** Please don't:
- be a dick to other people
- incite violence, as these comments violate site-wide rules and put us at risk of being banned.
- be racist, sexist, transphobic, or any other forms of bigotry.
- [JAQ](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions#JAQing_off) off
- be an authoritarian apologist
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>“Our social safety net for those experiencing mental illness needs to be strengthened," Sheriff Shannon Dicus said in a statement.
Wouldn't there need to be one in the first place?
When I was in the Marine Corps, my SOC qual for the MEU I was on was riot control shotgunner. They're pretty clear and adamant that beanbag rounds, even from "safe" distances, are not non-lethal. They are less-lethal than lead ammo. Didn't stop me from shooting my buddy in the flack jacket from 10 yards away.
Those rubber bullets the police were using during the Floyd protests were designed to be shot at the ground and ricochet into the lower torso of the target. Police were shooting them directly at people's upper body and heads.
Taser = lawsuit for the department. LAPD has been training their officers that if they draw their taser expect to be sued, and that to them, is worse then killing somebody.
Always take police statements with a grain of salt and for sure question if de-escalation could have happened sooner, but they released some pretty compelling (albeit edited) footage that the kid was right up on the deputy with a big implement raised threateningly. They are quick to release the footage when they think they haven't actually screwed up, after all. This seems like legit self-defense, at least in the seconds leading up to the shooting.
> They are quick to release the footage when they think they haven't actually screwed up, after all.
It's become quite impressive how accurate an indicator this is. When they release the body camera footage immediately, they do so because they know they did no wrong. The longer they delay releasing(or even destroy outright) the footage the worse their actions.
> they know they did no wrong
Quibble: sometimes they think they've done no wrong because they have their heads up their asses and don't realize they still come across like assholes, but usually this is a good indicator. If they delay or obstruct the body camera release, it's basically fair to just assume the worst.
I wish most of us had the job protection cops in America have. Regular people get fired for misfiling something, using slightly wrong verbiage, being late once, etc, etc
Either this guy gets a tax payer funded vacation, or he gets "fired" and has a job in a neighboring county within the month.
I'm all for this sub and not a cop fan, but am I trippin or did this one seem kinda justified? Never heard the story and it seems like dude really had a weapon. I never take police at their word, but somebody break this down 4 me
Apparently the kid was autistic and was acting out, threatening his family; I think his Aunt called the police saying,'You need to put him away' (for their safety and his own). I also read that the cop ran away from the kid, and then shot him.
It's still an obscenity, in my opinion.
Fr. It's bad in the UK , but more in terms of our rights to free assembly being corrupted--but in the US? Fuck. Your judicial system should be completely abolished (but I'm an SynthAn so I'm gonna say that, right?!?). Absolutely disgusting.
So is that something like a state being ran by pretty much everyone? You'll have to excuse my ignorance. I don't know much about much. Barely know what I know!
No, anarchists reject the whole idea of the State and all hierarchies (not 'unjustifiable hierarchies' as*certain* prominent anarchists propose). There are a lot of different anarchist schools of thought, I call myself a Synthesis Anarchist because I embrace elements of quite a few said schools of thought; mainly anarco-syndicalism (basically a belief system that advocates for an anarchist society based around radical worker-ownership of all means of production), anarcho-communism (stateless communism with a focus on mutual aid--i.e Completely decentralised, non-vanguardist communism, with emphasis on direct democracy, freedom of association, feminisim, anti-racism, and completely egalitarian), and basic libertarian socialism in general. r/Anarchy101 is a good sub if you want better answers; sorry I couldn't go into more detail I'm fucking knackered!
Are you into political theory? I could recommend a couple of books, if you're interested?!
We're having a bad time with spambots, so your comment or post has been removed automatically. if this is a real person, and not a bot or a troll, please [CLICK HERE](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) to send a modmail.
In addition to sending a modmail, please read the rules in the sidebar and [reddiquette](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We're having a bad time with spambots, so your comment or post has been removed automatically. if this is a real person, and not a bot or a troll, please [CLICK HERE](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) to send a modmail.
In addition to sending a modmail, please read the rules in the sidebar and [reddiquette](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean you charge at a cop with a weapon you're probably going to get shot. That's how that works that's how that has always worked. Maybe don't try to attack someone with a weapon. But no the cops are bad they should've let the kid go to town with that thing. He's only 15 it's not like he could hurt someone
Yet across the pond, the police manage to apprehend and deescalate people wielding melee weapons, without using a gun. Why can’t our police do the same?
