Yet another racist killing by US police

[Dukasaur]

1) Police are not slaughtering black people. How many unarmed individuals have been killed this year by the police?

The number of completely unarmed people killed by police is relatively low, that is true. It doesn't follow, however, that if someone is armed then that means the police should shoot him. The police have a tremendous array of non-lethal methods at their disposal. Choosing to deal with a suspect by shooting him without first exhausting all the non-lethal options indicates, at the very least, a disturbing level of indifference to life and death.

A great many of the "armed" suspects are armed with something like a kitchen knife or a table leg. When four armed cops are facing one poor bastard with a kitchen knife, it should be child's play for them to disarm him, with tonfas or tazers or hell, even with their bare hands. If they choose to just shoot him dead and use the fact that he was "armed" as justification, well, in my opinion it's outright murder, but at the very least it's depraved indifference.

[Jdsizzleslice]

1)I don't know if this is helpful, but I believe the number in 2019 was 114 people in the US.

Right, and depending on the source you use, 9 or 13 of those people were black for 2019. 114 is an unfortunate number, and we should look to reform and reduce that number, but to suggest that people are being hunted down is factually incorrect.

2) an insurgency in Portland? It's basically one city block where there are always protests anyway cus... 'portland'...I was there 6 months ago at the same block was 3 days of protests of the local bussing authority. The insurgence as you call them (I'll stick with citizens of america for now) are equipped with lazer pointers and fireworks as their weapons of choice.

How long till the US military crumbles before this violent revolutionary force (language from DHS press release)? Please call me when they succeed in blinding the entire US military. This looks more like Kabuki theater to me, then an insurgency.

Now to me Seattle is a whole 'nother can of worms.

Yes, the individuals who are causing violence in Portland are trying to take/burn down the Federal Courthouse. Riots have definitely been going on for the past 58 days. It's a targeted attack. By definition, this is an insurgency (an active revolt or uprising). You could make an argument that certain members of the Oregon government are supporting the insurgency (Portland mayor/police commissioner supporting the riots and directing the police to stand down, the Oregon AG suing the Feds that they couldn't defend the courthouse, etc.).

3) Isn't the news supposed to be impartial? Why should it denounce or support rioting? "MSM" news article below, about Seattle. Where is the conspiracy? They describe the riots, the police response and mostly stick to facts not opinion or moral judgements. There is left media, and right media and sometime there is news that just tries to be news without injected it own moral judgement on a situation. Please don't lump it all together, it undermines peoples ability to trust whats left of actual news. Either just say CNN, or the left wing media or something else.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/riot-decla ... -continue/

Is the morality of rioting/looting/destruction something that is impartial in nature? It should be condemned, regardless of what side of the political aisle you are on. Which MSM organization has actively condemned the unlawful act of rioting? I can only name a few...

Police in Seattle for this weekend were told to not risk it. Essentially telling the businesses that they were on their own if anything happened. So I'm not sure what happened in Seattle, unless Police were instructed to NOT let CHOP happen again.

The number of completely unarmed people killed by police is relatively low, that is true. It doesn't follow, however, that if someone is armed then that means the police should shoot him. The police have a tremendous array of non-lethal methods at their disposal. Choosing to deal with a suspect by shooting him without first exhausting all the non-lethal options indicates, at the very least, a disturbing level of indifference to life and death.

A great many of the "armed" suspects are armed with something like a kitchen knife or a table leg. When four armed cops are facing one poor bastard with a kitchen knife, it should be child's play for them to disarm him, with tonfas or tazers or hell, even with their bare hands. If they choose to just shoot him dead and use the fact that he was "armed" as justification, well, in my opinion it's outright murder, but at the very least it's depraved indifference.

Can you cite a case where that happened?

[Dukasaur]

The number of completely unarmed people killed by police is relatively low, that is true. It doesn't follow, however, that if someone is armed then that means the police should shoot him. The police have a tremendous array of non-lethal methods at their disposal. Choosing to deal with a suspect by shooting him without first exhausting all the non-lethal options indicates, at the very least, a disturbing level of indifference to life and death.

