Police shoot man who stabbed student in synagogue
Source: AP
NEW YORK (AP) — A knife-wielding man stabbed an Israeli student in the head inside a Brooklyn synagogue early Tuesday before being fatally shot by police after he refused to drop the knife, authorities said.
The man stormed into the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic world headquarters in Crown Heights at about 1:40 a.m. and attacked Levi Rosenblat, who was studying inside the synagogue, spokesman Motti Seligson said. He said there were other people inside at the time.
According to witnesses, the attacker was heard saying repeatedly "Kill the Jews," said Chaim Landa, a spokeswoman for Chabad-Lubavitch. Several other people immediately intervened, she said.
A witness flagged down a patrol officer, who confronted the 49-year-old man and told him to put the knife down. He initially put it down, but picked it up again, police said. More officers responded and repeatedly ordered the man to drop the knife.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7ded71436be946e78106ad810e88a5e5/police-shoot-man-who-stabbed-student-synagogue
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
7962
(11,841 posts)A man who was an OBVIOUS threat, as opposed to a man who sold a damn cigarette.
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)Then he was surrounded by cops. No tazer attempt? No shoot to wound?
Sure, the guy was a piece of shit but the response was excessive.
LisaL
(47,418 posts)So, police aren't supposed to shoot armed individuals either?
yellowcanine
(36,776 posts)"Shooting to wound" is a formula for dead cops or bystanders.
A wounded perp with a knife is still a threat.
Police do need to be trained in non lethal ways to disarm a perp with a knife. But "shooting to wound" is a nonstarter.
branford
(4,462 posts)It's unrealistic, just as likely to kill the assailant, and presents an unreasonable danger to bystanders. It's something that only happens in the movies.
Police are correctly taught to aim for center mass for the best chance to quickly stop a threat. Even then, given the quick and uncertain circumstances, stress and many shots fires, it's not unusual for a significant number of misses.
GOLGO 13
(1,681 posts)A LEO is supposed to pull the weapon out only when he is in fear of his life or the life of others. Armed man that has already harmed another and refuses to put down the weapon?
From what I've seen of the video that cop had a lot of restraint.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Not every shooting is evil. This one was ok.
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)was the length of his arm + 4 or 5 inches. A tazer has a reach of a few feet. Why not a couple of shots to his legs?
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)And "a couple of shots to the legs" can kill almost as quickly as one to the head depending on where you hit (which you'd only have limited control over in that situation) and where the round ricochets if it hits bone (which you'd have no control whatsoever over).
Also, the range is the length of his arm plus the length of the knife plus however far he could push off on one leg if he decided to do an enthusiastic, skilled, or just adrenaline-laced lunge. We're at six, seven feet there assuming that's the only movement.
You'd be fairly astonished at how far someone could move a weapon they're carrying if they feel driven to do so, and in far too short an amount of time to have any reaction so conscious as "aim for the leg" (which, to reiterate, can be swiftly fatal on its own).
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)trying to hit that small of a target in a stressful situation is unrealistic, that's why cops are trained to shoot center mass until the threat is neutralized.
Anyone armed with a knife and within 21' of another is a deadly threat.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)Even if you were able to wound the knife-wielder and avoid hitting any arteries or major organs, assuming the shooter can even hit their target with a bullet, there's no guarantee the guy wouldn't have an adrenaline rush and charge the cops with the knife. Shooting a weapon out of someone's hand with a handgun is near impossible - it's like trying to hit the center of a moving dartboard 15 feet away while under extreme stress.
In fact, people have been mere feet away from each other and emptied entire magazines of ammunition at each other without having a single injury. That includes cops.
I'm no expert in police tactics, but tasers have problems as well. Sometimes all the prongs don't go in, or the guy is not fully incapacitated. Plus, you only get one shot and that's it. The aiming problem that I talked about above comes into play here.
I'm not sure what could have been done, but it's good more people weren't hurt and that the stabbing victim is alive.
n/t
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)What ever happened to police shooting to disarm a person, rather than kill?
Once again, welcome to the Police States of America, where police are also the judge, jury, and executioner, while hiding behind their blue wall of silence, and lying under oath.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Sorry, homicidal armed bigots like this perp earn their own fate.
There will be no protest marches over this one.
skamaria
(338 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)He was a trained sniper and SWAT officer, and the shot was literally so impressive it's still notable, noteworthy and possessed of a great deal of luck. To expect normal police officers in chaotic situations without the benefit of time and planning to routinely achieve such results is ludicrous and outlandish.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19750_the-5-most-impossible-sniper-shots-ever-made_p2.html
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I do not consider cracked.com to be a reliable website for factual information.
