Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
I have seen both SWAT and a large group of officers take down persons with knives/swords. One SWAT team used a shield, ladder, and firetruck hose. The other group repeatedly hit the suspect with bean bags and paintballs filled with pepper until he gave up.

Two police by themselves without that equipment?

We should just combine police with firefighters so they will always have access to at least two of those equipment.

 Desubot wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I have seen both SWAT and a large group of officers take down persons with knives/swords. One SWAT team used a shield, ladder, and firetruck hose. The other group repeatedly hit the suspect with bean bags and paintballs filled with pepper until he gave up.

Two police by themselves without that equipment?

We should just combine police with firefighters so they will always have access to at least two of those equipment.

Call them the Polifighters.

 Desubot wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I have seen both SWAT and a large group of officers take down persons with knives/swords. One SWAT team used a shield, ladder, and firetruck hose. The other group repeatedly hit the suspect with bean bags and paintballs filled with pepper until he gave up.

Two police by themselves without that equipment?

We should just combine police with firefighters so they will always have access to at least two of those equipment.

Wasn't there a book about that? Fahrenbites 450 cats or something?

 Desubot wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I have seen both SWAT and a large group of officers take down persons with knives/swords. One SWAT team used a shield, ladder, and firetruck hose. The other group repeatedly hit the suspect with bean bags and paintballs filled with pepper until he gave up.

Two police by themselves without that equipment?

We should just combine police with firefighters so they will always have access to at least two of those equipment.

Rather extreme method. Heavy on personal and numbers.
Not everyone has the ability to deploy that many people to a single incident.

Fire truck. 10-20 officers plus fire team.
That's likely more than the entire campus police force.

And response time... The officers where there. It was there incident. There was not time to call up backup. It had to be dealt with there and then.

UK had a incident with a suspect with a machete. It took some 12 police unarmed as such to tackle that one.

Yes stun gun may have changed odds but as pointed out they are not 100% reliable that they can bring down a suspect.

And that percentage can get you killed if your lucks bad.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I have seen both SWAT and a large group of officers take down persons with knives/swords. One SWAT team used a shield, ladder, and firetruck hose. The other group repeatedly hit the suspect with bean bags and paintballs filled with pepper until he gave up.

Two police by themselves without that equipment?

We should just combine police with firefighters so they will always have access to at least two of those equipment.

Rather extreme method. Heavy on personal and numbers.
Not everyone has the ability to deploy that many people to a single incident.

Fire truck. 10-20 officers plus fire team.
That's likely more than the entire campus police force.

And response time... The officers where there. It was there incident. There was not time to call up backup. It had to be dealt with there and then.

UK had a incident with a suspect with a machete. It took some 12 police unarmed as such to tackle that one.

Yes stun gun may have changed odds but as pointed out they are not 100% reliable that they can bring down a suspect.

And that percentage can get you killed if your lucks bad.

You are also combining the entire firefighting force for more bodies, whom also often has far better deployment time than the police. (its honestly sad)

but in any case it was a jokey joke

The machete scenario is such a poor example. An officer of the law should not be placed at risk in order to disarm an individual. The only reason this example works on any level is because no one was hurt. Had the individual managed to kill or maim a cop it would be lambasted immediately. Also, being mentally ill does not give you a free pass to do whatever the hell you want. After the fact, punishment for any crime/attempted crime will be less severe than for someone deemed 'sane', but anyone who is armed and dangerous will be dealt with as a threat.

This is going to become a big story because the student in question was of self proclaimed non-binary gender and on medication for mental health difficulties. This further brings into question issues of gender and mental illness in regards to transgender/non-binary gender individuals. Which is a growing problem because there is one narrative being pushed by the media that doesn't come close to matching up with my interactions with transgender/non-binary individuals. There is also the issue of mental health treatment in general and that many antidepressants/mood stabilizers can increase the likelihood of suicidal idealization.

This is a personal issue for me because I was misdiagnosed 9 years ago, prescribed medications that made the condition worse, and it was not until I quit all medications and took ownership of my shortcomings (instead of having all of my feelings validated) that I managed to improve my life. Right now I think a lot of people are being completely screwed over by the system. I've had multiple psychiatrists and counselors admit that a bipolar diagnosis is in vogue right now and over prescribed.