A great many of the "armed" suspects are armed with something like a kitchen knife or a table leg. When four armed cops are facing one poor bastard with a kitchen knife, it should be child's play for them to disarm him, with tonfas or tazers or hell, even with their bare hands. If they choose to just shoot him dead and use the fact that he was "armed" as justification, well, in my opinion it's outright murder, but at the very least it's depraved indifference.

Can you cite a case where that happened?

How's this one?


The guy is obviously despondent. He needs a psychiatrist more than anything. After he picks up the knife and locks the door, the cops could have backed off and called for a psychiatric counsellor to talk to him, but they chose the forcible option. They kicked down his door. There's at least three cops inside the house and presumably more outside. One cop with a tazer and two with guns. None carrying their tonfas. After they kick down his outer door he's still not directly confronting them and hides in an inner room. They kick in a second door and flush him out. They tazer him but he doesn't drop, so they shoot him and he dies.

They had numerous opportunities to choose a less violent option.

1. When he locked the door, they could have let him sit and calm down.
2. They could have called him on his phone and tried to persuade him to give himself up.
3. They could have brought in a hostage negotiator or psychological counselor to talk him out.
   Even after breaking down the door.
4. they could have gone in with their tonfas instead of their guns. For a man with a tonfa to disarm a man with a knife is literally child's play.
5. all three cops could have used tazers instead of one with a tazer and two with guns, and tazering him from multiple angles would almost certainly have brought him down.
6. a cop with a helmet and a riot shield could have pinned him against the wall while the other two disarmed him.

So many non-lethal options. Instead, no attempt to negotiate, no attempt to disarm. A token tazering and then up the ante to death by gunfire.

[Jdsizzleslice]

The guy is obviously despondent. He needs a psychiatrist more than anything. After he picks up the knife and locks the door, the cops could have backed off and called for a psychiatric counsellor to talk to him, but they chose the forcible option. They kicked down his door. There's at least three cops inside the house and presumably more outside. One cop with a tazer and two with guns. None carrying their tonfas. After they kick down his outer door he's still not directly confronting them and hides in an inner room. They kick in a second door and flush him out. They tazer him but he doesn't drop, so they shoot him and he dies.

Not the same as what you initially suggest. The video doesn't show the individual being shot, but let's assume that he ended up passing away as a result of the situation.

He is clearly despondent but no counselor could have helped unless the situation was under police control. EMT's generally have the same philosophy in regards to entering scenes that are not under police control. What the individual did is commonly referred to as "Suicide by Cop" because he knew that if he advanced towards police with a weapon that they will act to defend themselves. The individual clearly shows that in the video and makes advancements towards the officers.

They had numerous opportunities to choose a less violent option.

1. When he locked the door, they could have let him sit and calm down.
2. They could have called him on his phone and tried to persuade him to give himself up.
3. They could have brought in a hostage negotiator or psychological counselor to talk him out.
   Even after breaking down the door.
4. they could have gone in with their tonfas instead of their guns. For a man with a tonfa to disarm a man with a knife is literally child's play.
5. all three cops could have used tazers instead of one with a tazer and two with guns, and tazering him from multiple angles would almost certainly have brought him down.
6. a cop with a helmet and a riot shield could have pinned him against the wall while the other two disarmed him.

Just some notes on the criminal psychology point of things to note here about every point:

1) The individual was antagonizing the police to shoot him. Letting him sit and calm down would have most likely achieved nothing, because the individual showed no signs of cooperation with the police. Further, the language of the individual suggested that he knew what was going to happen already before the shooting happened.
2) The police tried to get the individual to put the weapon down. They tried to negotiate with him and tried to verbally disarm the individual, but he did not listen to the officers. The individual locked the door knowing the police would have to break in to reinitialize the confrontation and secure the situation. At this point, the video you show shows no signs that the officers had the situation under control or knew of any other persons that may have been in danger inside the house.
3) A hostage negotiator would have most likely not proven beneficial seeing as that the individual was wanting the police to come in and inflict harm on himself, due to the language that he used in the video.
4) The situation, since inside, was unbeknownst to the officers on scene. It is most likely that the officers had never been inside the house, and did not know if there were any other weapons, concealed or otherwise, that the individual was planning to use to inflict potential harm to the officers or other people that may have been inside. The situation was already to the point that the officers did not have time to go back to their vehicles and retrieve any sort of other means to subdue the individual. This is what we see in heat of the moment or very time-constrained situations.
5) Again, the officers did not know what situation they were walking into when going into the house. The idea of law enforcement brandishing firearms is to meet or be above the assumed force that is being presented to them at the time, as a means to try to take control of the situation.
6) Due to the situation at hand, the officers did not have time to prepare with riot gear or wait for another officer to arrive with riot gear.

