That depends if she intended lethal force and couldn't be disabled.
She had a knife, it doesn't matter what you intend if you're using a deadly weapon.
Furthermore, as we've been saying repeatedly. She couldn't have been disabled non-lethally, she was very close to her intended victim. Decisive action had to be taken or else risk the lives of an innocent civilian.
Do you think she should've been permitted to stab the girl? Because that's what very likely would've happened if he hadn't shot her.
Okay, am I misremembering, or did she call the police on someone trying to attack her?
I believe you're correct, but the problem is that when they arrived she continued to attack the girl and refused to stop after she was told to multiple times.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Apr 21st 2021 at 5:58:18 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThis is really starting to border the "good guy with a gun" fantasy.
We can only speculate what might've happened. Brandish the knife and make a threat? Turn toward the police officer? Realize the situation had gotten out of control and dropped the knife?
So, to deal with those possibilities — to allow them to exist — we need to train ourselves as well as our police. Yes, there's the possibility the situation would have resolved without anyone dying. We make that possibility a reality by continuing to push for our ideals.
If it comes down to saving the life of a 15-year-old girl defending herself or saving the life of her abuser by shooting the girl, I know which one I'd pick.
Remember that story of a teenage girl sentenced to years in prison for killing a man who was in the process of raping her?
Edited by PushoverMediaCritic on Apr 21st 2021 at 6:13:29 AM
Are police always trained to kill? Or is there some training to try and aim for an area that would cause less damage? Say the shoulder or leg.
I feel like sufficient training in that regard could lead to less-lethal shootings.
Edited by Scarecrow4774 on Apr 21st 2021 at 9:17:49 AM
“We’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.” - Lewis CarrollThis is a myth that needs to drop. There is no safe place to shoot someone. There are perhaps safer places, but any place you are shot has the potential to be fatal. This is especially true of the leg which has several major arteries in it. The reason police are trained to aim for the center of mass is your most likely to hit your target that way. If you are aiming to shoot someone you are aiming to kill no matter where you shoot.
Edited by jjjj2 on Apr 21st 2021 at 9:22:28 AM
You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the midI think it's good to remember, as a rule of thumb, that any tool designed to end human lives (or at least inflict enough bodily trauma to stop them from moving on the spot) is bound to be far more messy and imprecise in real life than they look in Hollywood.
One day, we will read his name in the news and cheer.There is no such thing as “shooting to wound”. Police (as well as anyone else who carries a pistol professionally) are trained to shoot center mass and keep shooting until the perceived threat is over. Even a trained marksman isn’t going to be able to shoot to wound with a handgun.
Less-lethal methods are also far less reliable than you’d think. In a situation like that, it’s likely the victim would have already been stabbed at least once by the time a taser could have fully subdued the assailant. Taser prongs don’t travel all that fast, and require the target to be fairly close. They’re also somewhat difficult to aim at moving or distant targets, as one of the prongs fires at a downward angle. Other than a taser, the less-lethal methods police typically have on hand in the field are mace, expandable batons, and their hands, none of which would have been notably useful here.
This is from a few pages back but I wanted to address this as well.
There are something like 30-50 million police contacts a year in the US, based on Bureau of Justice statistics. Of that, less than 1% end in any kind of use of force whatsoever, and an even smaller percentage in shootings. The police aren’t using their guns in 90% of the situations they find themselves in. The question we should be asking is why police act as if every situation could be that 1%. Police are told these numbers in their training, and they’re also told to act as if every contact with the public is going to be that 1%, because in that 1% contact the person could have a gun. The logic goes that you can only help people if you’re alive, and if any person could have a gun which they could use to instantly end your life, the only way to stay alive, and help more people, is to act as if every person has a gun, so that you have the drop on them if they do.
There’s a certain sense there, but it’s worth considering how that attitude colors the other 99% of the interactions police find themselves in, and whether it leads to violence in situations where there didn’t need to be any. However, I believe that the police violence problem in the US in inextricably linked to the gun problem here. The US is one of the few countries on earth where a police officer can credibly say that there’s a real risk of having to deal with an armed person. Some of the reform packages being put forward now are good first steps, but I think it’s worth considering that angle as well.
They should have sent a poet.Regardless of the situation, the fact remains that "roll up to the scene and shoot the first Black person they see" is how far too many police interactions currently play out. Maybe this shooting was justified; maybe not. But the fact that using lethal violence immediately upon arrival is such a common tactic speaks to the larger problems of lacking less-lethal tools (or having them and just grabbing a gun anyway) and having no training in or interest in de-escalation.
It's been fun.A taser or a electroshock weapon are not entirely non-lethal, but there's still a much higher chance this woman would be alive if the officer had deployed that rather than riddled her with four bullets.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."The real problem isn't the behavior of individual officers, however egregious they might be (or not, in this case). The real problem is the system, which encourages police violence. Change the system, and you would reduce the rate of shootings, even if not a single officer changed their personal attitudes.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.There's probably a decent argument to be had about whether police officers should even carry guns at all, and in the context of that argument some of the comments made her probably work better, but if that's not the framework we're discussing things in, many of them seem disingenuous.
