Are you asking or telling? Are you telling me that it would have been more appropriate to use a tazer, or are you asking me if a tazer would have been a feasible option?
Are you trained and qualified to determine when and how to employ a tazer? Are you qualified to discuss the conditions under which a tazer can or should be employed?
Basically, do you actually know what you’re talking about when you mention a tazer?
I’m not asking you. I’m phrasing it as a question because it’s one of the most blatantly obvious answers to your question. A taser is better unquestionably when someone is coming after you with clearly not a gun. Yes. I’m not trained but I have enough common sense to realize that not killing someone who’s chasing you with a clearly non lethal weapon is much better than killing them.
who’s chasing you with a clearly non lethal weapon is
The weapon in question is a metal blade on a stick.
It is readily capable of destroying an eye. (Aka: “Grievous bodily harm”) It is readily capable of severing the carotid artery. (Aka: “death”) It is capable of causing a wide variety of similar permanently debilitating, disfiguring, or lethal injuries to the officer in a very short period of time.
The video shows that the kid was attempting to strike a retreating officer in the head or upper body. Any person in the officer’s position would reasonably fear a significant possibility of death or grievous bodily harm from this attack.
I therefore reject your assertion that the weapon being employed against the officer can be reasonably described as “clearly non lethal”.
Well, y’see, a taser and a gun are very similar in these instances
Yes. Yes, they are.
Sometimes I forget that most people have zero training in defensive force.
Tell me: how accurately can well-trained personnel put rounds on target in immediate, defensive situations? How many hits can they land in the time it takes an attacker to land his first blow? How many misses? How about by his second blow? I know what I have been taught, but you’re not going to trust me. Go find that number.
When you find the real-world hit percentages in close-quarters combat. multiply it times two for the number of times they can shoot their tasers.
If that number is less than 1, the attacker is more likely to land a blow than not.
Next, multiply it by 30 to 38, for the number of times they could shoot their handguns. Now you have a reasonable tool for stopping a deadly attack.
Did you watch the video? Remember: each and every blow the kid lands with that weapon has the possibility of permanently maiming, disfiguring, or killing the officer.
Watching the video, the officer was able to draw his gun, but was not able to get it on target before the kid was within striking distance, and swinging his weapon at the officer’s head or upper body. The video ends before we see who actually fired the shots.
A taser?
Are you asking or telling? Are you telling me that it would have been more appropriate to use a tazer, or are you asking me if a tazer would have been a feasible option?
Are you trained and qualified to determine when and how to employ a tazer? Are you qualified to discuss the conditions under which a tazer can or should be employed?
Basically, do you actually know what you’re talking about when you mention a tazer?
I’m not asking you. I’m phrasing it as a question because it’s one of the most blatantly obvious answers to your question. A taser is better unquestionably when someone is coming after you with clearly not a gun. Yes. I’m not trained but I have enough common sense to realize that not killing someone who’s chasing you with a clearly non lethal weapon is much better than killing them.
The weapon in question is a metal blade on a stick.
It is readily capable of destroying an eye. (Aka: “Grievous bodily harm”) It is readily capable of severing the carotid artery. (Aka: “death”) It is capable of causing a wide variety of similar permanently debilitating, disfiguring, or lethal injuries to the officer in a very short period of time.
The video shows that the kid was attempting to strike a retreating officer in the head or upper body. Any person in the officer’s position would reasonably fear a significant possibility of death or grievous bodily harm from this attack.
I therefore reject your assertion that the weapon being employed against the officer can be reasonably described as “clearly non lethal”.
How was that tool clearly non lethal? If fists are potentially lethal, then a long sturdy tool sure as hell is.
I’m not trained in how to employ a tazer, but a cop probably should be.
It seems like there ought to be some way to safely help a teenager having a mental breakdown without killing them.
Clearly. If you had been trained on the proper use of a taser, you would recognize that they can’t be effectively employed in the way you suggest.
You might as well be arguing that the cop should have just shot the weapon out of the kid’s hands. It’s just as feasible.
It would have been a better option than the gun.
Disagree?
How could a tazer have been employed in this situation?
By pulling it out of his holster instead of the gun.
<.< Well, y’see, a taser and a gun are very similar in these instances. You take it out, point it at the target, and pull the trigger.
Since there were two cops, that means there were two tasers. Funny how two guns were used though, as if they never even considered using their tasers?
Yes. Yes, they are.
Sometimes I forget that most people have zero training in defensive force.
Tell me: how accurately can well-trained personnel put rounds on target in immediate, defensive situations? How many hits can they land in the time it takes an attacker to land his first blow? How many misses? How about by his second blow? I know what I have been taught, but you’re not going to trust me. Go find that number.
When you find the real-world hit percentages in close-quarters combat. multiply it times two for the number of times they can shoot their tasers.
If that number is less than 1, the attacker is more likely to land a blow than not.
Next, multiply it by 30 to 38, for the number of times they could shoot their handguns. Now you have a reasonable tool for stopping a deadly attack.
Most adults would take a knife to the arm to protect a child, but god forbid taking a garden tool to the arm to not shoot one.
This kid’s own family was unwilling to take such a hit from this kid, but you expect it from a complete stranger?
Yes?
Would you save a child from being shot at the cost of being stabbed?
Shoot the tazer darts at the boy while he’s approaching instead of bullets?
Did you watch the video? Remember: each and every blow the kid lands with that weapon has the possibility of permanently maiming, disfiguring, or killing the officer.
Watching the video, the officer was able to draw his gun, but was not able to get it on target before the kid was within striking distance, and swinging his weapon at the officer’s head or upper body. The video ends before we see who actually fired the shots.
That’s the risk of being in a job that isn’t even in the top 20 most dangerous jobs in America.
As you were told elsewhere, soldiers in war zones wouldn’t act this way and their job is far more dangerous.
You’re just encouraging police cowardice. Not that it needs to be encouraged.
You always know you’re going to hear some pig fellating boot sucking shit take when someone calls oinkers “officer”.
Gotcha.
It is “cowardice” to take effective steps to stop an attacker from jamming a garden hoe in your neck.
Understood.
it is cowardice to conclude lethal force is the only option here.
So there are no possible effective steps that could have been taken without murdering the boy?
Amazing cops aren’t murdered constantly in Europe.