Police shot knife wielding man in Philadelphia , rioting ensues

[mect]

A

Yes a hand can be a lethal weapon, and a police officer would be justified in shooting should I use my fists to say slam his head against something.

Police assess threats as presented, and enter into situations assuming an armed populace. Reform needs to happen at multiple levels for there to be meaningful change.

The police aren’t getting a pass, nor should they. I would argue that the property damage, shootings, riots, looting and assaults that have accompanied the BLM protests have done far more damage than the police.

Let’s just look at Philadelphia. Irreparable damage to local businesses, violence amongst the rioters, looters showing up by caravan at a Walmart. This is far more damaging to that section of the city than anything the police is doing.

Also, yes police need to assess the situation and determine the level of risk. The fact that farmers have a more dangerous job in the US coupled with the fact that our police officers kill 30x the number of people compared to western European nations indicates to me they do a piss poor job of that. And part of that problem is this presumption that someone with a knife automatically equates to a lethal threat.

 

[Starbuck1975]

A
Also, yes police need to assess the situation and determine the level of risk. The fact that farmers have a more dangerous job in the US coupled with the fact that our police officers kill 30x the number of people compared to western European nations indicates to me they do a piss poor job of that. And part of that problem is this presumption that someone with a knife automatically equates to a lethal threat.

Farmers don’t have to deal with mentally unstable people wielding knives.

We’ve set our police up for failure, and then wonder why they exceed our expectations.

Maybe we shouldn’t be sending heavily armed police officers, trained to use lethal force, into such situations. Maybe we as a nation need to revisit how we address mental illness. Maybe we should rethink our infatuation with guns and violence as a society. People keep bringing up the police of other nations. Those other nations probably censor violence more so than they censor sex and nudity

 

[Fenixgoon]

Farmers don’t have to deal with mentally unstable people wielding knives.

We’ve set our police up for failure, and then wonder why they exceed our expectations.

Maybe we shouldn’t be sending heavily armed police officers, trained to use lethal force, into such situations. Maybe we as a nation need to revisit how we address mental illness. Maybe we should rethink our infatuation with guns and violence as a society. People keep bringing up the police of other nations. Those other nations probably censor violence more so than they censor sex and nudity

So you're in favor of defund the police initiatives?

 

[Starbuck1975]

So you're in favor of defund the police initiatives?

I support police reform. “Defund” is a foolish way to frame what those initiatives are meant to accomplish.

 

[pmv]

Farmers don’t have to deal with mentally unstable people wielding knives.

We’ve set our police up for failure, and then wonder why they exceed our expectations.

Maybe we shouldn’t be sending heavily armed police officers, trained to use lethal force, into such situations.

Not that I've followed it very closely, but isn't that basically what "defund the police" is about? Divert some of the money spent on those heavily armed police officers (and their arms) into other services more appropriate for dealing with such situations?

Maybe we as a nation need to revisit how we address mental illness. Maybe we should rethink our infatuation with guns and violence as a society. People keep bringing up the police of other nations. Those other nations probably censor violence more so than they censor sex and nudity

The main difference would seem to be the lack of guns and, the presence of an economic 'safety net'. Though I do wonder sometimes about the very insecure performative type of masculinity the US has - as demonstrated by a certain right-wing poster's peculliar fixation with convincing himself he's not a "girly man" or a "soy boy". Many Americans seem obsessed with that kind of thing to a degree that must be quite exhausting.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Not that I've followed it very closely, but isn't that basically what "defund the police" is about? Divert some of the money spent on those heavily armed police officers (and their arms) into other services more appropriate for dealing with such situations?

More or less, “defund” is a polarizing and foolish way to frame the discussion.

The main difference would seem to be the lack of guns and, the presence of an economic 'safety net'. Though I do wonder sometimes about the very insecure performative type of masculinity the US has - as demonstrated by a certain right-wing poster's peculliar fixation with convincing himself he's not a "girly man" or a "soy boy". Many Americans seem obsessed with that kind of thing to a degree that must be quite exhausting.

Some of that is projection by American liberals, but you nailed the root cause, and that is economic safety nets. Fix economic disparity, address workers displaced by technology and develop a more equitable approach to the global economy, and I guarantee you that most of these problems would go away.

Also, three people were just killed in Nice by a knife attack, one decapitated. Lethal force is an appropriate response to a knife wielding assailant.

 

[Pohemi]

I support police reform. “Defund” is a foolish way to frame what those initiatives are meant to accomplish.

So resort to pointless semantics. I would agree that it isn't the best-sounding label, but it's also not your decision to choose the terms or words that a social movement uses.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So resort to pointless semantics. I would agree that it isn't the best-sounding label, but it's also not your decision to choose the terms or words that a social movement uses.

