9311
Twitter
Facebook
Fark.com Mobile
Copyright © 1999 - 2021 Fark, Inc
Last updated: Jun 04 2021 22:34:04
Contact | Report error | TOS/legal/privacy
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Full site
Copyright © 1999 - 2021 Fark, Inc
Last updated: Jun 04 2021 22:34:04
Contact | Report error | TOS/legal/privacy
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Full site
g.fro: whidbey: g.fro: durbnpoisn: ...
Second, he could have shot her ANYWHERE else that wasn't fatal.
...
I'm going to repeat this however many times is necessary: shooting-to-wound is not a thing.
Something else that needs to change in law enforcement. Because that's bullshiat.
It's not a matter of law enforcement policy, it's a matter of common sense, morality, and physics.
We want people (including cops) shooting at people less, not more.
It actually sounds like macho bullshiat, and isn't necessary unless that person is a threat. There is no evidence that Bryant was a threat to anyone, or even if she was perpetrating a crime, since the 911 call stated "females were trying to stab them."
You basically believe cops have the "right" to shoot first, ask questions later.
close
Geotpf: The cops were there to offer her sanctuary. Instead, she got all stabby even after they were already there.
I just can't agree with your first sentence. The cops were there to prevent affray. They weren't her cops. They were everyone's cops. Police are not social workers. And they arrived when the knives were out.
This whole horrible situation is social breakdown. First sanctuary: foster home. If that fails, then where?
Well, pretty obviously, there needs to be a network. Neighbours. Grandparents. Aunts. Uncles. Places where kids can rapidly go to feel safe.
As for twitter clips and youtube feeds, I'm not going to be impressed by them until someone on that street turns up on camera and says, "Yes. I'm sorry. I should have opened my door to that child and kept her safe."
close
whidbey: ...
It actually sounds like macho bullshiat, and isn't necessary unless that person is a threat. There is no evidence that Bryant was a threat to anyone, or even if she was perpetrating a crime, since the 911 call stated "females were trying to stab them."
You basically believe cops have the "right" to shoot first, ask questions later.
How did you derive the exact opposite meaning from what I said?
For the umpteenth time: if the police (or anyone else) are not fully justified in killing someone, they should not be shooting at them!
You must have a very unique understanding of machismo.
And again, I offer no opinion on the details of this specific case.
close
I really feel sorry for some of you, so unable to question the dominant paradigm and choosing to mock others who do.
I'd log off Fark, honestly. You're just trolling.
close
g.fro: whidbey: ...
It actually sounds like macho bullshiat, and isn't necessary unless that person is a threat. There is no evidence that Bryant was a threat to anyone, or even if she was perpetrating a crime, since the 911 call stated "females were trying to stab them."
You basically believe cops have the "right" to shoot first, ask questions later.
How did you derive the exact opposite meaning from what I said?
For the umpteenth time: if the police (or anyone else) are not fully justified in killing someone, they should not be shooting at them!
You must have a very unique understanding of machismo.
And again, I offer no opinion on the details of this specific case.
Yeah well it should be obvious that I reject that premise, too. Somebody died because of it, and it looks like that death didn't have to happen given the confusion of the 911 call.
The bottom line is "Defunding the Police" means more than just "take away their $$$."
close
whidbey: ...
Yeah well it should be obvious that I reject that premise, too. Somebody died because of it, and it looks like that death didn't have to happen given the confusion of the 911 call.
The bottom line is "Defunding the Police" means more than just "take away their $$$."
That you reject what premise? That cops shouldn't shoot at people unless absolutely necessary?
I haven't said anything about defunding the police one way or the other. Are you sure you're talking to me, and not someone else?
close
g.fro: whidbey: ...
Yeah well it should be obvious that I reject that premise, too. Somebody died because of it, and it looks like that death didn't have to happen given the confusion of the 911 call.
The bottom line is "Defunding the Police" means more than just "take away their $$$."
That you reject what premise? That cops shouldn't shoot at people unless absolutely necessary?
I haven't said anything about defunding the police one way or the other. Are you sure you're talking to me, and not someone else?
I'm talking to you. And I'm saying "Shoot to wound" should be a thing.
close
whidbey: ...
That you reject what premise? That cops shouldn't shoot at people unless absolutely necessary?
I haven't said anything about defunding the police one way or the other. Are you sure you're talking to me, and not someone else?
I'm talking to you. And I'm saying "Shoot to wound" should be a thing.
And you clearly know nothing about firearms.
close
g.fro: whidbey: ...
That you reject what premise? That cops shouldn't shoot at people unless absolutely necessary?
I haven't said anything about defunding the police one way or the other. Are you sure you're talking to me, and not someone else?
I'm talking to you. And I'm saying "Shoot to wound" should be a thing.
And you clearly know nothing about firearms.