I also believe the transgender narrative is heavily false and part of the issue is rampant homophobia in America. We can pretend that it's not that bad, but the vast majority of males I encounter are still openly homophobic towards gay men and sexually offensive towards lesbians. It's as if you are not allowed to be an effeminate male. You must either be gay or transgender. Which makes absolutely no sense because sexual orientation has nothing to do with other interests.

 trexmeyer wrote:
The machete scenario is such a poor example. An officer of the law should not be placed at risk in order to disarm an individual. The only reason this example works on any level is because no one was hurt. Had the individual managed to kill or maim a cop it would be lambasted immediately. Also, being mentally ill does not give you a free pass to do whatever the hell you want. After the fact, punishment for any crime/attempted crime will be less severe than for someone deemed 'sane', but anyone who is armed and dangerous will be dealt with as a threat.

This is going to become a big story because the student in question was of self proclaimed non-binary gender and on medication for mental health difficulties. This further brings into question issues of gender and mental illness in regards to transgender/non-binary gender individuals. Which is a growing problem because there is one narrative being pushed by the media that doesn't come close to matching up with my interactions with transgender/non-binary individuals. There is also the issue of mental health treatment in general and that many antidepressants/mood stabilizers can increase the likelihood of suicidal idealization.

This is a personal issue for me because I was misdiagnosed 9 years ago, prescribed medications that made the condition worse, and it was not until I quit all medications and took ownership of my shortcomings (instead of having all of my feelings validated) that I managed to improve my life. Right now I think a lot of people are being completely screwed over by the system. I've had multiple psychiatrists and counselors admit that a bipolar diagnosis is in vogue right now and over prescribed.

I also believe the transgender narrative is heavily false and part of the issue is rampant homophobia in America. We can pretend that it's not that bad, but the vast majority of males I encounter are still openly homophobic towards gay men and sexually offensive towards lesbians. It's as if you are not allowed to be an effeminate male. You must either be gay or transgender. Which makes absolutely no sense because sexual orientation has nothing to do with other interests.

Aye well that one is a real can of worms we probbly get closed if we open given the reaction to the last transgender thread.

It ended up abit of a gak show of quite royal proportions..
Sorry. Not saying your issue is not serious, just ends badly sometimes.

As a point on the above, the officers at the time had not mass produced out the tasers, and even now theres not a 100% rollout.

The fact certain drugs render them immune to the effects could be very very dangerous if it take down or get bad hurt, and that fails....

There a useful tool. But they also have limitations.

In thr case on the OP.
This is a tricky case. Yes there's the angle above but also cut away the terms, races, and all other things.

Man goes forward. Police fall back multiple times and keep coming. Multiple warnings and multiple attempts to descalate.

They gave multiple chances to lower the weapon. And the report at first of firearm..

They had reason to potentially suspect they had a concealed firearm, maybe they not see it but that report could not be ignored which adds another dynamic to the case.

They should just throw out bans for personal attacks and delete posts. No issues are resolved if people aren't allowed to talk about it. The general reaction transgender issues across the internet is to forbid discussion. That just makes things worse.

 trexmeyer wrote:
They should just throw out bans for personal attacks and delete posts. No issues are resolved if people aren't allowed to talk about it. The general reaction transgender issues across the internet is to forbid discussion. That just makes things worse.

There's a certain school of thought that, when you attempt to debate a stance, you're giving credibility to that stance by treating it as even having particular validity. Thus it is a moral imperative to silence certain speech before it can even happen though whatever means necessary, lest you give credence to bad ideas. At least that's what my fully-PC college professor friend says.

There's an opposing school of thought that says that when you can't react to an argument without anger, attempts at intimidation, confrontation, and/or ad hominem and attempting to silence the other person, you've not got a very sound platform upon which you're making your case. Some would call that the expression of cognitive dissonance.

 trexmeyer wrote:
They should just throw out bans for personal attacks and delete posts. No issues are resolved if people aren't allowed to talk about it. The general reaction transgender issues across the internet is to forbid discussion. That just makes things worse.

Dude you're on a board about toy soldiers and toy tanks (Who needs marines when you have TANKS! and GUNS! and ARTILLERY!), not the debate society.

There are times when a cop does absolutely everything wrong (see "Nurse Wubbles" or "Utah Nurse").

...but there are times when a cop does everything legally, even at risk to their own safety. This is one of those times. A knife can cause you to bleed to death with one unlucky stab. I would instantly shoot upon any forward or quick motion from the perpetrator, it's part of the reason I am not a cop. This cop issued a warning, backed up, and the issued another warning. This cop's shoot was justified!

Violent people tend to remove themselves, or get removed from the gene pool. It's just a fact of life.

 trexmeyer wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, this is tragic, and we can go on and on about "why didn't the police have stun guns" or "why didn't they wrestle the kid to the ground and take their knife" but generally I think it was a case of suicide by cop, and that means the person went in with intent to die.