So many non-lethal options. Instead, no attempt to negotiate, no attempt to disarm. A token tazering and then up the ante to death by gunfire.

The reason the individual ended up being shot is that he advanced towards police. They did try to talk to the individual, negotiate, and disarm the individual. It was only after he chased the cops around the room with a knife did they have to resort to lethal force.



This video is similar to the video above, where the individual was antagonizing the police to shoot him. He eventually laid down and the police were able to secure the situation and get him the help he needed.



This video is similar to the other two, verbally telling police to kill him, but the individual rushed police officers, resulting in deadly force being used by the officers.

The reason the person was shot in your initial video wasn't that he had a knife, per se, but because he advanced toward the police with that weapon and put the life of the officers in fear of serious bodily hard or death. This does not seem like a case where the death of the individual was unjustified, by any means. I think that we can both agree that this was a tragic event that happened in the video that you posted, but the officers were forced to use deadly force in the scenario which you presented.

[mookiemcgee]

1)I don't know if this is helpful, but I believe the number in 2019 was 114 people in the US.

Right, and depending on the source you use, 9 or 13 of those people were black for 2019. 114 is an unfortunate number, and we should look to reform and reduce that number, but to suggest that people are being hunted down is factually incorrect.

2) an insurgency in Portland? It's basically one city block where there are always protests anyway cus... 'portland'...I was there 6 months ago at the same block was 3 days of protests of the local bussing authority. The insurgence as you call them (I'll stick with citizens of america for now) are equipped with lazer pointers and fireworks as their weapons of choice.

How long till the US military crumbles before this violent revolutionary force (language from DHS press release)? Please call me when they succeed in blinding the entire US military. This looks more like Kabuki theater to me, then an insurgency.

Now to me Seattle is a whole 'nother can of worms.

Yes, the individuals who are causing violence in Portland are trying to take/burn down the Federal Courthouse. Riots have definitely been going on for the past 58 days. It's a targeted attack. By definition, this is an insurgency (an active revolt or uprising). You could make an argument that certain members of the Oregon government are supporting the insurgency (Portland mayor/police commissioner supporting the riots and directing the police to stand down, the Oregon AG suing the Feds that they couldn't defend the courthouse, etc.).

Is it normal for me to be able to walk my dog past an 'insurgency' without being attacked (or any fear whatsoever of something bad happening to me)? You don't think you are overreacting a little here? the 4th of July this year there was a massive insurgency in towns across america because people lit fireworks near postoffices. Do you have any video of the federal building on fire? When you say 'take' a federal courthouse, someone might picture people in riot gear advancing with guns... what's really happening is losers in birkenstocks using lasers pointers. The DHS own leaked email basically says as much, the Feds, equiped with guns and riot gear were 'pinned' in the building by hippies with laser pointers. It's basically a Pink Floyd laser light show, not a revolution.

I probably shouldn't belittle the situation so much, but it's Portland lol. Was the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016 an insurgency in your opinion? Do you think Trump should pardon the folks at the heart of the protests in Portland today like he did those guys?

3) Isn't the news supposed to be impartial? Why should it denounce or support rioting? "MSM" news article below, about Seattle. Where is the conspiracy? They describe the riots, the police response and mostly stick to facts not opinion or moral judgements. There is left media, and right media and sometime there is news that just tries to be news without injected it own moral judgement on a situation. Please don't lump it all together, it undermines peoples ability to trust whats left of actual news. Either just say CNN, or the left wing media or something else.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/riot-decla ... -continue/

Is the morality of rioting/looting/destruction something that is impartial in nature? It should be condemned, regardless of what side of the political aisle you are on. Which MSM organization has actively condemned the unlawful act of rioting? I can only name a few...

