6 ms·

>because he wasn't able to hear what they were yelling to him He was advancing toward them with a metal pipe, while their weapons were drawn. I don't think the

>because he wasn't able to hear what they were yelling to him He was advancing toward them with a metal pipe, while their weapons were drawn. I don't think there was much that needed to be communicated in such a scenario. Most likely suicide by cop.

orf 8y ago
Are the police so poorly trained and terrified that they are unable to subdue a deaf man carrying a pipe without lethal force? Why is walking towards a cop with a melee weapon grounds for a death sentence?
- a_t48 8y ago
  Deaf doesn't mean weak.
  - saghm 8y ago
    Removing the word "deaf" from GP's comment, it's still a good question
    - a_t48 8y ago
      True, that.
- andrewflnr 8y ago
  It's not a matter of being poorly trained. A "melee weapon" at 15 feet is a credible lethal threat, full stop. You don't mess around with that. Probably the guy had no intention of using it as a weapon, but cops do deal with people prepared to attack them, and had only subtle clues that this case might be different. Given that they already had guns drawn, a clear signal, the deafness is almost irrelevant. Either the guy was coming after them, or just not tracking the situation. Only in hindsight is it clear that it was the latter.
  - the8472 8y ago
    > You don't mess around with that. Riot gear? Use those man catchers the japanese have? Retreat if he doesn't pose an immediate threat to anyone else? Pepperspray? Other countries manage to detain physically violent people without shooting them. Unless the US is governed by different physics that make steel pipes more lethal I think there's no solid argument why police officers can't just handle the situation the same as everyone else.
    - vezycash 8y ago
      Couldn't the police shoot the legs or the hand holding the weapon in less-threatening situations. Or is that more cruel than death? Even a warning shot in the air is enough to calm certain situations. Or is there risk of shooting a plane, helicopter, falling bullet killing someone else?
      - rangibaby 8y ago
        Shooting anywhere can kill. They aim for center of mass because they are less likely to miss.
      - JasonFruit 8y ago
        Warning shots and attempts at non-lethal injuries escalate the encounter and are practically impossible under stress. That only works in Western movies.
  - mayniac 8y ago
    There's dozens of videos of UK police detaining people carrying machetes and other weapons without lethal force. A police officer shooting at someone coming at them with a melee weapon is a combination of laziness and cowardice IMO. I've been on raids with British police where the suspect has a violent criminal history. They just put on helmets and had shields ready in the van. No guns, no tasers, just batons and pepper spray. On one occasion the suspect had previously gotten arrested for brandishing nunchucks in public, and in the pre-raid briefing the sergeant said "if he comes at you with them, just retreat and wait for him to either knock himself out or tire himself out, then hit him a bit". He was only semi-joking. It absolutely comes down to better training. Even failing that, I see no reason why a taser could not have been used in this situation. And ultimately if a police officer gets injured, tough shit: it's what they get paid for and they're well aware of the risks when they sign up. Maybe ditching the "shoot anyone who poses a marginal threat" mentality would be good for the police too, I reckon there'd be a lot less power hungry cops in the states.
- allthenews 8y ago
  How much risk do you expect police to take on? This man threatened them with lethal force, in the face of drawn weapons. Even if they were to attempt to subdue, they would be risking severe bodily harm. At some point I believe a human being momentarily forfeits their right to life when they show reckless, deliberate disdain for the life of others. Deadly force was met with deadly force. The power imbalance is irrelevant, considering how much damage a man can do with a pipe, and the fact that he was fully aware of the situation.
  - eropple 8y ago
    > How much risk do you expect police to take on? All of it. I will trade a hundred dead police officers for one citizen who would have been unjustly harmed and sleep soundly for it. Police receive power from the state and significant social plaudits. In exchange, they place the well-being of every citizen over their own. That's the deal. It is being abrogated regularly. That needs to change.
    - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
      > All of it. I will trade a hundred dead police officers for one citizen who would have been unjustly harmed and sleep soundly for it. And where are you going to find people self-sacrificing enough to take that job?
      - eropple 8y ago
        I would rather have trouble finding police officers than find places to bury the citizens who bad police victimize.
        throwaway080383 8y ago
        Do you actually think there would be fewer dead bodies if there were significantly fewer police?
      - SuoDuanDao 8y ago

orf 8y ago

Are the police so poorly trained and terrified that they are unable to subdue a deaf man carrying a pipe without lethal force? Why is walking towards a cop with a melee weapon grounds for a death sentence?

