazy. 

[HarleyDog]

(04-21-2021, 06:23 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote:  & he will face no repercussions of it whatsoever. That officer has plenty of good reason to be scared IMHO. 
 World has gone bat shit crazy. 

World? IDK? America? Yes!

[masonbengals fan]

(04-21-2021, 06:24 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: World? IDK? America? Yes!

  You are right. I'll edit that part. 

[samhain]

(04-21-2021, 05:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't say that was his intent.  I don't believe it was his intent.  I can absolutely see a large number of people interpreting it that way.  Regardless, the main point is that this officer performed their duty in admirable fashion and likely saved a person's life.  For them to be targeted by anyone for that, let alone a person of James' public stature, is reprehensible.

Isn't this just the other side of the coin from what the right did excusing all of Trump's violent rhetoric for years?  Libs freaked out when he'd say anything remotely hostile, then you guys would say we were all misinterpreting and overreacting?  Why is it any different when the shoe is on the other foot?  You just don't like it because of you're profession.  I'd say it's pretty easy to tell that "next" means "next" in terms of Chauvin getting convicted yesterday.  

Could someone take that the wrong way?  Yeah.  Is that the intent?  Doubt it.  I never heard any of the Trump loyalist/apologists praying that he'd get sued for saying things that might be interpreted by the wrong people in any certain way.

[samhain]

(04-21-2021, 06:23 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote:  & he will face no repercussions of it whatsoever. That officer has plenty of good reason to be scared IMHO. 
 World (America) has gone bat shit crazy. 

Protected speech.  Not illegal.  No violent intent whatsoever.

[HarleyDog]

(04-21-2021, 06:26 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote:   You are right. I'll edit that part. 

If we don't stomp this shit soon, we are going to set ourselves decades back (if we haven't already done so). All the progress that has been made will be gone. We've thrown common sense out the window and it's like society is ready to hang people without a fair trial and without facts. All because of skin color. WTF? It doesn't make sense to me. I honestly think the NBA needs to do something with Lebron. I think the cop should sue him as well. Although, that won't solve the bigger picture of the damage already done. We truly suck as a people. All of us.

[masonbengals fan]

(04-21-2021, 06:28 PM)samhain Wrote: Protected speech.  Not illegal.  No violent intent whatsoever.

 I didn't mean legal repercussions. I meant societal condemnation = Being called out for further putting that cops life at risk = Adding fuel to the fire = Further exacerbating an already terrible tragedy

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-21-2021, 06:27 PM)samhain Wrote: Isn't this just the other side of the coin from what the right did excusing all of Trump's violent rhetoric for years?  Libs freaked out when he'd say anything remotely hostile, then you guys would say we were all misinterpreting and overreacting?  Why is it any different when the shoe is on the other foot?  You just don't like it because of you're profession.  I'd say it's pretty easy to tell that "next" means "next" in terms of Chauvin getting convicted yesterday.

Horrible analogy to start off.  Secondly, I believe you must have missed my posts in which I flat out stated that wasn't his intent.  Also, why would he tweet this about an incident i which the officer acted appropriately?  

Quote:Could someone take that the wrong way?  Yeah.  Is that the intent?  Doubt it.  I never heard any of the Trump loyalist/apologists praying that he'd get sued for saying things that might be interpreted by the wrong people in any certain way.

Here's something for you to ponder, using your own analogy.  If you thought Trumps tweets could incite violence, unintentionally or not, then you'd have the same issue with James' tweet.  Or you're comfortable having different standards for different people.

[CJD]

(04-21-2021, 11:12 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I saw this topic and debate unfold a little bit last night in some reddit threads.

The initial reaction (before bodycam video) of course was to label this cop a murderer.  A lot of assumptions were made, and a lot of judgement passed.  Then the video is released.  That cop may very well have saved that other girl's life.  

Outside of letting the other girl get stabbed I really don't see a single viable option the officer had other than he one he took.

This is exactly why body cams are so important, both for the public and the police. They are objective proof( generally speaking) in a world of assumptions and preconceived beliefs/ biases.

[Beaker]

She attacks another girl with a knife knowing the cops have rolled up already and are trying to diffuse/disperse. She knows the cops are there and ordering people to stop, but attacks anyway? Should the cop have shot her to stop her? Why don't we ask the parents of the girl she was attacking what they think?

[samhain]

(04-21-2021, 06:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Horrible analogy to start off.  Secondly, I believe you must have missed my posts in which I flat out stated that wasn't his intent.  Also, why would he tweet this about an incident i which the officer acted appropriately?  


Here's something for you to ponder, using your own analogy.  If you thought Trumps tweets could incite violence, unintentionally or not, then you'd have the same issue with James' tweet.  Or you're comfortable having different standards for different people.

Oh, I definitely have issues with the tweet.  I'm not sure if he knew the full sequence of events or made an assumption based on the surface optics, but it was ill-advised.  The inspiration of mob violence is bad no matter who is doing it.  Ill advised does not equal legally actionable.

Doesn't matter, though.  Remember, by the standards of the modern right, punishing people for speech you find abhorrent, even when provably wrong is cancel culture, and you know how much the right hates mean old cancel culture.  

