4 ms·

It’s because the target was a three year old. Also, your comparison is way off. Not all police departments are the same. Unarmed doesn’t mean “not a threat” o

It’s because the target was a three year old. Also, your comparison is way off. Not all police departments are the same. Unarmed doesn’t mean “not a threat” or “can in no way be a threat”. I can simply approach you in an angry manner and be a threat. Does it justify death? No, but a three year old?

wombatmobile 6y ago
> Unarmed doesn’t mean “not a threat” How much of a threat are the "unarmed law-abiding civilians" in the comment you replied to?
Daho0n 6y ago
An officer from a well functioning and well trained policeforce would not even shoot to kill a knife wielding attacker. They would at most first shoot a warning shot and then maybe a single shot in the leg if they couldn't stop him with pepperspray or a tazer. An unarmed civilian is most definitely not a threat in any way to a real cop (US police doesn't count as a real cop. They are an embarrassment to police everywhere.)
- Bancakes 6y ago
  Warning shots, single shots to the leg, and all less lethal short of 40mm grenade to the head/neck has proven wildly inconsistent at stopping an attacker. Remember the Tueller drill, there is no time for reaction, only action - that means to shoot until the aggressor is incapacitated. This is the time proven way of preventing dead or injured police officers (and civilians!). It's just that police in Europe and Asia don't really face dangerous and determined criminals.
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    >It's just that police in Europe and Asia don't really face dangerous and determined criminals. That's just laughable. People in the US are not more dangerous than people in Europe or Asia. Lots of dangerous individuals get stopped by police without killing them with 41 bullets. What is more dangerous is the police's behaviour, behaving like an occupying force. US police would also rather kill someone trying to escape from s minor offence than let them get away. Different way of thinking. One values lives above killcount.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      People in the US are far more likely to be armed than people in Europe or Asia. That in fact makes them more dangerous.

wombatmobile 6y ago

> Unarmed doesn’t mean “not a threat” How much of a threat are the "unarmed law-abiding civilians" in the comment you replied to?

Daho0n 6y ago

An officer from a well functioning and well trained policeforce would not even shoot to kill a knife wielding attacker. They would at most first shoot a warning shot and then maybe a single shot in the leg if they couldn't stop him with pepperspray or a tazer. An unarmed civilian is most definitely not a threat in any way to a real cop (US police doesn't count as a real cop. They are an embarrassment to police everywhere.)

Bancakes 6y ago
Warning shots, single shots to the leg, and all less lethal short of 40mm grenade to the head/neck has proven wildly inconsistent at stopping an attacker. Remember the Tueller drill, there is no time for reaction, only action - that means to shoot until the aggressor is incapacitated. This is the time proven way of preventing dead or injured police officers (and civilians!). It's just that police in Europe and Asia don't really face dangerous and determined criminals.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  >It's just that police in Europe and Asia don't really face dangerous and determined criminals. That's just laughable. People in the US are not more dangerous than people in Europe or Asia. Lots of dangerous individuals get stopped by police without killing them with 41 bullets. What is more dangerous is the police's behaviour, behaving like an occupying force. US police would also rather kill someone trying to escape from s minor offence than let them get away. Different way of thinking. One values lives above killcount.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    People in the US are far more likely to be armed than people in Europe or Asia. That in fact makes them more dangerous.