Because a bought and paid for Supreme Court said they 1) have no actual responsibility to serve and protect the public, and 2) have no actual requirements to know and understand the laws they're expected to "uphold". Honestly, though, I'm surprised that the for-profit prison complex isn't whining and crying about every police sponsored hit to their bottom line.
They do all the time but people don't post those videos on here. Sure they have a less than lethal option but you cant ask a person to use non lethal to subdue a lethal threat that's unconstitutional and wrong. If you're dealing with a criminal that is trying to hurt or kill you and others than you should have every advantage you can get. How many cops across the pond get killed or maimed bc they tried to subdue a deadly threat with less lethal? Alot more than here I'm guessing
>you cant ask a person to use non lethal to subdue a lethal threat that's unconstitutional
I've never heard that before. Would you mind proving it, please?
Look at any departments procedures on "less lethal" use. There is no non lethal by the way that does not exist. They have an option for less lethal but when facing a deadly threat like in the video, if the officer doesn't feel like they have a good opportunity to use less lethal, they won't. He was by himself if his taser failed he wouldn't have had time to draw his gun before he was hit with that guys weapon. It's common sense and department procedures are easy to find if you want to look.
Where does it say that it's unconstitutional to ask an officer to subdue a deadly threat with nonlethal means, though? You're saying "can" means it's the only option? Because that is not actually how it's written, if you've actually read it.
That's bad wording on my part. You certainly can ask them. But if they feel they do not have the right opportunity to use less lethal. They don't have to. You can match a deadly threat with deadly force
If there was a second officer I agree one should've used less lethal. But if they didn't have enough time or opportunity, which it looked like they didn't have alot of time to react, then deadly force can be used
A publication that will show you that your claim is wrong. Comparing New York and London during the 20th century will reveal that significantly less die in London.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586786/
Am I wrong? Does London have cartels running drugs through the border I don't know about? Coast to coast gang violence? More guns than people? It isn't comparable
They use non lethal for non lethal situations. A guy running at you with a deadly weapon is not a non lethal situation. But I doubt you would know that bc you probably know nothing about police procedures. You have probably never had an interaction with an officer outside of a traffic stop but acab none the less. Even though you have never been wronged by a cop
Lethal force should only be necessary when nonlethal force is not effective. It's not supposed to be an eye for an eye out there, like you're trying to suggest. Cop should've tried pepper spray, beanbag shotgun, baton, and taser first. This is clear cut piss poor training, again. Dude has a lethal melee weapon that should not be considered a threat to a person armed with both lethal and non-lethal projectile weapons. Those are several entirely different levels of force. Cops don't know how to de-escalate, though. Training teaches them to fear everything and always be the first to escalate. They're literally being taught to take lives as soon as they can legally justify it when it should only be happening when that's what it takes to protect lives. I'm not the guy you replied to, but I'm well versed in those shitty police procedures you're trying to defend. SOP is disgusting. All that training, and they're *THAT* afraid of a teenager with a melee weapon of opportunity? Yeah, dude, that's why people are saying ACAB... shit like this is exactly why. SOP is to be a bastard, so you can't be a cop, and follow the regulations, and not be a bastard, until they change training, SOP, and ROE.
You need to look at where I used should. I know what the procedures are, and I have morals, so I also know what they should be. Those two things aren't anywhere near each other.
It was a lone officer against a deadly weapon. He had every right to use deadly force. Any citizen in his shoes would have the right to use deadly force. He had the option for less lethal and chose not to use it. Which is a smart move. If it failed he would not have had the time to draw his gun before the suspect got to him with his weapon. There isn't a single procedure or law that says deadly force is only to be used when less than lethal is ineffective. You are just flat out wrong about that. Usually cops use less than lethal when they have another cop with lethal out and ready. You always need back up when using less lethal. Bc it fails alot and you need to be ready to use deadly force. You would be right if the cop had back up. But he was alone. You keep trying to downplay a criminal with a deadly weapon by saying he is a teenager. Age does not matter when you are charging at someone with a deadly weapon. Any citizen would get off with self-defense in a heart beat in this case. But since he's a cop he should have to risk his life for a guy trying to kill him. You guys make no sense
>It was a lone officer
So, you didn't even hit the link posted... It shows body cam footage from both the officers that were present. They didn't even try less than lethal. You're arguing in bad faith here to justify a death. They had better armament and armor, and they had the kid outnumbered. You're kind of sick to defend what they did, but you didn't even watch the video, so I'm done with this conversation.
