posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 01:51 AM
a reply to: jonnywhite
You know a lot of unarmed people die in police encounters.
I do know that. I also know based on the report the assailant in this case was armed with a lethal weapon. If the assailant were wielding a bat, or
club, or other blunt object, I could maybe
agree to the logic of re-deploy. However, when a grown adult makes the choice to charge with violent
intent with a bladed object that can also pierce through a woven ballistic resistant vest, they have made the choice of attacking with lethal force
Noone in any job field, let alone law enforcement, should be questioning in mere seconds whether it is worth it to risk dying right now for a criminal
who mas made the choice to use lethal force against them. The argument here really is whether a ranged lethal weapon is appropriate for a melee lethal
attack. The only one who has the right to make that decision is the human being defending their life, right there, in that moment. Would I stick up
for him if he shot teenagers pelting his vehicles with stones? Heck no. Context.
A grown adult choosing to attack another with lethal force is grounds to be met with lethal force no matter who you are. Ranged vs melee is an
irrelevant argument. The only motivating factor that should be taken into account is that human intent and the actions of that intent to make an
attempt on a life with a lethal weapon. The assailant was not twirling it in their fingers, jumping and retreating. Or had it sheathed. This was an
armed assailant brandishing a lethal bladed weapon that can easily commit great bodily harm whos intent was made clear when they proceeded to charge
full speed and close the distance to make an imminent assault with possible great bodily harm.
People should have to have experienced their life literally in the hands of another to really appreciate the significance of this.