It's clear you don't have any idea how the use of force continuum works. But I can't blame you. You've probably never seen one. An officer (or any citizen) doesn't have to meet force with equal force. What we are taught is that we aren't paid to be in fair fights. We are paid to win. Winning means coming out alive. If someone is coming at you with fists, you don't meet it with fists....well, unless you like fighting. You overcome that. That means can use an intermediate weapon, or more. Things like experience size/gender of officer and size of suspect will come into play when it comes time for court, like it did in Ofc. Wilson's case. You don't have to wait until you're knocked unconscious before you shoot someone. If someone comes at you with a baseball bat, you don't have to find something similar (or a baton/taser). You OVERCOME that force so you can go home that day. That means you resort to deadly force. There are lots of unarmed folks that get shot, but it never makes the news because of obvious reasons. A co-worker and close friend of mine shot a guy at SE Memorial (SE Houston off of Beamer) in the lower left side/back, who was unarmed. He escaped custody, jumped into that pond and the officer chased. The suspect made it across the pond, got out and turned aggressively toward the officer as he stood in chest deep water. He wasn't about to let the suspect jump on top of him in chest deep water so he shot him. Harris Co. no billed him. The suspect was white, and we didn't hear about it because no one wanted to burn buildings down and loot stores over the shooting.
He likes to argue things he has no idea about for fun. Like airplanes and personal defense. It is pretty funny.
You want to completely dismiss a new type of force without guns, that's cool. Just an idea. I think it could work. What you showed pics of is a spray. This is what I think of when I think of a cloud. which isn't pepper spray. I love your story of clearing a movie theater. The problem with it is you could have still shot someone however uncomfortable you were, so the story is worthless. Pepper spray has to his the eyes to work. That is a concrete fact. Like your definition of cloud, your understanding of "effective" as it relates to self defense is flat out wrong. It is effective to make you uncomfortable, but doesn't shut you down like it does when it hits your eyes. These things aren't subjective. Your idea to force cops to use less than lethal first is dumb. Less than lethal force has to shut someone down to work. I could shoot a threat in the leg but until a drop in blood pressure causes them to pass out, they are still a threat. It can't just hurt, it has to do something real.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>The racial makeup of people killed in police shootings compared to people who shoot at police. <a href="http://t.co/F2IMRBig3z" title="http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/nypd_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2012.pdf">nyc.gov/html/nypd/down…</a> <a href="http://t.co/suDg2hYFki" title="http://twitter.com/NinjaEconomics/status/543522311761301504/photo/1">pic.twitter.com/suDg2hYFki</a></p>— Ninja Economics (@NinjaEconomics) <a href="https://twitter.com/NinjaEconomics/status/543522311761301504" data-datetime="2014-12-12T21:46:31+00:00">December 12, 2014</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Sure, I've never seen one. http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/Pages/continuum.aspx I completely agree. I'm not advocating for "fair fights" in any way, shape or form. I want the police to "win" 100% of the time. I wouldn't expect for any real police officer to act like they were in Lethal Weapon. I'm arguing that, as a general rule, the police should be required to choose the least lethal level on the UoFC necessary to subdue their subject. I've been pretty clear that I believe, given the evidence, that Wilson was completely justified. You're welcome to debate against that straw man if you like, as long as you realize you're using a logical fallacy. If someone comes at a police officer with a bat, I would expect that person to be shot. That situation also doesn't sound like lethal force was unjustified. You're arguing against things that I never said, I suspect because you're unable to address the actual issue.
No, I like debating to the point that my opponents have no choice but to make **** up, like the garbage in the post above and the lie you keep telling in your signature. The funny part is your inability to be honest.
Honestly, I would be all for it. However, such a force would require a drastic reduction in gun ownership among the populace. Forgive me if I think that such a reduction isn't possible given the state of politics these days. What is obvious to me is that you've never been exposed to LEO pepper spray. If you think it is only effective if directly applied to eyes, you're completely deluded. I wouldn't advocate for having cops shoot people in the leg. If you shoot someone with a gun, you aim for center mass. However, when dealing with an unarmed person, I don't believe it is too much to ask for the police to use nonlethal means before resorting to firearms. It seems odd to me that at the top of your post, you argue for a police force without guns, but defend lethal force as a first option. Seems like the cognitive dissonance should be incredible. I suppose if you just don't think, that isn't a problem.
I have been. It sucks when the spray goes where it isn't supposed to. I specifically mentioned that in the post you called BS. "Also it often hurts the user, from spray back, when in a close fight." Hurt and disable are two completely different things. I'm not deluded, I'm correct. You don't have the facts. If it doesn't hit the eyes, the target is still a threat. I will look past your primitive insults as anger at yourself for having so many facts wrong. When you need deadly force you need it. If it isn't justified, and it is used, prosecute. Having a rule to use less than lethal weapons when deadly force is justified is foolish. I argue for a police force without guns because cops perform many duties that they don't need guns for. Your complete dismissal of cops needing guns, because people have guns is short sighted. Tons of public workers don't carry guns and perform their duties just fine.
Yes, I have seen exactly how much of a threat someone who is exposed to even a small amount of pepper spray is, which is almost none at all. Start thinking and the insults won't be necessary. The problem with the shoot first mentality is that there is only one side of the story being told. Such a mentality also leads to 12 year old children holding toys being shot dead. The rule is only necessary to begin changing the culture to a point where a police force without guns might be possible. There are countries where LEOs shoot less than 100 bullets per year. This is because their culture is such that they choose other methods to subdue their subjects. http://gawker.com/5909283/german-po...ting-at-people-used-only-85-bullets-last-year You argue for a police force without guns but refuse to consider a police force being required to use less than lethal options before firearms.
You are just wrong on this. I mean now you are saying "almost none". What does that even mean? Tasers are replacing spray because a taser is effective no matter where it hits. That is an advantage over firearms and spray. Guns are still the most effective way to stop someone. Almost stopping someone is worthless. Just to be clear, in situations when deadly force is warranted, you want cops to use less than lethal weapons first, then if that doesn't work, put the taser down and use a firearm?
That means that once the VAST majority of people are hit with pepper spray, whether hit in the eyes, chest, or back, they are going to be unable to act aggressively for at the very least a few seconds. Most will be incapacitated for a few minutes, more than enough time to restrain with cuffs or zipties. Stopping someone for good is worse than worthless, it is deadly. Do you know how to read? In situations where police are dealing with unarmed persons, they should use less than lethal options if possible.
Yeah, and you are wrong. No point in further discussion. Pepper spray has been studied and tested to death. Direct hit to eyes will shut a threat down. Anywhere else is a crap shoot. Everything I posted that you called BS was true bro. Dealing with unarmed persons is a broad catchall. I'll ask again: Where the law currently says deadly force is justified, lets say for argument the person is unarmed, you are saying to change the law that the cop MUST use less than lethal first, then use a gun?
Kimber has an option... <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/YnWFJZkdB8Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So does Mace... <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Od0QGZtvTGg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The video shows a guy getting his in the eyes with pepper spray and it works. I think you don't really understand the discussion here.
This statistical argument is quite powerful. Jon Stewart can put up 6 blacks that were shot by the police, but only a fool would take that information and conclusively declare there to be a bias. All statistics must be reviewed in context, overlaid against other data sets, properly sampled, and must have a large enough comparison set. Not everyone has an education in the United States and those who do not are more readily deceived. These people trend Democrat in their voting habits and the Democrats openly boast about deceiving them (see Gruber). That is truly shameful to deceive the less fortunate. Sadly, this practice is a plank in the Democrats' platform.
Perhaps you're not following. I'm saying that there are options out there that allow for accurate dispersion of pepper spray to a subject's face. You seem to be claiming that pepper spray is so inaccurate that incapacitating a person is so difficult as to be impractical in high-stress situations. It isn't, pepper spray can be very effective.
LOL @ ATW who claims to be intellectually superior, but chooses not to back up his claims, running away from a battle of wits. It seems that you're not following the discussion well, perhaps you should actually try and make a point rather than just trying to insult and disparage. That's right, you don't seem to have that ability, thus the insults lobbed while tucking your tail and running.