Jokes and other funny stuff, maybe, but not facts.
branford
(4,462 posts)Simply Google his name or search online about the incident for multitudes of information about it. The man became a hero because of his extraordinary skill, training and a great deal of luck.
Do you really expect every police officer in the country to be expert SWAT team snipers and routinely make shots that are so impressive that there still the subject of articles and videos? We do not live in a Hollywood movie or possessed of magical technology. Few men and women are possessed of inborn aptitudes of special forces soldiers.
The overwhelming majority of potentially lethal encounters are extremely quick, terribly uncertain, and can only be judged with the knowledge possessed of the parties at the time. Moreover, very few individuals possess the skill, training and inherent aptitude and ability of people like Mike Plumb, and we do not possess phasers that can be set to stun, magic, instantly effective, non-lethal tranquilizers or other science fiction gadgets.
Nevertheless, police routinely arrest dangerous individuals, often a great risk to themselves, above and beyond their duty, without killing or seriously injuring an assailant. I commend the police when they can do so, but certainly do not demand or expect it in all circumstances. The synagogue stabbing is the perfect example. The police even re-holstered their weapons once the assailant dropped his knife in order to diffuse the situation. They only fired after he grabbed the knife and lunged at them.
You are free to believe that killing is never justified, but I find such a position absolutely ludicrous and irrational. In this instance, the attack on the man in the synagogue was unjustified, and it would be similarly unjustified for the police to unnecessarily risk being stabbed by a known and immediate threat, particularly after they tried repeatedly to peacefully resolve the situation.
You can throw your life away if threatened based upon your beliefs, but you have no right to demand or expect others to act in a similarly suicidal fashion.
brendan120678
(2,490 posts)Is terribly irresponsible and dangerous.
If you have to discharge your firearm at an individual, you sure as heck had better aim for largest target (torso), in order to avoid hitting bystanders.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)because police in other countries have killed fewer people, and have used their firearms a fraction of the time that police in the US have.
Perhaps US police are simply trigger happy.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)The reason so few people are killed in other countries is because the cop seldom shoot at all, not because they're shooting the guns out of the hands of the bad guys.
samsingh
(18,409 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)killing is NEVER EVER justified!
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Justified killings happen quite regularly. Of course, unjustified killings happen far too often.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)in your hands?
I am not a christian. I am not even religious, but I do believe that it is not within my right to take another life. EVER!
You do know, that in most cases, what comes around, goes around, don't you?
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Those very few circumstances usually revolve around me defending my innocent self against a lethal threat or defending an innocent other person from a lethal threat.
> What goes around comes around.
That is what I am hoping for. If another person unjustly attempts to kill me or mine, my righteous defense of the innocent may have the teaching point the attacker is in need of. If the attacker's lethal actions result in his own death, he has no one to blame but himself.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)bring on some sort of attack in the future, where you are once again attacked, by say, a member of family of the person who you killed? Wouldn't it be also justified?
See what I mean, an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind, eventually.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)No, the new attack would not be justified. However, in that new attack, a lethal defense against the unjustified lethal attack would always be justified.
> an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind, eventually
And thus never justified.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Feel free to try again.
You seem to be suggesting that either (1) revenge killings are sometime justified, or (2) one should be willing to sacrifice himself to make sure a revenge killing does not happen even if revenge killings are never justified.
A lethal defense against a lethal attack is a morally and legally justified action. The lethal defense stops when the lethal attack stops. If the attacker dies, it is due to his own actions that started the needless chain of events. If the attacker stops the attack before he dies, then he might go on to live a long life.
harrose
(380 posts)... if the *only* way to save an innocent (whether it be myself or someone else) from death at the hands of an attacker is to kill the attacker, then I shouldn't do so because, at some hypothetical future point, a hypothetical relative of the attacker may decide to take revenge?
Really?
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)because you did not think of other options.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)then why are you condemning the police for shooting this man who attempted to murder one person and then attempted to harm the police?
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)If I do not know the situation, I cannot understand the actions.
I shall NEVER condone killing. It's just the way I am.
I hope you can accept the fact that there are those of us who do not believe that there should EVER be a reason to take another life.
On another front, as much as I am as angry as I have ever been with this torture report that has come out, I do not believe that the perpetrators of these deeds should be put to death. I believe that even though they committed crimes against humanity, that they should have their lives terminated. I believe that they should spend the rest of their lives imprisoned, and away from the public in general.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)right to believe in it.
On your second paragraph, I wholeheartedly agree.
harrose
(380 posts)where there are no other options. Of course, if otherwise possible, we shouldn't kill.
