04-22-2021, 07:38 AM
(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
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