I find it quite odd campus police wouldn't have stun guns. Surely the whole purpose of campus police is to keep students and staff safe, non-lethal forms of subduing would surely be part of that?

Just because someone went in with the intent to die doesn't mean death has to be a foregone conclusion, I'm sure there's many people still kicking in their old age who had failed suicide attempts in their youth.

Tasers don't always work and are (albeit rarely) potentially lethal. They are also short range and would have required being within distance of a possible attack.

While we don't know if the student would have escalated and actually attacked, it's also not really a risk that should be taken.

This. One of the first things that we learned in taser qualification is that it's not some magic wand that automatically drops bad guys. It's no replacement for firearms, contrary to what armchair experts will tell you.

The issue with tasers range from the simple (electrode being deflected by buttons) to major (individuals with psychosis, involving mental issues or substance abuse). It's a useful tool. But that usefulness has it's limits.

People who have no experience or training also have no understanding why there is something called the "21 Foot Rule" in defensive shooting. Guns or not, if that nut was allowed to get within 21 feet (7 yards) of the responding officers, those cops were in the danger zone (no pun intended), where one of them could have been seriously injured or killed.

All in all, this was a clear-cut case of justifiable deadly force on the part of the police.

daedalus wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
They should just throw out bans for personal attacks and delete posts. No issues are resolved if people aren't allowed to talk about it. The general reaction transgender issues across the internet is to forbid discussion. That just makes things worse.

There's a certain school of thought that, when you attempt to debate a stance, you're giving credibility to that stance by treating it as even having particular validity. Thus it is a moral imperative to silence certain speech before it can even happen though whatever means necessary, lest you give credence to bad ideas. At least that's what my fully-PC college professor friend says.

There's an opposing school of thought that says that when you can't react to an argument without anger, attempts at intimidation, confrontation, and/or ad hominem and attempting to silence the other person, you've not got a very sound platform upon which you're making your case. Some would call that the expression of cognitive dissonance.

Wait...people actually support silencing dissent? That's totalitarianism.

Frazzled wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
They should just throw out bans for personal attacks and delete posts. No issues are resolved if people aren't allowed to talk about it. The general reaction transgender issues across the internet is to forbid discussion. That just makes things worse.

Dude you're on a board about toy soldiers and toy tanks (Who needs marines when you have TANKS! and GUNS! and ARTILLERY!), not the debate society.

And you're posting in this thread. In the OT section. I don't think I've seen you post elsewhere.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, this is tragic, and we can go on and on about "why didn't the police have stun guns" or "why didn't they wrestle the kid to the ground and take their knife" but generally I think it was a case of suicide by cop, and that means the person went in with intent to die.

I find it quite odd campus police wouldn't have stun guns. Surely the whole purpose of campus police is to keep students and staff safe, non-lethal forms of subduing would surely be part of that?

Just because someone went in with the intent to die doesn't mean death has to be a foregone conclusion, I'm sure there's many people still kicking in their old age who had failed suicide attempts in their youth.

Tasers don't always work and are (albeit rarely) potentially lethal. They are also short range and would have required being within distance of a possible attack.

While we don't know if the student would have escalated and actually attacked, it's also not really a risk that should be taken.

This. One of the first things that we learned in taser qualification is that it's not some magic wand that automatically drops bad guys. It's no replacement for firearms, contrary to what armchair experts will tell you.

The issue with tasers range from the simple (electrode being deflected by buttons) to major (individuals with psychosis, involving mental issues or substance abuse). It's a useful tool. But that usefulness has it's limits.

People who have no experience or training also have no understanding why there is something called the "21 Foot Rule" in defensive shooting. Guns or not, if that nut was allowed to get within 21 feet (7 yards) of the responding officers, those cops were in the danger zone (no pun intended), where one of them could have been seriously injured or killed.

All in all, this was a clear-cut case of justifiable deadly force on the part of the police.

Also a danger zone as a bullet is not a magic video game damage. Certain drugs and such. A person can survive multiple rounds and keep coming forward.

Just because someone is shot does not mean they are down more cannot attack. Even shot they could still stagger forward.

Having said that if there are a pair of officers that would be an optimum time to deploy a taser while the other one hand was normally armed to cover the other individual in these circumstances.

 jhe90 wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, this is tragic, and we can go on and on about "why didn't the police have stun guns" or "why didn't they wrestle the kid to the ground and take their knife" but generally I think it was a case of suicide by cop, and that means the person went in with intent to die.