CONDEMNING IS NOT THE JOB OF THE NEWS, REPORTING THE FACTS OF WHAT IS GOING ON IS THE JOB OF THE NEWS. THAT'S THE ONLY PATH THE DOESN'T LEAD TO PEOPLE GETTING SPOONFED THEIR OPINIONS UNDER THE GUISE OF NEWS BY CNN AND FOX!

You've contended FOX isn't biased, and doesn't deal in propaganda. If you google 'george floyd victim fox news' here is comes up :

George Floyd tested positive for coronavirus
George Floyd unrest: Victims of violence include ex-college athlete, retired police captain (an article about people hurt by protestors)
Texas man with 'assault rifle' at George Floyd protest allegedly plotted 'to off racists and MAGA people'
'Fed up' police rally behind their own in face of post-George Floyd scrutiny

That kinda is only one side of a story don't you think?!? No mention of George Floyd as a victim, which frankly you can say it wasn't an example of institutional racism, maybe it was a personal or non-racially motivated beef between them.. but a sane person has to acknowledge he was a victim in what happened that day... not a peep from FOX NEWS. Pretty much the exact thing you are accusing other media orgs of doing, telling only one side of the story.

finally after some digging, I found one 'Opinion' piece (the others were listed as 'News' pieces on their site)
Richard Fowler: George Floyd is latest in a long line of victims of deadly epidemic of racism.
So one guy at fox news was able to write 'george floyd was a victim' in his headline on fox, but had to label it as opinion to do so.

Now I will not spending any time defending the garbage gotcha lazy shit covered attempts at news on CNN 95% of the time, but maybe you can start to acknowledge Fox is outwardly biased and engages in the same tactics. I understand it's harder to see because you share 'the opinion' behind it, there are times I would be guilty of the same in reverse... But I try really really hard to see both sides of an issue, and not get both sides told to me by only one side.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Is it normal for me to be able to walk my dog past an 'insurgency' without being attacked (or any fear whatsoever of something bad happening to me)? You don't think you are overreacting a little here? the 4th of July this year there was a massive insurgency in towns across america because people lit fireworks near postoffices. Do you have any video of the federal building on fire? When you say 'take' a federal courthouse, someone might picture people in riot gear advancing with guns... what's really happening is losers in birkenstocks using lasers pointers. The DHS own leaked email basically says as much, the Feds, equiped with guns and riot gear were 'pinned' in the building by hippies with laser pointers. It's basically a Pink Floyd laser light show, not a revolution.

I'm not sure about normal, but on several occasions in other countries, there have been insurgencies and a few blocks down the road you are still able to get a meal at a restaurant with no violence in sight. I don't think I am overreacting when the state of Oregon seems to be supporting the unrest. Obviously the Antifa losers wouldn't stand a chance against federal police with guns in an equal fight, but what do you think the MSM perception would be once the Antifa losers started to invade the courthouse? "Trump's Gestapo Murders Innocent Protestors." It's a thin line that we are treading on, here.

CONDEMNING IS NOT THE JOB OF THE NEWS, REPORTING THE FACTS OF WHAT IS GOING ON IS THE JOB OF THE NEWS. THAT'S THE ONLY PATH THE DOESN'T LEAD TO PEOPLE GETTING SPOONFED THEIR OPINIONS UNDER THE GUISE OF NEWS BY CNN AND FOX!

Dude. Rioting is a crime. Very few MSM organizations have called the unrest rioting. It's all been "protestors" or "demonstrators." You can condemn an evil whilst still reporting what is going on. Those two things can be done at the same time (and in this case should be condemned). That has, in large part, not been happening.

You've contended FOX isn't biased, and doesn't deal in propaganda. If you google 'george floyd victim fox news' here is comes up :

George Floyd tested positive for coronavirus
George Floyd unrest: Victims of violence include ex-college athlete, retired police captain (an article about people hurt by protestors)
Texas man with 'assault rifle' at George Floyd protest allegedly plotted 'to off racists and MAGA people'
'Fed up' police rally behind their own in face of post-George Floyd scrutiny

That kinda is only one side of a story don't you think?!? Pretty much the exact thing you are accusing other media orgs of doing telling only one side of the story?

finally after some digging, I found one 'Opinion' piece (the others were listed as 'News' pieces on their site)
Richard Fowler: George Floyd is latest in a long line of victims of deadly epidemic of racism.
So one guy at fox news was able to write 'george floyd was a victim' in his headline on fox, but had to label it as opinion to do so. Richard Fowler happens to be black.

I've stated before that Fox has their bias. It's pretty obvious it is a right-leaning/conservative bias. However, they do write articles that seem to cover what is going on:

I googled "george floyd fox news" and came up with the following headlines:
"Four ex-cops linked to George Floyd's death appear in court, judge sets 2021 trial date"
"Derek Chauvin told George Floyd it takes 'a lot of oxygen' to talk when he repeatedly said he couldn't breathe: transcripts"
"Minneapolis police body-cam footage of George Floyd's arrest released"
"Minneapolis ex-police officer charged in George Floyd killing moves to dismiss charges"
"George Floyd's brother Philonise tells police: 'You can do your job and still maintain respect for others'"
"Deadly unrest: Here are the people who have died amid George Floyd protests across US"

Specifically referring to George Floyd being a victim, here a few of the interviews that appeared live on Fox News:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQOoYKyZzbY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZY0UsddDss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U1rbSP_0ns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbmPa5COjVY (9:43 to get to addressing George Floyd)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOLSVkHNfs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBq6KWGyGE (I don't agree with all the points, but nonetheless)

Seems to me they are reporting on what is going on. We can debate the political bias, and that's fine, but I don't see deception.

Now I will not spending any time defending the garbage gotcha lazy shit covered attempts at news on CNN 95% of the time, but maybe you can start to acknowledge Fox is outwardly biased and engages in the same tactics. I understand it's harder to see because you share 'the opinion' behind it, there are times I would be guilty of the same in reverse... But I try really really hard to see both sides of an issue, and not get both sides told to me by only one side.

Being mostly biased, as I have stated in other posts, is not that big of an issue for me. Fox is right-leaning and they state so. They do, however, have a few shows that have a mix of the political spectrum. Where I draw the line is deception. Other MSM organizations tout themselves as unbiased and actively deceive.

[mookiemcgee]

Dude. Rioting is a crime. You can condemn an evil whilst still reporting what is going on.

The news isn't a politician, a priest, a police chief... really it's job is not to condemn or praise. We already have enough wankers doing that in 'the media' we really really really don't need it in the news. Thats how we got in this mess.

There are several different types of journalism. One of them is news journalism and this is how most schools would define it...
News:
News journalism is straightforward. Facts are relayed without flourishes or interpretation. A typical news story often constitutes a headline with just enough explanation to orient the reader. News stories lack the depth of a feature story, or the questioning approach of an investigative story. Rather, they relay facts, events and information to society in a straightforward, accurate and unbiased manner.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/portland-b ... th-a-riot/

Here's another NEWS article, from the mainstream media that doesn't ignore or attempt to play down the riots but simply reports the facts. It doesn't add opinion about what a protest is and when it becomes a riot. It doesn't condemn the cops, the feds, the protestors and it refers to the rioters as rioters and talks about what they have done to that point to earn that title, or at least what the police who were there say happened. You would just be happy if they spent a sentence saying rioting is bad?

Very few MSM organizations have called the unrest rioting.

That is demonstrably false... I can find more, you tell me which media company you want me to find:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/us/portl ... index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bl ... blogHeader
https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-declar ... d=71994983
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... otest-wrap

[Jdsizzleslice]

The news isn't a politician, a priest, a police chief... really it's job is not to condemn or praise. We already have enough wankers doing that in 'the media' we really really really don't need it in the news. Thats how we got in this mess.

There are several different types of journalism. One of them is news journalism and this is how most schools would define it...
News:
News journalism is straightforward. Facts are relayed without flourishes or interpretation. A typical news story often constitutes a headline with just enough explanation to orient the reader. News stories lack the depth of a feature story, or the questioning approach of an investigative story. Rather, they relay facts, events and information to society in a straightforward, accurate and unbiased manner.

By your same logic, when George Floyd died, no one in the MSM should have been able to declare him a victim. No one should have been able to say the act was disgusting. MSM shouldn't have condemned the officer.