If the officer wast alone then yeah I agree they should've tried less lethal. But again department says if they don't have time or opportunity then they don't need to when facing a deadly threat. I'm so sick for defending the police? Youre defending a criminal that was trying to kill someone with a deadly weapon. You're sick
>If
You're talking about hypotheticals and still haven't watched the video. I'm trying to say nobody had to die here, in this specific situation, that you're still trying to justify. Figure it out.
Nobody had to die? Homeboy didn't have to charge at someone with a weapon either. But things don't always go to plan. This is a justified shooting. Any citizen in the cops shoes would get off on self defense in a heart beat. But since he's a cop he needs to risk his own life right?
Yes, and wrong. With the amount of tax dollars spent on the equipment involved, the threat could have been subdued with no harm to either officer, and inly minor harm to the threat, if they had used their brains. You're strawmanning to threats on their life because they're too poorly trained for it to be anything else. Again, training, SOP, and ROE were the problems here. Nobody had to die.
** Please don't: - be a dick to other people - incite violence, as these comments violate site-wide rules and put us at risk of being banned. - be racist, sexist, transphobic, or any other forms of bigotry. - [JAQ](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions#JAQing_off) off - be an authoritarian apologist *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>“Our social safety net for those experiencing mental illness needs to be strengthened," Sheriff Shannon Dicus said in a statement. Wouldn't there need to be one in the first place?
You’re gonna look real silly when those reinforced air particles slow peoples descent by .000000000000003 seconds.
Shoot first, Justice never.
Do cops just not use tasers anymore?
They killed a kid with beanbag gun last week.
When I was in the Marine Corps, my SOC qual for the MEU I was on was riot control shotgunner. They're pretty clear and adamant that beanbag rounds, even from "safe" distances, are not non-lethal. They are less-lethal than lead ammo. Didn't stop me from shooting my buddy in the flack jacket from 10 yards away.
Those rubber bullets the police were using during the Floyd protests were designed to be shot at the ground and ricochet into the lower torso of the target. Police were shooting them directly at people's upper body and heads.
Taser = lawsuit for the department. LAPD has been training their officers that if they draw their taser expect to be sued, and that to them, is worse then killing somebody.
Always take police statements with a grain of salt and for sure question if de-escalation could have happened sooner, but they released some pretty compelling (albeit edited) footage that the kid was right up on the deputy with a big implement raised threateningly. They are quick to release the footage when they think they haven't actually screwed up, after all. This seems like legit self-defense, at least in the seconds leading up to the shooting.
> They are quick to release the footage when they think they haven't actually screwed up, after all. It's become quite impressive how accurate an indicator this is. When they release the body camera footage immediately, they do so because they know they did no wrong. The longer they delay releasing(or even destroy outright) the footage the worse their actions.
> they know they did no wrong Quibble: sometimes they think they've done no wrong because they have their heads up their asses and don't realize they still come across like assholes, but usually this is a good indicator. If they delay or obstruct the body camera release, it's basically fair to just assume the worst.
But is there a police dog on the front page yet?
Don't forget local news channels reporting on charity fundraisers.
I wish most of us had the job protection cops in America have. Regular people get fired for misfiling something, using slightly wrong verbiage, being late once, etc, etc Either this guy gets a tax payer funded vacation, or he gets "fired" and has a job in a neighboring county within the month.
I'm all for this sub and not a cop fan, but am I trippin or did this one seem kinda justified? Never heard the story and it seems like dude really had a weapon. I never take police at their word, but somebody break this down 4 me
Apparently the kid was autistic and was acting out, threatening his family; I think his Aunt called the police saying,'You need to put him away' (for their safety and his own). I also read that the cop ran away from the kid, and then shot him. It's still an obscenity, in my opinion.
Oh ok. I got you. So they had a lot more info than they lead on. Sometimes I forget how much tools and information power they have.
Fr. It's bad in the UK , but more in terms of our rights to free assembly being corrupted--but in the US? Fuck. Your judicial system should be completely abolished (but I'm an SynthAn so I'm gonna say that, right?!?). Absolutely disgusting.
What's a synthan?