Since you placed your statement in the absolute, I'm trying to find out if you truly believe that to be the case. So, if there are no other options, is it okay to save myself or another innocent? Or is it better to let myself (or the other innocent) die?
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)There ALWAYS is another way than complete destruction.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)That's just the way it is sometimes.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)name three people who are intent on complete destruction. I cannot, and I cannot see any circumstance where it cannot be avoided.
Again, resigning yourself to the conclusion that violence and death are the only option, all I can say is that you do not understand the meaning of pacifist. You do not understand the meaning of peace. You do not understand the meaning of humanity.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Want me to keep going?
No, I don't understand someone who's unwilling to defend themselves or recognize that there truly are people so evil in this world that the only way to stop them is to kill them.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)That's my opinion, and I am sticking with it!
I would rather see them rot in jail, for a long, long time, than have it end for them quickly.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I am in no way anything like those maniacs.
But you know the saying, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and some are smellier than others.
And to be clear, I'm not calling you an asshole in any way.
harrose
(380 posts)But hey, let's say I'm not thinking outside the box.
I have to make a split second decision. Sometimes you don't have time to sit and think rationally through all the choices. Sometimes you have to make a decision right away. You either have to kill or else you or some innocent gets killed.
A man has a gun pointed at a little kid. He's about to shoot. I don't have time to run through all the possibilities. Is it your contention that I should allow the gunman to shoot the kid? He's about to shoot me - if I had a gun pointed at me, I'm not about to calmly sit and think through all the possible ways out of it. Should I just allow him to kill me rather than kill him?
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Perhaps you need some experience with matters like this. Perhaps you need to think about what it means to take another life. Perhaps you do not understand what it is being a pacifist.
I cannot ever see this situation arising. I cannot it recall it ever happening. Can you, or are you just pulling some situation out of the air?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but I have been in life and death situations where if I didn't act, I would be dead now, guess what? I'm still alive because I successfully defended myself and walked away alive.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)why you put yourself in that situation.
I am still against killing. It only lowers you to their level.
I would rather see someone rot in prison for a very long time than see their existence end quickly.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Glad you made it back.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Guess I was wrong
Thanks, 2 tours, shot down twice, wounded once, glad to to be in retirement.
7962
(11,841 posts)And a friend of mine was one of the guys who would come down out of a chopper to hook up with a downed pilot.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Those guys saved my bacon twice, greatest bunch of guys ever, even if they're AF.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I would have been a conscientious objector, had my number come up. As it stands, my number was something like 245, so even though I registered for the draft, I probably would never have deployed.
I spoke out vocally against that war, just as I do any war. I did not speak out against those who chose to serve, nor those who were drafted and served. I wanted to help them. Perhaps I am in the minority of people from that time as well.
Oh well, that's me. I never went with the crowd. I was taught, and continue to think for myself, and have learned not to accept a lot of things, based on my personal beliefs.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I salute you for your bravery and determination to do what you believed was the right thing to do, even in the face of opposition and brutality from the cops and RW warmongers.
harrose
(380 posts)How about the Ft. Hood shooter? He was shooting people right and left. Had someone else not decided to shoot Maj. Hasan*, he would have continued shooting other soldiers. But according to you, the soldier who shot Maj. Hasan was wrong. He should have stood and contemplated what else to do while Maj. Hasan continued shooting.
* Yes, Hasan survived, but it wasn't because the soldier who shot him wasn't trying to kill him. He survived because of good medical care.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)The first step should be to take a minute to collect your thoughts. Open up the lines of communication. Find out what agitates this person, and have a warm productive conversation about positive solutions.
If, after all non-violent options have been explored, and a positive resolution is not available, then accept that you, or your child, or whoever is in the vicinity, will be dying. But at least you won't be killing.
christx30
(6,241 posts)fuck that. The only way some psycho is going to harm my child is if they kill me first. And I am going to do everything I can, up to and including killing the psycho, to prevent it from happening. If you want to give up your life, feel free. Hopefully you don't have anyone that depends on you.
Everyone should be able to make that choice, though. It's not wrong, either way. People kil for lots of reasons. I wish someone had killed Adam Lanza before he murdered those kids. Mentally ill or not, that fucker deserved it. The kids did not.
7962
(11,841 posts)I guess the cops couldve reasoned with the man AS HE STABBED THE WOMAN.
Or this, also from just 2 days ago
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/scottsdale/2014/12/09/scottsdale-apartment-shooting-abrk/20131315/
i guess this guy should have been "thinking on his feet" and ignored this woman's cries for help so as to avoid confrontation. She'd be dead, of course, but so be it.