I completely disagree. MSM should have condemned the officer, just as MSM should call the rioting disgusting. The media is supposed to report on facts, I agree. But do you not think rioting and murder and other crimes are factually/morally wrong? I suppose we disagree on whether or not murder and rioting is factually condemnable by anyone in the media...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/portland-becomes-first-city-to-declare-protest-over-george-floyds-death-a-riot/

Here's another NEWS article, from the mainstream media that doesn't ignore or attempt to play down the riots but simply reports the facts. It doesn't add opinion about what a protest is and when it becomes a riot. It doesn't condemn the cops, the feds, the protestors and it refers to the rioters as rioters and talks about what they have done to that point to earn that title, or at least what the police who were there say happened. You would just be happy if they spent a sentence saying rioting is bad?

The difference between what a protest is and what a riot is is factually based, not opinion. The difference is violence, which is factually based and can easily seen between the two actions:

protest: a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something.

riot: a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd.

So yes, I would like the media to factually report the actions of those who destroy property, loot, riot, and other criminal acts as a riot.

That is demonstrably false... I can find more, you tell me which media company you want me to find:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/us/portl ... index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bl ... blogHeader
https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-declar ... d=71994983
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... otest-wrap

Ok. All of these articles are direct quotes from Police Departments and Elected Officials. If you read them all carefully, you'll notice that every single time the word "riot" is used, it's used in reference to statements from police or other politicians. Nowhere in any of these articles do the news organizations themselves call the people rioters, they always use the term "peaceful demonstrators" or "peaceful protestors." The MSM refuses to call these people what they are: rioters. At least Fox News has been able to call these people rioters at times.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Really interesting thoughts and ideas discussed here by an Ex-Con.

[mookiemcgee]

I completely disagree. MSM should have condemned the officer, just as MSM should call the rioting disgusting.

Ok, well stop complaining about bias in media. You don't want news, you want political commentary. The news should report facts, then the talking heads on CNN and FOX can spend the next 2 weeks debating about the morality. But the news is meant to be unbiased and factual, so people can make up their own minds.

So yes, I would like the media to factually report the actions of those who destroy property, loot, riot, and other criminal acts as a riot.

Which I've shown you below it does factually report on riots AS WELL as protests. You just want more of youre personal opinion in the stories, and less of other people opinion.

That is demonstrably false... I can find more, you tell me which media company you want me to find:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/us/portl ... index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bl ... blogHeader
https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-declar ... d=71994983
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... otest-wrap

Ok. All of these articles are direct quotes from Police Departments and Elected Officials.

Yup that is literally how the news has worked for 100+ years, you try not to add opinion, or make judgements you quote the people involved in the story.

If you read them all carefully, you'll notice that every single time the word "riot" is used, it's used in reference to statements from police or other politicians.

You claimed the MSM was denying there was riots, they clearly aren't. It offends you that the news is quoting the local police?

Nowhere in any of these articles do the news organizations themselves call the people rioters, they always use the term "peaceful demonstrators" or "peaceful protestors." The MSM refuses to call these people what they are: rioters. At least Fox News has been able to call these people rioters at times.

Wow, you are really putting alot of importance on how the news uses the word rioters. Actually the articles refer to them mostly as demonstrators (does NOT say inject peaceful each time, though it does when describing PEACEFUL ONES), the articles all refer to peaceful protestors... which are A DIFFERENT SET OF PEOPLE than the RIOTERS (happy to meet you in portland to show you how both can occur, and be two different sets of people). I'm sorry if it offends you that some media is making efforts to distinguish between the two even if whatever you are watching is not.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Ok, well stop complaining about bias in media. You don't want news, you want political commentary. The news should report facts, then the talking heads on CNN and FOX can spend the next 2 weeks debating about the morality. But the news is meant to be unbiased and factual, so people can make up their own minds.

Do you think that stating that destruction of property by a group of people committing violence is rioting is not factual? Do you think that stating the murder of a man is wrong is not factual? Condemning a crime is not political commentary. The fact is that there is a distinguishable difference between protesting and rioting, and the MSM fails to call the actions of these people rioting. It's factual.

Which I've shown you below it does factually report on riots AS WELL as protests. You just want more of youre personal opinion in the stories, and less of other people opinion.