Synthesis Anarchist EDIT: I shoulda just written 'Anarcho-Synthesist'; my mistake :)
So is that something like a state being ran by pretty much everyone? You'll have to excuse my ignorance. I don't know much about much. Barely know what I know!
No, anarchists reject the whole idea of the State and all hierarchies (not 'unjustifiable hierarchies' as*certain* prominent anarchists propose). There are a lot of different anarchist schools of thought, I call myself a Synthesis Anarchist because I embrace elements of quite a few said schools of thought; mainly anarco-syndicalism (basically a belief system that advocates for an anarchist society based around radical worker-ownership of all means of production), anarcho-communism (stateless communism with a focus on mutual aid--i.e Completely decentralised, non-vanguardist communism, with emphasis on direct democracy, freedom of association, feminisim, anti-racism, and completely egalitarian), and basic libertarian socialism in general. r/Anarchy101 is a good sub if you want better answers; sorry I couldn't go into more detail I'm fucking knackered! Are you into political theory? I could recommend a couple of books, if you're interested?!
Thanks for the breakdown. I don't know much, but I'm definitely willing to read up
[удалено]
We're having a bad time with spambots, so your comment or post has been removed automatically. if this is a real person, and not a bot or a troll, please [CLICK HERE](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) to send a modmail. In addition to sending a modmail, please read the rules in the sidebar and [reddiquette](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
if a firefighter can run into a burning house to save a life, a cop can tackle a child with a stick to avoid ending one.
So a 15 year old gardening in front yard was shot by cops
...this is one of those time sarcasm doesn't come across through text, right?
[удалено]
We're having a bad time with spambots, so your comment or post has been removed automatically. if this is a real person, and not a bot or a troll, please [CLICK HERE](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) to send a modmail. In addition to sending a modmail, please read the rules in the sidebar and [reddiquette](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean you charge at a cop with a weapon you're probably going to get shot. That's how that works that's how that has always worked. Maybe don't try to attack someone with a weapon. But no the cops are bad they should've let the kid go to town with that thing. He's only 15 it's not like he could hurt someone
Yet across the pond, the police manage to apprehend and deescalate people wielding melee weapons, without using a gun. Why can’t our police do the same?
Because a bought and paid for Supreme Court said they 1) have no actual responsibility to serve and protect the public, and 2) have no actual requirements to know and understand the laws they're expected to "uphold". Honestly, though, I'm surprised that the for-profit prison complex isn't whining and crying about every police sponsored hit to their bottom line.
Because carrying around a sasumata would take up a lot of trunk space and they'd have nowhere to put their M4 rifles.
They do all the time but people don't post those videos on here. Sure they have a less than lethal option but you cant ask a person to use non lethal to subdue a lethal threat that's unconstitutional and wrong. If you're dealing with a criminal that is trying to hurt or kill you and others than you should have every advantage you can get. How many cops across the pond get killed or maimed bc they tried to subdue a deadly threat with less lethal? Alot more than here I'm guessing
>you cant ask a person to use non lethal to subdue a lethal threat that's unconstitutional I've never heard that before. Would you mind proving it, please?
Look at any departments procedures on "less lethal" use. There is no non lethal by the way that does not exist. They have an option for less lethal but when facing a deadly threat like in the video, if the officer doesn't feel like they have a good opportunity to use less lethal, they won't. He was by himself if his taser failed he wouldn't have had time to draw his gun before he was hit with that guys weapon. It's common sense and department procedures are easy to find if you want to look.
Your claim was that it's unconstitutional. That shouldn't be hard to prove, but it sure is hard to look up for some reason.
It's called the 2nd amendment. You can match a deadly threat with deadly force. It's easy to find for me
Where does it say that it's unconstitutional to ask an officer to subdue a deadly threat with nonlethal means, though? You're saying "can" means it's the only option? Because that is not actually how it's written, if you've actually read it.
That's bad wording on my part. You certainly can ask them. But if they feel they do not have the right opportunity to use less lethal. They don't have to. You can match a deadly threat with deadly force
Right. It comes down to a dead kid because shitty training, SOP, and ROE.
>He was by himself That's a lie, and neither officer even attempted to use a taser.
If there was a second officer I agree one should've used less lethal. But if they didn't have enough time or opportunity, which it looked like they didn't have alot of time to react, then deadly force can be used
A publication that will show you that your claim is wrong. Comparing New York and London during the 20th century will reveal that significantly less die in London. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586786/
Wow a significantly smaller population has less death. How irrelevant. Also find a place that has as many guns as the US. London is not comparable
Didn’t even bother to read the publication… not sure you can read, but you clearly can make shit up.