Words have meaning, and the social movement is leaderless and unstructured. It’s my opinion, free speech and all, and their choice of words impacts support for the movement, which is deteriorating. Pew Research reports that from June to September, overall support for BLM dropped from 67% to 55%, amongst whites it dropped from 60% to 45%.

You are right, its not my decision, the results of the movement’s decisions speak for themselves.

 

[mect]

Farmers don’t have to deal with mentally unstable people wielding knives.

We’ve set our police up for failure, and then wonder why they exceed our expectations.

Maybe we shouldn’t be sending heavily armed police officers, trained to use lethal force, into such situations. Maybe we as a nation need to revisit how we address mental illness. Maybe we should rethink our infatuation with guns and violence as a society. People keep bringing up the police of other nations. Those other nations probably censor violence more so than they censor sex and nudity

The point is that people don't sit around thinking what dangerous jobs farmers have. Who cares if they don't have to deal with mentally unstable people wielding knives. The point is that the job of the police is safer than the jobs of many other American's (including farmers), and yet we give them tremendous latitude in their use of lethal force because of this perception that they have an extremely high risk job. The data just don't support that notion.

I agree with your second paragraph, which is the entire point. As I've said before, I don't necessarily blame this specific officer. I blame our entire system. But until that system changes, expect every incident where lethal force is employed in any circumstance that could be considered questionable to result in this kind of response. A big portion of America is tired of its citizens dying at the hand of police officers.

 

[ondma]

So resort to pointless semantics. I would agree that it isn't the best-sounding label, but it's also not your decision to choose the terms or words that a social movement uses.

It is not pointless semantics. Conservatives are equating "defunding" the police with abolishing or greatly diminishing them. "Defund the police" has become a lynchpin of those who want to use the "law and order" issue for political attacks. I am not a fan of Megan McCain (commentator on The View), but she made a very astute observation in regard to this term. She said, to the effect, "If you have to explain your terms, you should have a better one."

 

[ondma]

A
Also, yes police need to assess the situation and determine the level of risk. The fact that farmers have a more dangerous job in the US coupled with the fact that our police officers kill 30x the number of people compared to western European nations indicates to me they do a piss poor job of that. And part of that problem is this presumption that someone with a knife automatically equates to a lethal threat.

A knife is a lethal weapon by definition.

A person wielding a knife certainly has the potential to kill you. Now that said, there should be different ways to deal with different kinds of lethal weapons, and how they are being handled by the subject. I just dont think the sort of subtle undercurrent in this thread that "it was only a knife" is fair.

 

[Pohemi]

Conservatives equate all kinds of nonsense constantly, whether it's based on fact or not. It's part of their constant fearmongering and brainwashing of their supporters. They will always find something 'wrong' with anything they disagree with, this is shown by their history.

Just because republicans say something doesn't make it truth. Usually quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[pmv]

It is not pointless semantics. Conservatives are equating "defunding" the police with abolishing or greatly diminishing them. "Defund the police" has become a lynchpin of those who want to use the "law and order" issue for political attacks. I am not a fan of Megan McCain (commentator on The View), but she made a very astute observation in regard to this term. She said, to the effect, "If you have to explain your terms, you should have a better one."

My guess is that that phrase is used because it is a motivating one - it gives expression to the anger those using it feel about the current situation. Part of the point is to be provocative, to hit back at the other side, who invoke 'LAW AND ORDER' or call for more police weaponry and powers. I suppose, in a way, it's a little bit similar to all those 'lock her up' chants and the rest used by the Trumpites. Nuance and wonkish policy papers are not politically-motivating.

 

[ondma]

Conservatives equate all kinds of nonsense constantly, whether it's based on fact or not. It's part of their constant fearmongering and brainwashing of their supporters. They will always find something 'wrong' with anything they disagree with, this is shown by their history.

Just because republicans say something doesn't make it truth. Usually quite the opposite, in fact.

That is true, but it also does not make sense to hand them such a pejorative term on a silver platter to use against you.

 

[pmv]

I mean, the trouble is, that just is political reality, I think. "land, peace and bread" worked pretty well for the Bolsheviks, for example. And the Trumpists still cling to their MAGA, no matter that it makes even less sense now than it ever did.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The point is that people don't sit around thinking what dangerous jobs farmers have. Who cares if they don't have to deal with mentally unstable people wielding knives. The point is that the job of the police is safer than the jobs of many other American's (including farmers), and yet we give them tremendous latitude in their use of lethal force because of this perception that they have an extremely high risk job. The data just don't support that notion.

I agree with your second paragraph, which is the entire point. As I've said before, I don't necessarily blame this specific officer. I blame our entire system. But until that system changes, expect every incident where lethal force is employed in any circumstance that could be considered questionable to result in this kind of response. A big portion of America is tired of its citizens dying at the hand of police officers.

So we can all agree that police officers killing citizens is a tragic outcome that happens far too frequently, and I would extend that statement to include even situations where the use of force is justified. I would rather trace the root cause to all the contributing factors that led to the moment where a citizen and police officer found themselves in a tense encounter, and work on lowering the likelihood of it being lethal. The police bear some responsibility, but they are not solely to blame.

 

[mect]

A knife is a lethal weapon by definition.

A person wielding a knife certainly has the potential to kill you. Now that said, there should be different ways to deal with different kinds of lethal weapons, and how they are being handled by the subject. I just dont think the sort of subtle undercurrent in this thread that "it was only a knife" is fair.

If you want to claim that any object capable of killing another person qualifies as a lethal weapon, then saying a person has a lethal weapon becomes rather meaningless.

Why is it not fair to say it was only a knife? Compared to a gun, a knife is not very lethal. Where is the data that suggesting a person wielding a knife is a significant threat to an armed police officer? How many police officers are killed a year by knives in our country? We have lots of data indicating that police officers are killing far more people than is necessary in our country. We have data that demonstrate that being a police officer isn't an extremely hazardous job. So why is it not fair to question the necessity of lethal force against a person with a knife?

 

[mect]

So we can all agree that police officers killing citizens is a tragic outcome that happens far too frequently, and I would extend that statement to include even situations where the use of force is justified. I would rather trace the root cause to all the contributing factors that led to the moment where a citizen and police officer found themselves in a tense encounter, and work on lowering the likelihood of it being lethal. The police bear some responsibility, but they are not solely to blame.

So why do you want to trace the root cause of police violence but not of rioting?

 

[ondma]

If you want to claim that any object capable of killing another person qualifies as a lethal weapon, then saying a person has a lethal weapon becomes rather meaningless.

Why is it not fair to say it was only a knife? Compared to a gun, a knife is not very lethal. Where is the data that suggesting a person wielding a knife is a significant threat to an armed police officer? How many police officers are killed a year by knives in our country? We have lots of data indicating that police officers are killing far more people than is necessary in our country. We have data that demonstrate that being a police officer isn't an extremely hazardous job. So why is it not fair to question the necessity of lethal force against a person with a knife?

Just look up the definition of "lethal weapon".

 

[mect]

Just look up the definition of "lethal weapon".

I did. And as I said, if we are going to apply that definition, then simply stating someone has a lethal weapon means basically nothing. Hands can classify as a lethal weapon per the dictionary definition.

 

[soundforbjt]

Older article, but does show some figures on cops killed by knife.

Among the 265 officers killed from 2008 to 2012, for example, only two were killed by a knife; 91 percent were killed by a firearm.

Now those numbers might simply mean that suspects just are not wielding knives against police officers. But if you look at the weapons used in criminal homicides overall, a full 13 percent involved a knife. Meanwhile, 20 percent of conventional aggravated assaults featured a knife. And although the FBI does not share data on weapons used by suspects in killings of police, another database does. The Wikipedia open-source database has collected press records relating to police killings since 2009. According to the records, of the 352 cases from 2012 that involved suspects whom the officers reported as wielding a knife, a gun, or what the officer reported as a possible gun or knife, nearly 20 percent involved knives exclusively.

Link: https://www.amacad.org/news/policy-perspectives-police-use-lethal-force

 

[woolfe9998]

I did. And as I said, if we are going to apply that definition, then simply stating someone has a lethal weapon means basically nothing. Hands can classify as a lethal weapon per the dictionary definition.

Knives are the second most common murder weapon after guns. In the US, where we have lots of guns, there are about 7x more gun murders than knife murders. In Europe, it's nearly 50/50, probably because it is harder to obtain guns.

I can only assume that a murderer's choice of weapon is based on its utility and effectiveness in accomplishing his purpose. By that metric, knives are apparently the second most lethal weapon, at least of those commonly available.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So why do you want to trace the root cause of police violence but not of rioting?

I do. The root cause of some rioting is police behavior, I am not debating that, but its also a chicken/egg discussion, that’s turned into a raging dumpster fire because its an election year during a global pandemic.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Just look up the definition of "lethal weapon".

Lethal Weapon 3 is my favorite

 

[woolfe9998]

If you want to claim that any object capable of killing another person qualifies as a lethal weapon, then saying a person has a lethal weapon becomes rather meaningless.

Why is it not fair to say it was only a knife? Compared to a gun, a knife is not very lethal. Where is the data that suggesting a person wielding a knife is a significant threat to an armed police officer? How many police officers are killed a year by knives in our country? We have lots of data indicating that police officers are killing far more people than is necessary in our country. We have data that demonstrate that being a police officer isn't an extremely hazardous job. So why is it not fair to question the necessity of lethal force against a person with a knife?

You do realize that had an ordinary citizen wielding a legally permitted gun had a person advance on them wielding a knife and had shot that person, the gun wielder would almost certainly get off on self-defense, right? This isn't even a cop issue. It's just the law of self-defense.