I find it quite odd campus police wouldn't have stun guns. Surely the whole purpose of campus police is to keep students and staff safe, non-lethal forms of subduing would surely be part of that?

Just because someone went in with the intent to die doesn't mean death has to be a foregone conclusion, I'm sure there's many people still kicking in their old age who had failed suicide attempts in their youth.

Tasers don't always work and are (albeit rarely) potentially lethal. They are also short range and would have required being within distance of a possible attack.

While we don't know if the student would have escalated and actually attacked, it's also not really a risk that should be taken.

This. One of the first things that we learned in taser qualification is that it's not some magic wand that automatically drops bad guys. It's no replacement for firearms, contrary to what armchair experts will tell you.

The issue with tasers range from the simple (electrode being deflected by buttons) to major (individuals with psychosis, involving mental issues or substance abuse). It's a useful tool. But that usefulness has it's limits.

People who have no experience or training also have no understanding why there is something called the "21 Foot Rule" in defensive shooting. Guns or not, if that nut was allowed to get within 21 feet (7 yards) of the responding officers, those cops were in the danger zone (no pun intended), where one of them could have been seriously injured or killed.

All in all, this was a clear-cut case of justifiable deadly force on the part of the police.

Also a danger zone as a bullet is not a magic video game damage. Certain drugs and such. A person can survive multiple rounds and keep coming forward.

Just because someone is shot does not mean they are down more cannot attack. Even shot they could still stagger forward.

That's because handgun rounds are not as good as potential fight-stoppers as shotgun and rifle ammunition. That's why crap notions like one-stop shots or aiming for non-vital areas to incapacitate are just that: Crap.


That being said, handgun rounds tend to be better at incapacitating than less-lethal methods.

 trexmeyer wrote:

Wait...people actually support silencing dissent? That's totalitarianism.

It appears to be a particular belief endemic in university environments, but people appear serious about it. For an extreme example, see Berkeley. Though my aforementioned professor teaches in the midwest, so it's clearly not unique to the vaunted bastions of tolerance.

But all of this is veering off topic. I was merely commenting on your perception of a strong narrative.

 Frazzled wrote:
Having said that if there are a pair of officers that would be an optimum time to deploy a taser while the other one hand was normally armed to cover the other individual in these circumstances.

In most jurisdictions that have officers qualified to use tasers, this tends to be SOP. But that only cuts it if a taser qualified officer is on the scene, and/or one of the first responders.

If this was the 30s or so, they would have just pulled batons and beat the person into submission.

Now we just shoot them.

Progress!

 Easy E wrote:
If this was the 30s or so, they would have just pulled batons and beat the person into submission.

Now we just shoot them.

Progress!

Coincidently, the 30's or so were some of the deadliest times for American policing.

Now we give them the means to protect themselves.

Progress!

 daedalus wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

Wait...people actually support silencing dissent? That's totalitarianism.

It appears to be a particular belief endemic in university environments, but people appear serious about it. For an extreme example, see Berkeley. Though my aforementioned professor teaches in the midwest, so it's clearly not unique to the vaunted bastions of tolerance.

But all of this is veering off topic. I was merely commenting on your perception of a strong narrative.

This is a bit of misrepresentation, assuming your reference to Berkeley is in regards to Milo the Troll. Look a bit more into why they cancelled his most recent appearance--he was planning on "outing", on stage, DACA recipients.

In any regards, most people aren't supportive of "silencing dissent". That's a criticism that gets leveled at the academic world when it comes to things like Creationism v. Evolution, climate change, etc. The scientists/academics from institutions that actually produce research and material contrary to certain viewpoints get painted with that brush by their opposites who have doctorates and degrees from places that are religious institutions first, academic institutions second.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Having said that if there are a pair of officers that would be an optimum time to deploy a taser while the other one hand was normally armed to cover the other individual in these circumstances.

In most jurisdictions that have officers qualified to use tasers, this tends to be SOP. But that only cuts it if a taser qualified officer is on the scene, and/or one of the first responders.

Agreed. Its also my understanding taser armed were not about when this occurred.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

Wait...people actually support silencing dissent? That's totalitarianism.

It appears to be a particular belief endemic in university environments, but people appear serious about it. For an extreme example, see Berkeley. Though my aforementioned professor teaches in the midwest, so it's clearly not unique to the vaunted bastions of tolerance.

But all of this is veering off topic. I was merely commenting on your perception of a strong narrative.