I'm talking about the MSM calling rioters "peaceful protestors" or "demonstrators" when they are rioting. They have failed to call rioters "rioters." In all of those articles, the police call the acts of violence riots, the MSM calls them protests. This is factually incorrect by a majority of MSM organizations.

Yup that is literally how the news has worked for 100+ years, you try not to add opinion, or make judgements you quote the people involved in the story.

Except now attributing the acts of rioters to rioters is opinion?

You claimed the MSM was denying there was riots, they clearly aren't. It offends you that the news is quoting the local police?

I said they refuse to call the acts of violence riots. Quoting police is all fine and dandy, but why have they refused to attribute criminal act to those who are committing the crimes?

Wow, you are really putting alot of importance on how the news uses the word rioters. Actually the articles refer to them mostly as demonstrators (does NOT say inject peaceful each time, though it does when describing PEACEFUL ONES), the articles all refer to peaceful protestors... which are A DIFFERENT SET OF PEOPLE than the RIOTERS (happy to meet you in portland to show you how both can occur, and be two different sets of people). I'm sorry if it offends you that some media is making efforts to distinguish between the two even if whatever you are watching is not.

Of course protestors and rioters are different. The stories that you mention involve criminal acts of violence. There have been several protests that remained peaceful. And some of the media organizations have stated that the people there were "protestors" because it remained peaceful and no criminal act had been committed.

The difference between protestors and rioters is that criminal act. The MSM has failed to attribute the criminal act to rioters, by using the word "protestors" or "demonstrators" in reference to stories or situations (Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York City, Washington D.C., Atlanta, St. Louis, Chicago, Dallas, etc.) where criminal acts have occurred.

I agree with you that MSM should not inject their opinions in a news piece, but they have failed to display the facts in these stories by calling rioters "peaceful protestors."

[jonesthecurl]

My but you guys do go on. and on.

[Jdsizzleslice]

My but you guys do go on. and on.

Yes, to understand someone's viewpoint on an issue often can require a very lengthy discussion to pinpoint specific ideas.

[mookiemcgee]

Ok, well stop complaining about bias in media. You don't want news, you want political commentary. The news should report facts, then the talking heads on CNN and FOX can spend the next 2 weeks debating about the morality. But the news is meant to be unbiased and factual, so people can make up their own minds.

Do you think that stating that destruction of property by a group of people committing violence is rioting is not factual? Do you think that stating the murder of a man is wrong is not factual? Condemning a crime is not political commentary. The fact is that there is a distinguishable difference between protesting and rioting, and the MSM fails to call the actions of these people rioting. It's factual.

You keep claiming this, when I've just listed all sorts of news articles with the supposedly left wing media reporting riots as being committed by rioters.

Which I've shown you below it does factually report on riots AS WELL as protests. You just want more of youre personal opinion in the stories, and less of other people opinion.

I'm talking about the MSM calling rioters "peaceful protestors" or "demonstrators" when they are rioting. They have failed to call rioters "rioters." In all of those articles, the police call the acts of violence riots, the MSM calls them protests. This is factually incorrect by a majority of MSM organizations.

Yeah you keep claiming ALL mainstream media is doing this, I've posted several articles where they don't. You've posted nothing but you claim this is happening. Sounds more like the media you watch got you angry but didn't leave you with any evidence that ALL MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS DENYING RIOTS.

Yup that is literally how the news has worked for 100+ years, you try not to add opinion, or make judgements you quote the people involved in the story.

Except now attributing the acts of rioters to rioters is opinion?

Looting was reported, cars were burned and windows were smashed.

- from an article I posted. Where is this denial you keep claiming?

You claimed the MSM was denying there was riots, they clearly aren't. It offends you that the news is quoting the local police?

I said they refuse to call the acts of violence riots. Quoting police is all fine and dandy, but why have they refused to attribute criminal act to those who are committing the crimes?

Wow, you are really putting alot of importance on how the news uses the word rioters. Actually the articles refer to them mostly as demonstrators (does NOT say inject peaceful each time, though it does when describing PEACEFUL ONES), the articles all refer to peaceful protestors... which are A DIFFERENT SET OF PEOPLE than the RIOTERS (happy to meet you in portland to show you how both can occur, and be two different sets of people). I'm sorry if it offends you that some media is making efforts to distinguish between the two even if whatever you are watching is not.