a_t48 8y ago
Deaf doesn't mean weak.
- saghm 8y ago
  Removing the word "deaf" from GP's comment, it's still a good question
  - a_t48 8y ago
    True, that.
andrewflnr 8y ago
It's not a matter of being poorly trained. A "melee weapon" at 15 feet is a credible lethal threat, full stop. You don't mess around with that. Probably the guy had no intention of using it as a weapon, but cops do deal with people prepared to attack them, and had only subtle clues that this case might be different. Given that they already had guns drawn, a clear signal, the deafness is almost irrelevant. Either the guy was coming after them, or just not tracking the situation. Only in hindsight is it clear that it was the latter.
- the8472 8y ago
  > You don't mess around with that. Riot gear? Use those man catchers the japanese have? Retreat if he doesn't pose an immediate threat to anyone else? Pepperspray? Other countries manage to detain physically violent people without shooting them. Unless the US is governed by different physics that make steel pipes more lethal I think there's no solid argument why police officers can't just handle the situation the same as everyone else.
  - vezycash 8y ago
    Couldn't the police shoot the legs or the hand holding the weapon in less-threatening situations. Or is that more cruel than death? Even a warning shot in the air is enough to calm certain situations. Or is there risk of shooting a plane, helicopter, falling bullet killing someone else?
    - rangibaby 8y ago
      Shooting anywhere can kill. They aim for center of mass because they are less likely to miss.
    - JasonFruit 8y ago
      Warning shots and attempts at non-lethal injuries escalate the encounter and are practically impossible under stress. That only works in Western movies.
- mayniac 8y ago
  There's dozens of videos of UK police detaining people carrying machetes and other weapons without lethal force. A police officer shooting at someone coming at them with a melee weapon is a combination of laziness and cowardice IMO. I've been on raids with British police where the suspect has a violent criminal history. They just put on helmets and had shields ready in the van. No guns, no tasers, just batons and pepper spray. On one occasion the suspect had previously gotten arrested for brandishing nunchucks in public, and in the pre-raid briefing the sergeant said "if he comes at you with them, just retreat and wait for him to either knock himself out or tire himself out, then hit him a bit". He was only semi-joking. It absolutely comes down to better training. Even failing that, I see no reason why a taser could not have been used in this situation. And ultimately if a police officer gets injured, tough shit: it's what they get paid for and they're well aware of the risks when they sign up. Maybe ditching the "shoot anyone who poses a marginal threat" mentality would be good for the police too, I reckon there'd be a lot less power hungry cops in the states.
allthenews 8y ago
How much risk do you expect police to take on? This man threatened them with lethal force, in the face of drawn weapons. Even if they were to attempt to subdue, they would be risking severe bodily harm. At some point I believe a human being momentarily forfeits their right to life when they show reckless, deliberate disdain for the life of others. Deadly force was met with deadly force. The power imbalance is irrelevant, considering how much damage a man can do with a pipe, and the fact that he was fully aware of the situation.
- eropple 8y ago
  > How much risk do you expect police to take on? All of it. I will trade a hundred dead police officers for one citizen who would have been unjustly harmed and sleep soundly for it. Police receive power from the state and significant social plaudits. In exchange, they place the well-being of every citizen over their own. That's the deal. It is being abrogated regularly. That needs to change.
  - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
    > All of it. I will trade a hundred dead police officers for one citizen who would have been unjustly harmed and sleep soundly for it. And where are you going to find people self-sacrificing enough to take that job?
    - eropple 8y ago
      I would rather have trouble finding police officers than find places to bury the citizens who bad police victimize.
      - throwaway080383 8y ago
        Do you actually think there would be fewer dead bodies if there were significantly fewer police?
    - SuoDuanDao 8y ago