I think we should leave that topic as its politics. POLITICS IST VERBOTTEN!!!!

Man, I feel like everything can spin politically in this day and age, so it's genuinely difficult to tell when I'm crossing the line.

I'll defer to your judgement though.

It would have been good if at least one of cops in question had a taser. While they're not a 100% reliable solution, it might have made a difference and it should be asked why no officers responding were so equipped. Justifying an immediate default of lethal force by saying "tasers aren't 100% effective" is a frankly bizarre stance to take - sure, they're not, but neither are batons or condoms or seat belts or chemotherapy or fire extinguishers. It's an odd nirvana fallacy.

That being said, it's pretty hard to fault the police for responding appropriately to someone who does present a mortal threat. Suicide by cop is a pretty lousy way to kill yourself.

 feeder wrote:
Different training could help. There's no reason to give a suicidal person their delusional wish.

This is different, not only are they UK police, its also on UK streets, the public attitude is also different, and the threat is different.

There are exceptions, but this isnt one of them.

And there is more than 20+ guys, not 3+

And predictably, the "protests" have started.

After watching the video, I don't see the issue here. The police tried to remain calm, tried to talk to the person, repeatedly ordered them to drop the knife. The officer did not fire until she had been isolated from the other officer by the building corner, and the person had started advancing on them again.

I've been in training for similar situations before. The person with the knife was within range to cause harm. You cannot guarantee you will react in time, if the person makes a sudden attempt. I know I wasn't able to when I went through a similar scenario in that training.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, this is tragic, and we can go on and on about "why didn't the police have stun guns" or "why didn't they wrestle the kid to the ground and take their knife" but generally I think it was a case of suicide by cop, and that means the person went in with intent to die.

I find it quite odd campus police wouldn't have stun guns. Surely the whole purpose of campus police is to keep students and staff safe, non-lethal forms of subduing would surely be part of that?

Just because someone went in with the intent to die doesn't mean death has to be a foregone conclusion, I'm sure there's many people still kicking in their old age who had failed suicide attempts in their youth.

Except of course, he is a disturbed individual with a knife, on campus. That's a threat to everyone. Public safety requires that be stopped before some coed gets killed. Again the police where repeatedly backing up and doing it right. The lady police officer shot only when he got within striking range.

And there are people who want to carry guns on campus, citing bizarre and rare scenarios like this one...let's not pretend that "public safety" is always the issue at hand here. Suicide by Cop is more likely to happen in an environment where the attacker knows they can get their wish. Deescalation is a thing and it has been shown to work in scenarios like this. The smart play would have been to get civilians away from the area and not confront the guy as directly as was being done here.

Additionally for Skink's comment:
The reason campus police don't have tasers is because, quite frankly, they can't be trusted with them. Tasers have a weird history here in the US thanks to the fact that police and others generally just take the approach of "taze them till they stop moving", which can cause big issues when someone has a heart defect or things of that nature.

I don't know which genius thought it was a good idea to give the campus police(assuming we're actually talking about campus police rather than just local police who are stationed on the campus--which if that's the case, why in the world they didn't have tasers or pepper spray I'll never know) in this scenario anything more deadly than a whistle or pepper spray...hopefully, that genius will be fired though.

IN their defense (and here's me defending police) they repeatedly backed up and were attempt to de-escalate. Its terribly sad but he got too close to the female officer and she shot him when he did so, after repeated to back off. This is not a criticism but a question-what would you have done differently to de-escalate?

Again, this is not an attack. How would you de-escalate that further?

Contained the man in a small area. Then I would stall until I could get pepper spray, taser, or a counselor down to talk the man down.

Or you know, tackle him from behind.

 djones520 wrote:
And predictably, the "protests" have started.

After watching the video, I don't see the issue here. The police tried to remain calm, tried to talk to the person, repeatedly ordered them to drop the knife.

Then you missed the whole issue. Because repeatedly ordering a person to drop a knife, an unstable person who is attempting to commit suicide by cop, is not going to work. Because they intend to get shot, dropping the knife defeats that purpose. Their whole approach to dealing with this man was flawed.

And what did you expect the officers to do? As I pointed out, shots were not fired until an officer had been isolated, and the person started advancing on that officer.

There is no "whole issue" here. This was textbook. An officer has every responsibility to use as minimal force as possible, but they also have every responsibility to keep themselves as safe as reasonably possible.

Is the situation unfortunate, certainly. It happened though, and the police were not the ones at fault here, and only an unreasonable person would put them at fault.