We know that with years of training, helicopters, radios, body armor, taser, a fleet of gun wielding swat teams that a bunch of cops cannot subdue one person without killing them.
We need to take their guns away.
P.s. I was a bad person when I was younger and have been stabbed three times. All hilt deep. Only once did I even go to the hospital and they basically gave me twelve stitches and a par on the back. All of them were stab wounds in or around the stomach area. Why do you think most stabbing deaths have something like 13-20 stabs. It is hard to stab someone to death, this ain't the movies.
close
g.fro: whidbey: ...
That you reject what premise? That cops shouldn't shoot at people unless absolutely necessary?
I haven't said anything about defunding the police one way or the other. Are you sure you're talking to me, and not someone else?
I'm talking to you. And I'm saying "Shoot to wound" should be a thing.
And you clearly know nothing about firearms.
Not really talking about them, actually. We are talking about officers who shot a girl 4 times in the chest.
close
whidbey: ...
Not really talking about them, actually. We are talking about officers who shot a girl 4 times in the chest.
The only thing I have talked about in this whole thread is how and why shooting-to-wound is not a valid tactic.
You keep insisting it is, even though you don't know what you are talking about.
Why don't you just admit you made a misstatement out of ignorance and move on?
close
thiefofdreams: ...
We need to take their guns away.
...
I've said twice that the police have made a pretty good argument for that.
close
g.fro: whidbey: ...
Not really talking about them, actually. We are talking about officers who shot a girl 4 times in the chest.
The only thing I have talked about in this whole thread is how and why shooting-to-wound is not a valid tactic.
Your circular logic is noted.
You keep insisting it is, even though you don't know what you are talking about.
Why don't you just admit you made a misstatement out of ignorance and move on?
Um, no? I made no ignorant statements. And part of "defunding the police" is restricting this kind of terrible power if not stripping it altogether.
close
whidbey: And there's that passive aggressive manchild again.
A young girl was killed, whidbey. Could you at least show some empathy and respect, please.
close
PartTimeBuddha: whidbey: And there's that passive aggressive manchild again.
A young girl was killed, whidbey. Could you at least show some empathy and respect, please.
It's all I have been doing. You might take that up with the poo flingers in here upset that their Thin Blue Line has been successfully challenged. :)
close
whidbey: ..
Your circular logic is noted.
You keep insisting it is, even though you don't know what you are talking about.
Why don't you just admit you made a misstatement out of ignorance and move on?
Um, no? I made no ignorant statements. And part of "defunding the police" is restricting this kind of terrible power if not stripping it altogether.
So not only do you not know anything about guns and use of force, you also don't know what circular logic is.
Your repeated statements advocating shooting at someone with the intent to wound rather than kill are ignorant. They are made out of a lack of knowledge. It has been repeatedly explained to you not only that you are wrong, but why you are wrong.
I never said anything about defunding the police.
close
g.fro: whidbey: ..
Your circular logic is noted.
You keep insisting it is, even though you don't know what you are talking about.
Why don't you just admit you made a misstatement out of ignorance and move on?
Um, no? I made no ignorant statements. And part of "defunding the police" is restricting this kind of terrible power if not stripping it altogether.
So not only do you not know anything about guns and use of force, you also don't know what circular logic is.
You basically said "shoot to wound isn't a thing because I said so." Circular logic.
Your repeated statements advocating shooting at someone with the intent to wound rather than kill are ignorant. They are made out of a lack of knowledge. It has been repeatedly explained to you not only that you are wrong, but why you are wrong.
You haven't explained anything, honestly.
I never said anything about defunding the police.
Well I did. And that not only includes defunding, but having strict guidelines for how force with a deadly weapon should be used.
close
whidbey: ...
You basically said "shoot to wound isn't a thing because I said so." Circular logic.
...
You haven't explained anything, honestly.
I never said anything about defunding the police.
Well I did. And that not only includes defunding, but having strict guidelines for how force with a deadly weapon should be used.
You must have a short memory.
To save you the hassle of scrolling up, I will repeat the main reasons why.
Every shot fired is a use of deadly force. The bullet doesn't know, nor does it care, about your intentions.
A wound that is "intended" to be non-lethal can very easily prove lethal.
A shot aimed at an extremity is more likely to miss the target altogether. That bullet is still going to hit something. The chances of hitting a bystander are much higher than when a shot is fired at the center of a target's mass.
The firing of a gun is a use of lethal force. If one is not justified in killing someone, one is not justified in using lethal force.
Again, not discussing defunding.
close
fortheloveof: Be polite walk on the right: tonguedepressor: Wow, is this war? Cuz it kinda feels like war.
its because parents don't beat their kids any more
/kid doesnt get what they want
//they throw tantrums
So they are already half way to being police.
