green_dude777 Posted October 25, 2013 #1 Share Posted October 25, 2013 http://wgntv.com/2013/10/25/woman-dies-in-police-shooting/?hpt=ju_bn5# This one had a knife. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted October 25, 2013 #2 Share Posted October 25, 2013 They couldn't have tasered her, or knocked her out or something? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted October 25, 2013 #3 Share Posted October 25, 2013 They couldn't have tasered her, or knocked her out or something? both could of killed her, she could have heart problems or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted October 25, 2013 #4 Share Posted October 25, 2013 i doubt it, she was 63 and had been using drugs and alcohol, and still had strenght to destroy the house. she would have survived taser, but cops may not have it. not all cops have tasers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green_dude777 Posted October 25, 2013 Author #5 Share Posted October 25, 2013 both could of killed her, she could have heart problems or something I wonder then, based on your logic being displayed, why even have tasers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green_dude777 Posted October 25, 2013 Author #6 Share Posted October 25, 2013 i doubt it, she was 63 and had been using drugs and alcohol, and still had strenght to destroy the house. she would have survived taser, but cops may not have it. not all cops have tasers. This is true, not all police carry tasers. I just wonder why dispatch didn't send over someone with less lethal means available, considering it was called in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted October 25, 2013 #7 Share Posted October 25, 2013 I wonder then, based on your logic being displayed, why even have tasers? Tasers are to stop people instantly and then restrain them, they are safer than guns 9/10. But also knocking someone down could kill them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green_dude777 Posted October 25, 2013 Author #8 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Tasers are to stop people instantly and then restrain them, they are safer than guns 9/10. But also knocking someone down could kill them I'm well aware what they are for. Your statement implied that using a taser or gun is interchangeable, since being tased can result in death. I was trying to get you to see the flaw in your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted October 25, 2013 #9 Share Posted October 25, 2013 i doubt it, she was 63 and had been using drugs and alcohol, and still had strenght to destroy the house. she would have survived taser, but cops may not have it. not all cops have tasers. I'll bet every cop in that state has a taser in the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supervike Posted October 25, 2013 #10 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Poor lady obviously had some serious issues. Cops have really hard choices to make. I'm glad I'm not faced with such decisions on a regular basis. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green_dude777 Posted October 25, 2013 Author #11 Share Posted October 25, 2013 I'll bet every cop in that state has a taser in the car. I can't confirm or deny that statement, but I would think a police department that has been actively trying to disarm the civilians in their jurisdiction would have non lethal means of dealing with those without a gun. Maybe that's a bad assumption. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted October 25, 2013 #12 Share Posted October 25, 2013 it could be, than i guess they didn't want to go and get one from the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green_dude777 Posted October 25, 2013 Author #13 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Poor lady obviously had some serious issues. Cops have really hard choices to make. I'm glad I'm not faced with such decisions on a regular basis. You're right, in general, they do. I don't consider this one that hard of a choice. There's all kinds of things that could have been used instead of a firearm, especially since they knew the situation they were responding to. LAPD, NYPD, Chicago PD, and Boston PD rarely will have my sympathies. Those departments literally are the cliche of bullies or thugs with badges. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supervike Posted October 25, 2013 #14 Share Posted October 25, 2013 You're right, in general, they do. I don't consider this one that hard of a choice. There's all kinds of things that could have been used instead of a firearm, especially since they knew the situation they were responding to. LAPD, NYPD, Chicago PD, and Boston PD rarely will have my sympathies. Those departments literally are the cliche of bullies or thugs with badges. I do tend to agree (not sure about the major city cops) but in general, and with the amount of money that Police forces are getting, you'd think more reliable non-lethal choices would be available. I suppose it would depend on each situation, but would'nt you think a shotgun blast with rubber pellets would be enough to knock down a drunk old lady? Or at least get her to drop the knife. Instead of buying tanks for some of these departments, how about real non-lethal take down methods? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted October 25, 2013 #15 Share Posted October 25, 2013 so what would happen if she turned the knife on herself? would that be harder? you need to have a quick descion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green_dude777 Posted October 25, 2013 Author #16 Share Posted October 25, 2013 so what would happen if she turned the knife on herself? would that be harder? you need to have a quick descion What? Are you suggesting that shooting her was necessary if she turned the knife on herself? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted October 25, 2013 #17 Share Posted October 25, 2013 so what would happen if she turned the knife on herself? would that be harder? you need to have a quick descion she was not suicidal. didn't seem at least, or she'd quietly slit her wrists. What? Are you suggesting that shooting her was necessary if she turned the knife on herself? yea i didn't get this pioint either. "don't cut your veins or we'll shot you" lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted October 25, 2013 #18 Share Posted October 25, 2013 (edited) What? Are you suggesting that shooting her was necessary if she turned the knife on herself? no i said it would be difficult, i didn't say shoot, they will need to calm her down Edited October 25, 2013 by The New Richard Nixon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted October 25, 2013 #19 Share Posted October 25, 2013 she was not suicidal. didn't seem at least, or she'd quietly slit her wrists. yea i didn't get this pioint either. "don't cut your veins or we'll shot you" lol If she was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skep B Posted October 26, 2013 #20 Share Posted October 26, 2013 THis is anotherone where I'm going to side with the police. Shes got a deadly weapon, not responding to commands, its a sh*tty situation to be sure, but it stopped the problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libstaK Posted October 26, 2013 #21 Share Posted October 26, 2013 I don't necessarily like that I usually side with the police - but I do. Why? These reports have scanty detail and the victim's behaviour is amongst the scantiest of details, if more was presented I may feel different but on surface evidence it comes down to this - The police are men and women with families and loved ones whose first priority is to get home safely from their day at work to those who are waiting for them. You face a police officer with a weapon and refuse to disarm on their command - you will be shot, it's the safest alternative for all involved/in the immediate vacinity, who did not choose to be faced with a weapon in the first place aka: everyone but the perp. Give me something that refutes the police' right to self defense and preservation of innocent by-standers life and I will step up and feel differently. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted October 26, 2013 #22 Share Posted October 26, 2013 Life is getting cheaper by the day. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skep B Posted October 26, 2013 #23 Share Posted October 26, 2013 Nah, it's just inflation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted October 26, 2013 #24 Share Posted October 26, 2013 Life is getting cheaper by the day. People are just more stressed, El. Cops aren't superhuman and they want to live too. Sure, some of them are in the wrong line of work but most seem to have a handle on trying to do the right thing. This woman was mentally ill, sounds like, and a taser might have been the best choice -THAT is the question I'd be demanding an answer to. Why aren't non-lethal means available routinely so that when it's possible (like here) the option is there for more than shooting someone. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qxcontinuum Posted October 26, 2013 #25 Share Posted October 26, 2013 They couldn't have tasered her, or knocked her out or something? No , they like to kill. You ain't a real police w/ a a few kills under your belt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now