The analogy was fine in that the reaction of those on the right was very similar to the reaction of the left whenever anything remotely incendiary came from Trump's mouth.  Harsh words haven't mattered for awhile to people over there, so I was a bit surprised.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-21-2021, 02:23 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: That's a damn failure as a democracy when you shoot the kids you are supposed to raise.

(04-21-2021, 02:28 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: She's a foster kid, she hasn't any parenthood ... 

Maybe a social program for completely abandoned kids would be worth the try but meh ... yeah, shoot the kids.

Whatever.

(04-21-2021, 03:17 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: That's a twist of the mind. A shooting is NEVER appropriated. This is the last ever solution. 

Violence is made of anger.
Anger is a mask for pain.

This is a call for help.

And the first mission of Police is to help not to kill.

And 80% of you guys praise a guy called Jesus Christ, I just can't ***** get it. 

But as I said before. Whatever. One more, one less, as soon as it isn't someone you know or love, who cares ? 

She was a foster kid, noone will miss her. 

(04-21-2021, 03:51 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: If your philosophy is that one kid dead on the ground is "helping" then OK.

I don't live with so much violence on daily basis so I can't argue with that.

(04-21-2021, 03:59 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: You don't give a damn about the other kid who might well be a criminal too. Don't pretend to. 

For all this, you never once gave a single viable alternate solution for a police officer to use when they are at a distance, and a person is actively in the act of being about to stab someone else despite being told to stop.

[Rotobeast]

My question is why were at least 4 shots fired ?
Wouldn't a double-tap to center mass and assess be SOP ?

Sent from my SM-S515DL using Tapatalk

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-21-2021, 10:59 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: My question is why were at least 4 shots fired ?
Wouldn't a double-tap to center mass and assess be SOP ?

Sent from my SM-S515DL using Tapatalk

Adrenaline?  You can fire off 4 shots in under two seconds.  Not to sound callous, but if you're at the point that deadly force needs to be used too much is better than not enough.  Of course, even then there's an excessive amount, but I don't think four rounds meets that criteria.

[*jason*]

(04-21-2021, 04:19 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Not true.  Her dad is supposedly in the video.  (He's apparently the one stomping on the girl's head who is on the ground.)

If you're a teenage girl fighting another teenage girl, and your dad is kicking the other girl in the head while she's down, then you don't have any parenting.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-21-2021, 11:31 PM)jason Wrote: If you're a teenage girl fighting another teenage girl, and your dad is kicking the other girl in the head while she's down, then you don't have any parenting.

Yeah you do.  You have shitty, enabling criminal behavior parenting.  Having no parenting at all would actually be an improvement over that.

[BigPapaKain]

(04-21-2021, 11:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah you do.  You have shitty, enabling criminal behavior parenting.  Having no parenting at all would actually be an improvement over that.

+1 here. 

At a certain point, even the loonies on the far left have to agree that this scenario only had 2 options and both of them involved blood on the ground. Defending yourself from being jumped with a knife is one thing - bringing a knife out and making your move after the police have arrived is asking for suicide by cop. The parent on hand should've stepped in and separated everyone long before knives were drawn.

[Belsnickel]

(04-21-2021, 06:00 PM)treee Wrote: I think the disconnect between you in Bels right now is that you are speaking on more broad societal context, whereas Bels is saying situationally that there most likely could not have been a less deadly outcome in that moment. Either the person with the knife or the person they were accosting were highly likely to become mortally wounded in that situation.

This is pretty accurate. Would I love us to have social programs that would help support our young people in ways where this sort of thing was more rare? Hell yes! But that is a much larger discussion that we need to get into.

(04-21-2021, 06:19 PM)treee Wrote: You may be right. My gut feeling was that they should have been tased instead, but as someone else mentioned earlier in the thread; Tasers don't work on some people when they have adrenaline and they also just flat out don't deploy properly sometimes. Considering someone's life was at risk, I understand not talking that chance of failure to stop the knife weilder.

It's not even just those things that prevent a taser from working. If one prong doesn't connect, the taser won't be effective. If they don't penetrate the clothing, no effect. If they don't hit in the right place, no effect. Tasers are so finicky in their effectiveness. This article from APM in 2019 discussed an effectiveness rate of around 60% on average. Relying on that in a situation like this isn't an ideal situation.

https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/05/09/when-tasers-fail

[Mickeypoo]

(04-21-2021, 05:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Looking back on my posts I don't know how anyone could have possibly gleaned that from them, even remotely.

Ya, sorry, i'm just tired of all these celebs and their stupid, inciteful tweets.

I'm sure he was not actually threatening to kiil the cop, but it was definitely inciteful and pouring fuel on the fire before he even knew what happened.

[Au165]

The police chief mentioned he may have not had cover, distance, or time to use his Taser. I think part of the issue we see in a lot of these situations is officers enter high-stress situations with their dominant hand on their service weapon to start. I think it would be interesting to study putting Taser dominate side and requiring cross draw for their service weapon. It would be uncomfortable and less instinctual to walk into a situation with your arm across your body and thus you'd naturally pull for the Taser first.

I think making an officer make a conscious decision to come off their Taser and go across to their service weapon is a better decision-making process than having to come off the more lethal option to a less lethal option in a high-stress situation. I am aware of the potential safety concerns with cross-draw before someone mentions it. It may not be the best answer, however, I think it is something worth studying and testing as something that could actually have an impact.