I'm lookin' forward to beatin' the sh*t out of my kids. For no reason whatsoever. "Wha'd ya hit me for?!"
"Get out there and mow the lawn, for Christ's sake!" There's therapy for ya, mowin' the lawn and crying; "the Leary kid's in therapy again, their lawn looks unbelieveable!"
/Denis L3ary
//no cure for cancer*
close
Hoblit: Nidiot: SanityIsAFullTimeJob: Totally Sharky Complete: SMH
[Fark user image image 644x506]
If it appears to the cop that you're about to stab someone, it may not turn out well for you.
Alternative headline could run along the lines of 'Decisive police action saves girl (in pink) from vicious stabbing'.
I'm just assuming her black life matters.
Or... how about "police help kill 16 year old girl's attackers with gunfire"
I've read over and over that it's okay to defend yourself but I guess the cops thought differently. The tazer wasn't going to help those other girls enough so gunfire it is.
It's always best to let your attackers get you because nobody can trust the police to sort anything out before firing their side-arm.
/Do this, don't do that
//don't do this, do that
///whatever fits the scenario in which the police's victim can be blamed
I confess that to me your post is not exactly clear. It is okay to defend yourself. The deceased girl was not defending herself, she was attacking people.
She hurled herself at one girl and bowled her over like a skittle (poor thing had a very undignified pose shown to the world and got kicked in the head too) and then Stabby McStabface attempted to stab another girl in pink who was originally standing twenty or thirty feet away from her.
If you advance towards your supposed 'attackers' when they are just standing around and not attacking you, then you are no longer defending yourself, you are now assaulting them. Self defence means to protect yourself from harm, not attack anyone and everyone in the vicinity.
The police officer basically shot a person as they were assaulting another person with a deadly weapon. A single knife wound in the right place could easily have killed that girl in pink. If I was about to be stabbed, I think I'd be pretty grateful if a police officer shot the person stabbing me.
As to people saying things like "ever been in a fight, adrenaline rush" etc. No I have not, and I would not, and what the eff is wrong with you that you fight like wild and savage animals?
If I felt threatened yet was able to get inside in order to get a knife, I'd have locked myself inside and waited there for police to arrive. I'd expect any sane person to do just that.
close
whidbey: PartTimeBuddha: whidbey: And there's that passive aggressive manchild again.
A young girl was killed, whidbey. Could you at least show some empathy and respect, please.
It's all I have been doing. You might take that up with the poo flingers in here upset that their Thin Blue Line has been successfully challenged. :)
I have no truck nor business with the morons. Don't believe you're doing anything useful by engaging with them.
Neither am I impressed with upsetting people over their imaginary Thin Blue Line. I'm opposed to your thinking that doing so is worthy of a ":)". A kid died, for God's sake. I hate it, and you hate it, but your smiley face is contemptible and should ask you not to do that again.
This was a deathshow. It was horrible. But the officers didn't have time to get between the girl with the weapon and her intended victim. This all happened dreadfully fast. If there had been time, perhaps they would have done so, but there wasn't.
In a decent society, the bullies and the girl would have been separated and ushered to safety well before the police turned up. The only way anyone is going to stop 15 year olds from fighting, particularly in a group setting, is separation by authority figures or tear gas.
It's horrible. It shouldn't have happened. I hate killer cops. A host of social structures failed before this poor girl was forced to turn a knife on her oppressors.
close
lolmao500: Skyfrog: Knife crime is a big problem in the UK, yet somehow the police there are able to disarm them and take them into custody all the time without even shooting them once, let alone 10 or 15 times. If only we knew their secrets. In this case even a taser would have immediately dropped the girl and ended the fight without killing anyone, but the first thing our cops do is yank out their guns. A bunch of kids are fighting? Better point your gun at them immediately and get ready to blow them away.
Dont even shoot in front of the girl to scare her/make her stop or try to shoot her in the leg or something. 4 bullets to the chest.
Cops think they are in a rambo movie or something.
the thing @ cops is you only hear the bad stories
/and cops taking cancer-stricken kids to Disneyland*
//I still don't like them
///"Cops Have 222 Ways to Screw You Over"
close
Avery_Shine: You guys are going way overboard with everything being a murder. I just have my concealed carry and by law I am justified to
shoot another personcommit murderyou should randomly meet a cop.
close
clams_casino: Which exactly, of Ma'Khia Bryant's rights were violated?
real pro-life of you dude
how about her inalienable right as an American to a jury trial for a possible charge of attempted assault?
close
Nidiot: I'd have locked myself inside and waited there for police to arrive. I'd expect any sane person to do just that.
The child killed was a child. It would have been much better if she wasn't a child, and had acted with the awareness of a mature adult, but that isn't what she was. "I wouldn't have done what she did" isn't compelling.
close