Again, you obviously dont read the news you dont like
christx30
(6,241 posts)that person has decided that someone, for one reason or another, has to die. Maybe he doesn't like my shirt. Maybe he DOES like my shoes or he wants my cell phone. But in pulling that knife, he made the decision that I need to give up my property or my life. If I am unable to dissuade him from killing me, should I have to give up my life? By pulling that knife, he is stating that my stuff, or his personal demons mean more to him than my life. He's willing to kill me to take someone away from me that he has no right to take. I'd love for this hypothetical person to just walk away. But I know he won't, and I like being alive. So this person has decided that someone is going to die. I just have to make sure that person isn't me.
Give up your life in this case if you want to, but I won't. And the law will back me. And your family will miss you.
7962
(11,841 posts)Guy breaks into your home and attacks you or your family and you wont do everything possible to stop him? What is your plan, to reason with him? Invite him to stay for dinner while you call the cops? Hope your family knows that.
A man with a gun rushes the President and the SS should just try to wound him in an instant and risk the Presidents life? Are you serious?
How many real life scenarios do you need?
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I have no family. If it is my karma for this to happen, then let it be. Personally, I believe that you get what you give.
Yes, I would, and have reasoned with such a person. Back when I was younger, someone came at me with a gun, and wanted my money, and my watch. I gave it to him. I can get a new watch, and I can make more money. If they want to take my life, I cannot get another one. If someone wants all of my stuff, and threatened me with a gun, I would gladly give it to them again. If I had a family, I would instruct them to give in to whatever the person wanted.
I do not believe that people are killed for no apparent reason. I do not believe that when someone breaks into someone's house, they do so with murder in mind.
As far as someone attacking the president; what happened to giving the person a trial? Are we a nation of laws, or a nation of men?
What fantasy world is your reality?
Violence only begets more violence. It is NOT a solution.
7962
(11,841 posts)You obviously dont keep up with the news either.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I keep up with news from the entire planet. Not just what I am spoon-fed by the corporate media of the US.
7962
(11,841 posts)Of course, the killer has a reason. Rape, robbery, carjacking, politics, etc. I guess Nadal Hassan had a reason to kill all those people, right? Ted Bundy? John Gacy? John Allen Muhammed? Anders Breivik? How long a list of innocents you want who were murdered for NO REASON?
I guess all those stories are spoon-fed stories too.
spoon fed to you to believe that the only way is violence. You cannot combat violence with violence, because it only breeds more violence
7962
(11,841 posts)Certainly he would've stopped killing if we'd just left him alone. Boy, if you'd only been around back then!!
So now you are resorting to Godwin's Law.
I was waiting for you to do so.
You automatically lose the argument with it!
7962
(11,841 posts)Godwins Law is not relevant in this discussion. Its not a reference having nothing to do with the topic. You could also use North korea as an example. Or slavery in the Civil War. Or Japans expansion. Again, how many examples you want
This is DU, a liberal, left website. And hardly anyone of the thousands of members agree with you. Imagine what the REST of the country thinks.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Killing a liberal ideal?
What did Ghandi teach?
What does the Dalai Lama teach?
What did Martin Luther King teach?
What did Nelson Mandala teach?
What did John Lennon teach?
What did A.J. Muste teach?
What did the many popes teach?
I guess that some of us shall NEVER learn their teachings.
Have you ever heard of pacifism?
Oh, and I fail to believe that "hardly anyone" of the members here agree with me.
And I believe that the country thinks that I am a pacifist.
I do not believe that violence solves anything, and I practice what I preach.
Here's a link for you: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/non-violence.html
7962
(11,841 posts)You'll have your answer. I could be wrong about the folks here, who knows? But I'm betting I'm not.
If we as a country, practiced what you preach, most of the world would be enslaved.
BTW, Ghandi advocated the use of violence in defense of the innocent. Read up on it.
Mandela never renounced violence against the aparthied govt either.
And just recently the Pope said it was a just cause to use attacks to stop ISIS
treestar
(82,383 posts)The law allows self defense, defense of others, if deadly force if presented, you can use deadly force in defense.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I think that there should be another way than deadly force. At least in every situation I have been in.
I don't believe that people get shot and killed for no reason.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Why do we kill people who kill people, to show people that killing people is wrong?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Were they supposed to allow that to happen?
No police force in the entire world allows an armed suspect to harm their officers, any cop would react the same way.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)harrose
(380 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)He was an active threat to the lives and safety to the people around him. He refused to surrender after stabbing someone in the head. He was shot to prevent him from hurting anyone else. There was no lesson here.
He could have avoided death by not stabbing someone in the head. Buf if he really, really wanted to, he could have put the knife on the floor when ordered to, gotten on his knees and allowed himself to be arrested. But he wanted to keep hurting people.
