Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals
-
This post is deleted! -
@jsl76 this sort of thing happens in London - no, the person does not end up severely wounded or killed. Police killing people in the U.K. is extremely rare… so much so that it makes the news pretty quick if they do - National news, not local…
For example, police chases have resulted in 6 deaths in the last 6 months… inquiries are being drawn up and people are questioning whether the police response was correct…
Very very different attitude and way of operating.
-
@chanelkokoro said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:
This seems slightly off. The military is much better trained than police are, they kind of have to be.
How is it "off" when you re-state my case?
US Police forces have been trained (in 30-second intervals) to behave like our military - and given some of the same weaponry and other "tools of warfare" - and then turned loose on our own population.
... with less training than a barber or cosmetologist!
And then we stand back and wonder why innocent (and hell, even guilty) people are killed by those same poorly trained, improperly trained (that is: trained in the wrong skills - for military operations, not policing ones!), overly equipped officers?
-
@calatar Again, check the video. Please don't reply to me unless you're actually replying to me.
I will say that as someone who's a martial-arts student, we're taught that the first rule of knife fighting is "You're going to get cut." It's simply not plausible given the video of the Bryant case that the girl in pink would have walked away unscathed if the officer had taken his time and tried alternative modes of de-escalation.
It's not obvious why you continue to drone on about this subject when you haven't displayed even a cursory knowledge of the facts on the ground.
-
@bi4smooth ah ok, I was arguing against:
Many American police departments use militarized training tactics
Many servicemen I know would disagree with such a characterization, they don't want to be associated the dumpster fire that has become american policing. A lot of them are quite proud of their training.
but I concede that our general points are the same.
-
@jsl76 said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:
@calatar Check the video, dude. The officer had fewer than 10 seconds from arriving on scene to shooting to make a decision, and in this case, the use of force was surely justified. Had this happened in London, the girl in pink would have been severely wounded or killed. In America, the knife-wielding attacker was killed. I prefer our solution to that of our cousins across the pond, IMO. No one wants to see ANYONE killed by anyone for any reason, but your comments demonstrate you haven't performed even the most cursory review of the Bryant scene.
I once pulled out a knife on my own father, because he violated a restraining order and came to my mom's house to do her and me harm. This is the same man who on another occasion used an axe to break down my mother's bedroom door, who took all of our china and set it on fire in the back yard, who broke my mother's nose and pushed her down a flight of stairs. I went to the kitchen and grabbed a serrated steak knife because I was scared and needed something to protect myself with. Had the police in this story had seen me I'm the one who would've been shot dead, are you saying I would've deserved it?
-
@chanelkokoro said in Teenage knife fights are no big deal, say liberals:
I once pulled out a knife on my own father, because he violated a restraining order and came to my mom's house to do her and me harm. This is the same man who on another occasion used an axe to break down my mother's bedroom door, who took all of our china and set it on fire in the back yard, who broke my mother's nose and pushed her down a flight of stairs. I went to the kitchen and grabbed a serrated steak knife because I was scared and needed something to protect myself with. Had the police in this story had seen me I'm the one who would've been shot dead, are you saying I would've deserved it?
I have said nothing of the sort; I've very deliberately crafted my replies to speak only to the Bryant case. But good game, bro, on the attempt to troll.
-
@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?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login