I'm really not sure how else to take arguments to the effect that it's unreasonable to shot someone while they're apparently mid swing in trying to stab someone else, or that it isn't dangerous to tackle someone with a knife, and so lethal force couldn't have been necessary.
![]()
![]()
If the officer had deployed a taser, the other woman would most likely be dead.
How do you choose who lives and who dies? The officer arrives on scene with little to no context, all they see is one person about to stab another. There are seconds at best to make a decision. What should have been done in that situation?
This young woman was failed by the state long before one of its agents killed her. A police officer isn’t the solution to domestic abuse, or at least they shouldn’t be. That’s the other end of meaningful police reform, which is taking the police out of situations that can’t be solved with a gun or handcuffs. Like I mentioned above, there are somewhere around 50 million police contacts a year in the US. Do the majority of those require an armed state agent to resolve them? Probably not.
I don’t think you can make a meaningful attempt to disarm police until you figure out a way to disarm the public.
Edited by archonspeaks on Apr 21st 2021 at 8:53:28 AM
They should have sent a poet.Relevant stories from today's WTF Just Happened Today: https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2021/04/21/day-92/
https://apnews.com/article/george-floyd-verdict-police-reform-doj-e24dd1a390a781af3495fa1e0271f492
poll/ 71% of Americans agree that Derek Chauvin was guilty, while 13% disagreed and 15% had no opinion. (USA Today)
Republican lawmakers in 34 states have introduced 81 anti-protest bills – more than twice as many proposals as in any other year. Republican legislators in Oklahoma and Iowa have granted immunity to drivers who strike and injure protesters with their car in public streets; Indiana would bar anyone convicted of unlawful assembly from state employment, including elected office; Minnesota would prohibit those convicted of unlawful protesting from receiving student loans and unemployment benefits; Kentucky would make it a crime to insult or taunt a police officer; and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed sweeping legislation he’s called “the strongest anti-looting, anti-rioting, pro-law-enforcement piece of legislation in the country.” (New York Times)
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/21/us/politics/republican-anti-protest-laws.html
Edited by sgamer82 on Apr 21st 2021 at 8:56:21 AM
Stun gun, rubber bullets, taser if close enough (which might have been, might not have been, hard to judge from the bodycam footage), all three of which would have stopped her dead on her tracks and have much lower chances of resulting in her death. We don't know enough to ascertain what tools the officer had at his disposal but as stated, if nothing else it speaks to a problem in training and copsychology.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."A stun gun is a taser, rubber bullets are hardly standard issue (especially in this case in which you'd need to manually load them, by which time it would almost certainly be too late), and a taser might've made it worse, they haven't a tendency to cause spasms. So not something you want if somebody's lunging with a knife. And it might not have incapacitated her.
You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the midI'd say that the officer made the right call, as tragic as it was, with the information at hand. However, the response to this is understandable in light of everything thst had been made public about the police.
Though why the other officers didn't break up the fight before the shooting officer got there I don't know.
Also, they apparently did not yell Blue Lives Matter. Apparently, that was a neighbor who did that because he saw a blue line flag on one of the cruisers.
Edited by windleopard on Apr 21st 2021 at 9:57:23 AM
The presence of such a flag is pretty disturbing to be honest.
I am however concerned that we’ve got plenty of people saying how the police shouldn’t play executioner, while demanding that the police play executioner for the women who the girl was trying to stab.
I don’t believe we even now have the details as to who the girl was trying to stab, the police certainly didn’t at the time, so the fact that people seem to think that she deserved to die is pretty disturbing.
You’ve made a ton of assumptions there, we don’t know that the women being attacked was the girl’s abuser, the police certainly didn’t know.
The fact that you’re so quick to make assumptions to justify how a person you think should have been killed “deserved it” is not good.
I think some people believe that the police should have helped the girl kill the unarmed women, because posters have assumed that the women is an abuser who deserves to die.
Personally, I’d like to see an actual timeline of events. How did the situation go from the girl making a 911 call to being outside and trying to stab an unarmed women. Did the police arrive in good time or could a quicker response time have meant they got there in time to deescalate the situation? Did the police use their sirens while arriving so as to provide an early “police are here, everyone stop trying to kill each other” message? Did the police have proper anti-stab vests so that they could have tried to tackle the teenager if it wasn’t for the presence of the unarmed women?
Edited by Silasw on Apr 22nd 2021 at 8:06:41 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThis is also very important. Everyone's saying the shooting officer had no choice but to shoot the girl, not woman, with the knife, but was there no attempt made to break up the fight beforehand? Hell, if it was too dangerous to get close, why not pepper spray and then sort things out? It would end up affecting the non-aggressors too, but if they had a teenager wouldn't be dead, and they've used pepper spray on plenty of unarmed people before.
It's been fun.Wait wait, there was an officer already on the scene? What the fuck were they doing, counting clouds?
Also, question for people who’ve seen the footage. How was the girl close enough to the women be mid stab-attempt, but not so close that the officer shooting risked hitting the unarmed women? That seems like a weird disconnect, people get stabbed pretty close up and it seems like it’d be impressive marksmanship to hit only one person in a melee.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

That depends if she intended lethal force and couldn't be disabled.
Because a child is dead because of their actions.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 21st 2021 at 5:45:55 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.