For someone to get a trial, they have to first be arrested. This guy wasn't having it. So he gets a funeral instead.
samsingh
(18,409 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?
samsingh
(18,409 posts)why do we fight wars in which people are killed?
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)justifies killing? Sorry, I don't buy that logic.
I do not believe that ANY of the wars that we have fought in in my lifetime has accomplished anything, but created more violence and more terrorists, and I am nearly 60.
The real reason why we fight wars is to protect corporations and their interests, after all, the US IS the world's police force. Paid for, not by the corporations who benefit from the actions, but by WE THE PEOPLE. I do not believe that war is a justified means for reconciliation. War is obsolete on such a small planet. The Dalai Lama agrees with me on this. Here's a link, sot that you can see for yourself: http://vtdigger.org/2012/10/14/dalai-lama-the-concept-of-war-is-outdated/
And I really do not see how killing anyone protects society. I believe that it deteriorates society.
samsingh
(18,409 posts)russia invades Ukraine. what should the people of Ukraine do?
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)It worked for Gandhi, it works for me!
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)"I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence,"
"..A man who, when faced by danger, behaves like a mouse, is rightly called a coward."
"He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully ..."
samsingh
(18,409 posts)had he used that approach against the Nazis it would been a different outcome
Gandhi was shrewd he know what would work
Behind the Aegis
(56,100 posts)Funny thing is, to this day, there are many who still blame the Jews for the Holocaust for going to their deaths like sheep. Damned if they did, damned if they didn't. Pretty much the same now, without the constant threat of annihilation.
samsingh
(18,409 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Personally, I think that killing someone, whatever the circumstances, is not only dumb, but it is inhumane.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)you just topped yourself.
If I'm forced to defend my life, and yes, it has happened, I won't hesitate to do so and if the person I'm defending myself against dies, too bad for them, I'll feel remorse, but at least I'll be alive to feel that remorse.
That cop was well within dept. policy to shoot an armed man who had already demonstrated being dangerous by stabbing another person, and then coming after them.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You topped yourself.
Historic NY
(39,987 posts)save the student that was sliced up...while the steak knife slicer was inside looking for more victims.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Hollywood? Yes. TeeVee? Sure.
Real fucking life? Nope.
*sigh*
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Perhaps you are too young to remember.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Those are where such bullshit came from.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)a bullshit agency run by a right-wing criminal.
Right in the beginning, there are lies stated, SIGNED BY none other than America's favorite cross-dresser, J. Edgar Hoover.
Are you trolling here?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)But please, enlighten me, what police agencies actually trained their officers to pull a lone ranger and shoot the gun out of a suspect's hand, or intentionally shoot to wound.
And "Well I recall..." doesn't cut it. Cough up the goods.
(He says, knowing it'll be a looooooong wait.)
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Is a gold standard?
Give me a break!
Troll much?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Is like from the 40s.
I dunno, but I think you just keep trolling to amp me up!
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)
Response to X_Digger (Reply #180)
Post removed
The_Commonist
(2,518 posts)Sorry, but you people who say this is a "good shoot" are fucking sickos, who've had your brains turned to mush by years of right-wing propaganda. Right here on this supposed left-leaning board, we've got "Good Nazis" who are perfectly willing to live in a police state where death is a perfectly acceptable method for solving problems. Yeah, I went all Godwin on your ass. I more disappointed with you than I am with the cops right now.
How hard could it be in situations like this to have tranquilizer guns in all police cars (and provide training on their use), and after surrounding a guy like this (who has obviously just committed a heinous crime and needs to be removed from society) and put a tranquilizer dart in his ass and wheel him unconscious to jail for the rest of his life? We do that with animals, but not with human beings? We aren't even willing to treat each other as well as we treat rabid dogs? Frankly, I'd rather see tranquilizer guns in all police cars than body cameras on all cops. In most of the situations we've seen lately of death-by-cop, a well placed dart could have solved the problem and saved lives.
No wonder this society is so fucked up. It's your fault, you fellow "liberals," who have fallen into this trap of being just fine with death being the problem-solving tool of first resort (and yelling at the guy 20 times to PUT THE KNIFE DOWN is not trying to solve the problem). "Good riddance" to you to when you fall down and snap (and you will) and the cops simply put a bullet in your ugly face rather than at least trying to subdue you by other means first.
Sheeeesh!
KinMd
(966 posts)unless you got the person in a vein, it would take awhile for it to take effect plus people usually, in winter especially are wearing heavy clothes. Then there's the problem of dosage. If you have enough to knock out a guy that's 6-2 280 say, it could kill a smaller person.
The_Commonist
(2,518 posts)Just forget about trying to find a solution other than automatic death-by-cop.
