• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:723] Teenage Girl Is Fatally Shot by the Police in Columbus

dave8383 said:
You didn't provide anything. There is no reason we can't change the way we operate. Thinking we can't is a major part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Because your asinine comment of shooting to Wound does NOT work in our country based on the existing laws and training norms.

You state we cant change those. WE CAN actually but to change that would so drastic and require constitutional changes as well.

with that.... Its easier to maintain our current norms and have the PEOPLE start acting responsible.

1) The GIRL should not have been trying to stab another in the first place PERIOD.


This is the main factor, The officers action was REACTIVE to the REAL problem. People doing criminal actions.

You want to fix the LEO SURE We can fix the LEO's but it still does NOT stop the underlying problem. Criminals doing criminal things. Stop that and people wont get shot....pretty simple....
 
dave8383 said:
Could that cop have wounded her and stopped the possible knifing? HIGHLY possible.
Click to expand...
Wounded Her were exactly?

Please describe an accurate location to which a bullet could effectively "wound" her to stop her knifing the other girl?
 
dave8383 said:
Hilariously ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It's not hilarious or ridiculous, it makes perfect sense, like the ubiquitous joke about bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Explain, if you can, why my opinion is wrong. Otherwise, I'll assume that when you wrote "Hilariously ridiculous", you were incapable of actual debate.
 
D_NATURED said:
It's not hilarious or ridiculous, it makes perfect sense, like the ubiquitous joke about bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Explain, if you can, why my opinion is wrong. Otherwise, I'll assume that when you wrote "Hilariously ridiculous", you were incapable of actual debate.
Click to expand...

You think I give a shit about debating or not debating? You either get it or you don't. Usually in here if you don't it's because you don't want to. That's your problem not mine.

Now, as for Rittenhouse. Do you really believe he just happened to kill someone, walked around, killed someone else, and it was all just self defense and nessessery?
 
Exactice said:
Wounded Her were exactly?

Please describe an accurate location to which a bullet could effectively "wound" her to stop her knifing the other girl?
Click to expand...
For real. Shooting to wound in these situations is a movie script argument. I struggle to believe that people in real life actually think this could be done effectively.
 
Could that cop have wounded her and stopped the possible knifing? HIGHLY possible.
 
dave8383 said:
Could that cop have wounded her and stopped the possible knifing? HIGHLY possible.
Click to expand...
Could very well have been that she'd still have stabbed her too. What happened to your comment that the decision was up to him? Did you forget that? You just posted it. Here ya go:
dave8383 said:
I say only those who were there know for sure what could or couldn't have been done.
Click to expand...
The cop was there...wasnt he? So then why are you questioning his decision, when only he could have judged that split second risk?
 
Exactice said:
Wounded Her were exactly?

Please describe an accurate location to which a bullet could effectively "wound" her to stop her knifing the other girl?
Click to expand...

How about a baton to the head or ankle?
 
Lursa said:
So then why are you questioning his decision, when only he could have judged that split second risk?
Click to expand...

It's called learning from the situation. I know you weren't trained to learn from situtations but most people are.

Could that cop have wounded her and stopped the possible knifing? HIGHLY possible.
 
Exactice said:
Yes I agree... The vicinity was very very tight.

With that. If you read my specifics. on use of force, the generalize authorization is an eminent threat. The fact that the individual was lunging. The single stab could have been fatal. That movement alone is what basically justifies the Level 6 use of force. We can quarterback it all day. The fact is. Life, limb or eyesight is the justifier for level 6 (generically speaking)

Now in regards to active shooter..... again you seem to think that the force continuum has to be met with equal force. I have a case law example, where the type of force differed but was justified.

6ft 220lb man (well built) , 5ft women officer. Many runs straight for the women after repeated verbal attempts. Factual levels 2-4 are useless, The individual continues on, level 5 display of deadly force, was then shown the individual aggresses further attempts to grab the women officer, officer fires in justification for she feared her life as the man was significantly over powering and would have been eminent danger. Justified shoot .

So you dont need a firearm or AR15 shoot out to justify deadly force. If an eminent threat of life, limb or eyesight, that is the general justification for an offer's use of deadly force.

NOW round count..... In a SPLIT second....4 rounds go off. Round Count is not a commonly trained practice..... So the difference between 1-5 shots... its negligible. The singular fact that a single round was released from the chamber is Deadly force period. 1 round or 10 rds really doesnt matter as a single round is deadly and In the court of law do they justify "Which" shot was considered the deadly shot? You see what I mean? Do you know if the 4th shot killed the individual or the 1st shot?

The point of the matter was A shot was intended to neutralize the threat.


As for over reaction. That, "We" cannot determine. The courts and jury can. Personally I dont feel they over reacted but you feel they may have. Ultimately it would be through courts to make that final decision.

Thank you again for your respectable response! I appreciate it!
Click to expand...

I understand, and for those arguments, the cop will probably be exonerated.

I'm saying there are likely non-lethal alternatives that would have stopped knife-girl.
 
dave8383 said:
It's called learning from the situation. I know you weren't trained to learn from situtations but most people are.

Could that cop have wounded her and stopped the possible knifing? HIGHLY possible.
Click to expand...
You said the decision was up to him...and here you are still questioning it. Why is that? The answer, in the interests of the risks he weighed for the safety of the intended victim, is NO, because it would be highly unlikely.
 
SMTA said:
He wasn’t carrying one.
Click to expand...
Well he also had some previous 'suggestions' too. I posted the other video for him, for a different angle.
 
Lursa said:
You said the decision was up to him...and here you are still questioning it. Why is that? The answer, in the interests of the risks he weighed for the safety of the intended victim, is NO, because it would be highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

You fdon't know what the hell you're talking about.
 
Lursa said:
Well he also had some previous 'suggestions' too. I posted the other video for him, for a different angle.
Click to expand...
Methinks it did not help.
 
dave8383 said:
BS, it's done in other countries.
Click to expand...
Forgive me if I'm skeptical. I'd be interested to read where that's the preferred, successful tactic when death or gross bodily harm is imminent.
 
Artymoon said:
Forgive me if I'm skeptical. I'd be interested to read where that's the preferred, successful tactic when death or gross bodily harm is imminent.
Click to expand...
That is exactly the crux of this shooting. Weighing the risks...so who do you try to save? The attacker? Or the intended victim? Is it even morally right to risk the intended victim, rather than the attacker?

I know it's a young girl but from both videos, you can see that she is in mid-lunge to stab the other girl.

For goodness sake, it's not Sophie's Choice here, there is an aggressor, even if it is, sadly, a teen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom