Here We Go Again! Body cam footage Dallas PD shoot mentally ill man

originally posted by: IvanAstikov
a reply to: Xcathdra
That must have been one quick draw police officer then. Or, did he already have his gun drawn, thus negating the whole "21 to 26ft" bollocks?

Like I said.. You don't know US law or US Supreme Court rulings in this matter and you ignore facts you don't understand because you don't have he same laws in your country.

if you are interested this is a good watch and it might help you understand some of the basics with our law enforcement methods.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I've been interested in this topic since I first came on the internets 7 yrs ago. There is no video you can show me that hasn't made the same bs arguments in favour of allowing US police more lattitude in how they deal with threats to their person.

a reply to: IvanAstikov

This from a person who carries around a rounder bat and gets assaulted by people with knives.. Where were your police when this occurred?

Considering knives were involved would you even get an immediate police response or would they, per their policy, wait fro armed units to respond.

You can knock the Us all you want.. The fact remains you are not familiar wit hour laws and trying to compare them to the UK is a failed comparison.

originally posted by: IvanAstikov
a reply to: Xcathdra

I've been interested in this topic since I first came on the internets 7 yrs ago. There is no video you can show me that hasn't made the same bs arguments in favour of allowing US police more lattitude in how they deal with threats to their person.

then your interest in this topic is apparently one sided. Watch the video as it will give you an idea of how the laws work and how it affects law enforcement.

if you are interested you should be willing to hear all sides of the story and go from there. Simply ignoring sources because you have a pre conceived notion and mental block does a disservice to you as you aren't getting the entire viewpoint.

If you are unwilling to engage in educated debate on a topic you claim you want to know more about, then why bother engaging at all? instead of debate it becomes an uneducated attack.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Do you have a comprehension problem? I just told you where I got the bat from. Ftr, not everybody rushes straight to the police every time they have a beef with another person.

originally posted by: IvanAstikov
a reply to: Xcathdra
Do you have a comprehension problem? I just told you where I got the bat from. Ftr, not everybody rushes straight to the police every time they have a beef with another person.

Do you?

your first story never said anything about you taking the bat off one of your assailants. Your second version of the story has you taking it.

hence my question on are you arguing just for arguments sake. You changed the story when I raised a valid question about walking around with a bat.


and vigilante justice is not the answer.

had the mother in this scenario shot her son what would your view point be?

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm 5 minutes in and it's cringingly pro-police and anything they do in its presentation. I'll stick with it, but I know I'm not going to become a convert by doing so.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: msallo

As I pointed out to another poster "knife" stabbing range is 21 to 26 feet. This guy was within that distance.

Which is why upon recognition they should have backed away...........

a reply to: Xcathdra
I gave you the bare bone details relevant to the topic under discussion, ie. disarming a knife-carrying attacker. When you asked a question, I gave you further information. It's only YOU that seems to see it as me telling 2 different stories.

originally posted by: IvanAstikov
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm 5 minutes in and it's cringingly pro-police and anything they do in its presentation. I'll stick with it, but I know I'm not going to become a convert by doing so.

I am not asking you to convert to a pro law enforcement position. I am asking you to take the time to watch the video and maybe learn a little about our process when dealing with adverse encounters.

As I state in threads like these. When I provide the law and court rulings its done so people can understand why law enforcement did what they did. It does not mean I am supporting an officers actions. People think the system is broke. The only way to fix it would be to know specifically where it is broken, understanding why its broken, which can lead to a better fix.

If you want to learn then I encourage you to ask questions..
If you want to bitch let me know and I will stop responding to your posts..

not trying to be an ass however I don't want to waste my time in trying to provide information if its just going to be ignored.

originally posted by: msallo

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: msallo

As I pointed out to another poster "knife" stabbing range is 21 to 26 feet. This guy was within that distance.

Which is why upon recognition they should have backed away...........

Law Enforcement does not have a duty to retreat.

Secondly were other people in the residence that would be placed in danger if the guy goes back inside?
Was anyone else in the immediate area who could be placed in danger if the police were to pull back?

I can come up with other questions that we mentally ask when dealing with these situations but you get the idea.

Sorry, but when someone goes "off their medications" and then has something nasty happen to them or commits a crime, I don't have much sympathy for them.

We hear this all the time, that bipolar people can't be held responsible for their actions when they're "off their meds".

Well, if you make the decision not to take your meds, or to take illegal drugs, then YOU are responsible for what happens to you when you're either (a) not under control or (b) under the influence.

originally posted by: IvanAstikov
a reply to: Xcathdra
I gave you the bare bone details relevant to the topic under discussion, ie. disarming a knife-carrying attacker. When you asked a question, I gave you further information. It's only YOU that seems to see it as me telling 2 different stories.

and as I stated you failed to include that key detail of disarming an attacker and taking hit rounder's bat in your first retelling of that story.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Law Enforcement does not have a duty to retreat.

Therein lies the problem. Not all persons they are sent out to apprehend are dangerous cartel or terrorist organisation members who need dispatching at the earliest opportunity.

a reply to: IvanAstikov

and in the manner the comment was made I pointed out that police had no duty to retreat in that situation.

Please point out where I said anything about dangerous people or cartel members.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Why would I? Did you expect me to start the story from when I'd woken that morning, and describe everything that led up to the incident?

a reply to: Xcathdra

What about a moral duty not to deprive mothers of their children, when all they wanted you to do was restrain them until they'd calmed down? Did that not even enter your head?

Or, would have preferred the mother to shoot the son herself, and save the cops a call out?

originally posted by: IvanAstikov
a reply to: Xcathdra

Why would I? Did you expect me to start the story from when I'd woken that morning, and describe everything that led up to the incident?

Because there is a fundamental difference between a person who is armed from the start and one who disarms an attacker and uses that weapon to go on the offensive.

As a prime example of the differences in laws, and depending on what state you were in had it occurred here, you could have been charged with assault as well.

so in situations like this police should retreat but when its you or another civilian its ok to go on the offensive and not involve police?

originally posted by: IvanAstikov
a reply to: Xcathdra

What about a moral duty not to deprive mothers of their children, when all they wanted you to do was restrain them until they'd calmed down? Did that not even enter your head?

It did and if you read my posts and understood US law you would know I was referring to that when I mentioned a civil rights investigation at the federal level.

The mother called the police and her son was armed.. If he is not going to listen to her and he is not going to listen o law enforcement what option is there, taking into account the other issues I have raised with this topic?

a reply to: Xcathdra

So, shoot first, answer questions later is your solution. Got that.