Because it might take a while.
Got it.
KinMd
(966 posts)he still has the knife(with 4 inch blade) and refuses to drop it. He was shot once in the stomach. There's video of the shooting one the New York Daily News website. Could have been suicide by cop also
The_Commonist
(2,518 posts)So... they couldn't have put an elephant dart in his stomach instead?
Because it might have taken 8 minutes for him to go unconscious?
I just looked at Google maps.
This happened 2.78 miles from my house.
I don't like it when the local cops kill people.
Even if they're crazy people.
LisaL
(47,418 posts)Do you think police are in a habit of hunting elephants?
Why would they need elephant darts?
KinMd
(966 posts)but this situation wasn't Mike Brown or Eric Gardner. Does any police force in any country use tranquilizer darts for people? I'm asking cuz I haven't heard of it, but I could be wrong
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)However, what I like far, far less, is for people who are lethally armed, demonstrably violent, and a clear and present terminal threat to innocents and police, to continue to threaten others. I, and the vast majority of peaceful and law abiding citizens, from all political persuasions, expect the police to act promptly, firmly and efficiently in such a situation. They seem to have clearly done so.
The police appear to have correctly followed all relevant law and procedure, and I applaud them for their good work, despite the fact that it resulted in a death. Sometimes there are no good choices in a violent and dangerous encounter, and the assailant's actions appear to be little more than "suicide by cop."
In fact, unless and until new and damning information is available, I'm perfect comfortable calling this a "good shoot," as such term is used in common parlance, and your discomfort with basic vernacular notwithstanding.
We do not live in a Hollywood movie where police can shoot weapons out of assailant's hands or have weapons that can set to stun (an elephant tranquilizer, really?).
samsingh
(18,409 posts)than a man with a knife who just stabbed an innocent bystander.
getting priorities right is important i think.
let's support the true victims of violence - caused by idiots like the knife wielder or cops who are racist, cowards, or idiots.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Instantly immoblize anyone with spidey powers!
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)Batmans belt would be way more convenient. There's something for every occasion.
7962
(11,841 posts)brendan120678
(2,490 posts)Would work?
Suspect gets hit with dart, and then just stands around for a few minutes, compliantly waiting for the drugs to take effect?
There are times when lethal force its necessary. This may have been one of those instances.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)"He didn't really do anything THAT bad, maaaaan. "Victim" didn't even die, maaaaan. But you bloodthirsty liberals supporting the bought and paid for private prison planet rabble rabble, maaaaan"
My thoughts go out to the victim, Levi Rosenblat. He was the student stabbed in the head, in case you need the clue.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)The guy was a homicidal bigot and was armed. He was asked to drop the weapon repeatedly but didn't comply. There was no safe way of taking him into custody and obviously, the cops couldn't just say "oops - we have to go -- we can't shoot without killing him so might as well leave him alone."
Being a progressive has to be tempered with rationality and reality-testing.
Bragi
(7,650 posts)Why do cops always think execution of surrounded suspects is their first and best choice?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)They say drop the knife, suspect declines. He's surrounded by cops with drawn guns at that point. Why shoot? Why not wait him out, try to de-escalate, instead of killing him?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Someone wielding a knife can inflict a fatal blow in about 100 milliseconds - even after being shot, the body continues to execute the last action.
If they were waiting him out and he had killed another person, you'd be the first one to criticize the cops by saying, "what were they waiting for?"
Bragi
(7,650 posts)A knife-weilding suspect surrounded by a cops with their guns drawn isn't a threat to any of the cops. I think the counterpoint from cop apologists on this is pure BS. I know where you stsnd on this, but any fair-minded person using common sense knows what execution by cops looks like. It's not like we haven't seen it before.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)meaning someone who agrees with you.
PS - I don't like cops and I'm certainly not a cop apologist. Brute or lethal force against unarmed people should never be tolerated. However, when they are armed with a deadly weapon and have shown that they won't hesitate to use it, it is quite a different matter.
That's when he saw "this guy still walking around with his knife," said Grossbaum, 19, of St. Paul, Minnesota. After initially putting down the weapon, he picked it up again, "and starts walking toward them and then the cops shoot him," he said.
Suicide by cop.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)The attacker was shot only after he attempted to cut one of the cops.
Had he instead just kept standing around and saying "no" to the demands to drop the knife, he would have eventually been disarmed and arrested.
The_Commonist
(2,518 posts)Because those cops may not have been able to punch out from their shifts on time, and the department won't pay overtime? Because "dead men tell no tales"? Because the oligarchy wants a certain number of deaths-by-cop to keep us all afraid and in our place?