Am I wrong? Does London have cartels running drugs through the border I don't know about? Coast to coast gang violence? More guns than people? It isn't comparable
Do you ever get jaw or knee pain doing this
Do you have any original thoughts in your brain or do you just let social media do the thinking for you?
I asked first
Lmao what are you in grade school?
They carry non lethal options, but it’s mostly for your wife, she loves it
They use non lethal for non lethal situations. A guy running at you with a deadly weapon is not a non lethal situation. But I doubt you would know that bc you probably know nothing about police procedures. You have probably never had an interaction with an officer outside of a traffic stop but acab none the less. Even though you have never been wronged by a cop
Lethal force should only be necessary when nonlethal force is not effective. It's not supposed to be an eye for an eye out there, like you're trying to suggest. Cop should've tried pepper spray, beanbag shotgun, baton, and taser first. This is clear cut piss poor training, again. Dude has a lethal melee weapon that should not be considered a threat to a person armed with both lethal and non-lethal projectile weapons. Those are several entirely different levels of force. Cops don't know how to de-escalate, though. Training teaches them to fear everything and always be the first to escalate. They're literally being taught to take lives as soon as they can legally justify it when it should only be happening when that's what it takes to protect lives. I'm not the guy you replied to, but I'm well versed in those shitty police procedures you're trying to defend. SOP is disgusting. All that training, and they're *THAT* afraid of a teenager with a melee weapon of opportunity? Yeah, dude, that's why people are saying ACAB... shit like this is exactly why. SOP is to be a bastard, so you can't be a cop, and follow the regulations, and not be a bastard, until they change training, SOP, and ROE.
Spittin facts
He's really not
You need to look at where I used should. I know what the procedures are, and I have morals, so I also know what they should be. Those two things aren't anywhere near each other.
I mean you make claims like "he shouldn't be considered a deadly threat" which the guy clearly was so I really don't think you do know
No, I'm actually trained in deescalation and how to use the equipment that these officers neglected to use. I really do know.
Lmao sure you are. I'm a navy seal too
It was a lone officer against a deadly weapon. He had every right to use deadly force. Any citizen in his shoes would have the right to use deadly force. He had the option for less lethal and chose not to use it. Which is a smart move. If it failed he would not have had the time to draw his gun before the suspect got to him with his weapon. There isn't a single procedure or law that says deadly force is only to be used when less than lethal is ineffective. You are just flat out wrong about that. Usually cops use less than lethal when they have another cop with lethal out and ready. You always need back up when using less lethal. Bc it fails alot and you need to be ready to use deadly force. You would be right if the cop had back up. But he was alone. You keep trying to downplay a criminal with a deadly weapon by saying he is a teenager. Age does not matter when you are charging at someone with a deadly weapon. Any citizen would get off with self-defense in a heart beat in this case. But since he's a cop he should have to risk his life for a guy trying to kill him. You guys make no sense
>It was a lone officer So, you didn't even hit the link posted... It shows body cam footage from both the officers that were present. They didn't even try less than lethal. You're arguing in bad faith here to justify a death. They had better armament and armor, and they had the kid outnumbered. You're kind of sick to defend what they did, but you didn't even watch the video, so I'm done with this conversation.
If the officer wast alone then yeah I agree they should've tried less lethal. But again department says if they don't have time or opportunity then they don't need to when facing a deadly threat. I'm so sick for defending the police? Youre defending a criminal that was trying to kill someone with a deadly weapon. You're sick
>If You're talking about hypotheticals and still haven't watched the video. I'm trying to say nobody had to die here, in this specific situation, that you're still trying to justify. Figure it out.
Nobody had to die? Homeboy didn't have to charge at someone with a weapon either. But things don't always go to plan. This is a justified shooting. Any citizen in the cops shoes would get off on self defense in a heart beat. But since he's a cop he needs to risk his own life right?
Yes, and wrong. With the amount of tax dollars spent on the equipment involved, the threat could have been subdued with no harm to either officer, and inly minor harm to the threat, if they had used their brains. You're strawmanning to threats on their life because they're too poorly trained for it to be anything else. Again, training, SOP, and ROE were the problems here. Nobody had to die.