The rest of the sociopaths on this thread are not even worth answering.
When the level of discourse consists of "derp," it's barely even worth bothering any more.
And it's "Goodbye, America" when the supposedly most "liberal" and "compassionate" among us cheer for summary executions, even if "the perp got what he deserved."
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)That's when he saw "this guy still walking around with his knife," said Grossbaum, 19, of St. Paul, Minnesota. After initially putting down the weapon, he picked it up again, "and starts walking toward them and then the cops shoot him," he said.
Being stabbed to death is not in their job description any more than choking non-violent citizens to death is.
7962
(11,841 posts)chrisa
(4,524 posts)The term sounds like a hardass gun nut label.
Tranquilizers actually don't knock people out right away like in movies. It takes a while, which is why they're only used on animals that can be stopped over a short period of time. If someone is attacking with a knife, seconds count.
See the last paragraph HERE.
No doubt that US cops are ineffective, though. There's no way they should be shooting so many people.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Free clue for your Mutual of Omaha Wild Kingdom re-runs: There's a lot of film on the cutting room floor from when the dart goes into the elephant's ass and when the elephant goes down.
Any dose of tranquilizer that would stop a person before they could kill someone else-- would kill them outright.
What, you think there's a magic shot that makes a person drop like they're a puppet with strings cut?
Thank you Hollywood for another stupid myth taken as gospel.
*sigh*
Response to X_Digger (Reply #147)
Post removed
reddread
(6,896 posts)the most difficult problem may be people who feel that lethal force is justifiable
for almost any situation. and that is the fact jack. there are solutions to that problem.
they just dont recognize the problem as a problem, humans are for killing.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=20020926&id=ZTdQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lQ4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6548,2939593
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)And dosage depends on body mass, metabolism, and any other possible medications a person might be on. If they're already on a depressant? Door nail dead.
In other words, there will never be a safe way to administer enough sedative to quickly stop someone endangering others.
reddread
(6,896 posts)that problem could be solved.
if it were a problem.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)And in the meantime, you can beta test it. What's a few dead hostages til they get that cat skinned, amirite?
reddread
(6,896 posts)the solution is not limited to tranquilizing agents, nor your imagination.
imagine that?
christx30
(6,241 posts)Pretend you're a cop. Guy is holding a knife at you or your partner. He looks like he can move fast. What kind of tool would you work that would A, stop him nearly instantly, before he could harm you or your friend, and B, not harm him at all?
Tranqs are too slow and unreliable, unless you think he would consent to be weighed, and give you the time to do the math for the dosage.
Tazers can cause heart attacks and burns.
Flashbangs can work to stun the suspect, but only if you aren't in the same room as him. Also can cause burns
Tackling might work. If you can avoid being stabbed.
Pepperspray? Would you object to that?
You could try to sweet talk the murderous guy. See if you can get him to peacefully surrender.
Bragi
(7,650 posts)Despite the applause that summary executions get these days, I think it would be useful if police would allow the occasional terrorist suspect to survive. We'd maybe learn new insights into what exactly motivates these killers, and insights into how better to stop them before they kill. We'd also showcase how we are governed by laws. Instead, we get bodies.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)who entered a house of worship, yelled "kill the Jews," stabbed an innocent man in the head while he was praying, and continued to threaten police and bystanders with a deadly weapon.
If you intend to use this incident as an example of police racism, do not be surprised if your contributions to the discussion are, at best, ignored.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)Or do you think they might have at least shown more patience and restraint and made a greater effort to use non-lethal force?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)He ran at cops with a knife.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 10, 2014, 01:16 AM - Edit history (1)
The police after his girlfriend became violent and had a knife. He asked the police to escort her from his house. They ended up killing her. The police claimed she came at them with a knife... I don't recall any DUer even suggesting it was possible the cops were telling the truth, and most were in agreement that the police overreacted... The difference here seems to ONLY be the video. For those starting to waiver on police body cams, I can't think of a better example than these two stories why they are necessary.
branford
(4,462 posts)If you claim that the assailant was treated differently because of race, what is your evidence in this particular instance? Not every shooting of a black suspect by white officers is a result of some racial animus, and to make broad, unsupported allegations only serves to weaken our position when instances of real racism arise.
Watch the video and read the reports. The police were not looking to shoot him. Despite his proven lethal violence, they even re-holstered their weapons when he first dropped the knife in an effort to deescalate and peacefully arrest him. He was only shot after he subsequently grabbed the knife and tried to cut the officer.
7962
(11,841 posts)
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)http://twitchy.com/2014/08/22/wheres-the-media-outcry-unarmed-white-man-shot-by-black-police-officer-in-utah/
http://fox13now.com/2014/08/11/breaking-man-dead-after-officer-involved-shooting-in-s-salt-lake-police-say/
How many would you like?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)You asked if someone thought a white guy would have been shot in this situation. I answered in the affirmative.
There's no doubt in my mind that a white guy who had just stabbed someone in a place of worship and then came toward police with the knife would have been shot - justifiably so.
branford
(4,462 posts)You'll notice that the police did try to peacefully resolve the situation, including holstering their weapons when the assailant dropped the knife. It did not escalate until the individual subsequently grabbed the knife and lunged at the officers.
If this is not a "good shoot," I don't know what is.
An armed assailant entered a house of worship yelling anti-Semitic remarks, stabbed an innocent man in the head while he was praying, the police respond, give him multiple opportunities to drop the knife and surrender, the police holster their weapons after the knife is dropped to deescalate the situation, the assailant then grabs the knife, the police again order him to drop the weapon, and he instead lunges at them. The situation was at all times fluid, stressful, dangerous and uncertain. It was also indoors with innocent bystanders and occurred within minutes.
There are more than ample examples where the police are trigger-happy or even racist, but if you cannot admit when they handle a situation properly, any legitimate complaints you may have will likely be ignored or dismissed.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)I'm not going to shed any tears over this guy.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)
Bragi
(7,650 posts)What with him being summarily executed by the cops. I wish we could know more about what exactly motivates terror suspects, and how to stop/identify new ones.
branford
(4,462 posts)He entered a house of worship, with a knife, yelled "kill the Jews," stabbed an innocent man in the head while he was praying, continued to threaten everyone else, and much of it was caught on video.
I think we can safely assume that his motive was "loathsome and violent anti-Semite."
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Any "fair minded person with common sense" can deduce the motive from the known facts.
1. He hated jews
2. He had no problem using deadly force against innocent people who just happened to be jews
3. He did it in a Jewish house of worship
Behind the Aegis
(56,100 posts)...the ACTUAL victim, the Jewish student, is barely discussed, even in the thread, and it is all about making the vicious anti-Semite into the victim of "crazed" police.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Who had been to the synagogue at least a few times before, with no problems. No telling what caused a problem this time. Maybe his mdication didn't work . or he didn't take it (or have it). Maybe his wires just slipped for the worse.
I'm afraid that this is one of those stories that does only have victims in it, Aegis.
Behind the Aegis
(56,100 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)In this case though, it looks like the officer had no option - the assailant dropped the knife... then picked it back up and wouldn't put it back down.
branford
(4,462 posts)or that it was simply necessary, but nevertheless tragic, due to the possible mental illness of the assailant?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)In a rarity for me I am even including the officer as a victim - not on the same level as the assailant or the victim, no, but he was basically forced to kill another person by something that was, very literally, beyond anyone's ability to control.
branford
(4,462 posts)I inquired because I've seen some posts by others on similar topics in the past that imply if the assailant was mentally ill or young that an otherwise justified shooting would become unacceptable. Since the mentally ill and young can be quite dangerous, and you're no less dead or injured if attacked by such individuals, I've never given much credence to the rationale.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)he had already demonstrated he was dangerous with it, and was coming for the police with it.
What really breaks the heart is that even after he attacked, the article says the worshippers in the synagogue were trying to defuse the situation and asking the police not to shoot.
Like I said, only victims here.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)It is a flipping shame. The worshipers were pleading with the cop not to shoot the guy. The guy put down the knife, but the cop holstered his weapon to put gloves on (the guy with the knife had blood on him) and the guy picked the knife back up again and started charging people. 
There was a brief, very brief moment, where perhaps the taser could've been pulled or the guy could've been separated from the knife, but it didn't happen. Sad all around.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Of late I've seen too many videos of this sort, and I can't.
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)So for you to say that you "wish we could know more about what exactly motivates terror suspects, and how to stop/identify new ones" is quite silly, since there are plenty of such people sitting in jail right now.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)What people are you talking about? Blacks? Americans? People with bipolar disorder? Don't be chicken, you had the stones to come up with this line, let's hear some specifics?
Lolita46
(56 posts)Anti-Semitic criminal. Violent. Good shoot.
GOLGO 13
(1,681 posts)Despite what you want, cop are not there to get stabbed to death. "Shoot to Wound"? Obviously, you've never shot a weapon before and you watch way to much TV.
bullwinkle428
(20,662 posts)and Eric Garner situations. These cops handled this situation in the library as professionally as possible - god forbid the assholes in those other two cases showed that kind of self-control.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I can't say I will cry much over a violent criminal being taken out. Now if cops could just stick to just killing armed threats I would be okay with that.