Of course protestors and rioters are different. The stories that you mention involve criminal acts of violence. There have been several protests that remained peaceful. And some of the media organizations have stated that the people there were "protestors" because it remained peaceful and no criminal act had been committed.

The difference between protestors and rioters is that criminal act. The MSM has failed to attribute the criminal act to rioters, by using the word "protestors" or "demonstrators" in reference to stories or situations (Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York City, Washington D.C., Atlanta, St. Louis, Chicago, Dallas, etc.) where criminal acts have occurred.

I agree with you that MSM should not inject their opinions in a news piece, but they have failed to display the facts in these stories by calling rioters "peaceful protestors."

None of the articles say rioters are the same as peaceful protestors. You keep claiming it, it still isn't true. What some of them say is what started as peaceful protest turned violent. Are you saying that is false? You just want the news to advocate for your position... and when it doesn't take an advocacy position in your favor you say it's biased.

Here's a local news article about a recent murder. It's totally off subject and that is why i chose it, it's random and has no reason for political bias. No where does it claim murder is wrong, or call the suspected murderer an evil bad man. It's just a simple article, describing what occurred and quoting officers (AKA NEWS). Does this this article have a left wing bias in your view, because by your logic it was denying the man did a bad thing by not going out of it's way to mentioned murder is bad and against the law.

https://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/article243552057.html

[Jdsizzleslice]

You keep claiming this, when I've just listed all sorts of news articles with the supposedly left wing media reporting riots as being committed by rioters.

They reported the police declaring a riot. It's not the same thing. The MSM organizations never used the language riot unless they were directly quoting the police. They never called criminals rioters (not once).

Yeah you keep claiming ALL mainstream media is doing this, I've posted several articles where they don't. You've posted nothing but you claim this is happening. Sounds more like the media you watch got you angry but didn't leave you with any evidence that ALL MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS DENYING RIOTS.

The articles report what the police said. The way the articles are written don't call rioters rioters. We are talking about two different things.

Looting was reported, cars were burned and windows were smashed.

- from an article I posted. Where is this denial you keep claiming?

Couldn't find that statement in the ABC article you reference. Regardless, it would seem that they are directly quoting the police and not making the statements themselves:

Peaceful protests against police brutality and the presence of federal agents at demonstrations turned violent as police in several large cities across the country declared riots, and one protester in Austin was killed in a shooting that erupted during a weekend of civil unrest.

None of the articles say rioters are the same as peaceful protestors. You keep claiming it, it still isn't true. What some of them say is what started as peaceful protest turned violent. Are you saying that is false? You just want the news to advocate for your position... and when it doesn't take an advocacy position in your favor you say it's biased.

Here's a local news article about a recent murder. It's totally off subject and that is why i chose it, it's random and has no reason for political bias. No where does it claim murder is wrong, or call the suspected murderer an evil bad man. It's just a simple article, describing what occurred and quoting officers (AKA NEWS). Does this this article have a left wing bias in your view, because by your logic it was denying the man did a bad thing by not going out of it's way to mentioned murder is bad and against the law.

https://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/article243552057.html

Yeah, you know why there isn't a condemnation there? Because there is no video, audio, or other evidence to suggest what happened, other than the police report that will come out. The murder of George Floyd was captured on video. You don't need a political bias to call something factually wrong when you see it. These two scenarios are completely different. I agree with the report of the story you provided because there is literally zero information to go on. Once evidence is released, then based on what happened, we can make a proper judgment.

Look, I think we are going in circles here. All I'm really trying to say is that in many news articles, the word "protestor" and "demonstrator" and "peaceful" are all being used to incorrectly describe people who commit crimes and acts of violence. Protestors don't commit acts of violence by definition. It's rioters. MSM needs to correctly call the people who are commiting these acts protestors and call them rioters. They need to stop making it seem like these people aren't violent by the language they use. Below are three articles that use the word "protestor" in place of "rioter" (excluding every single article you presented that did the same thing) and I could pull many more that do this currently.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... rs-houses/
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020 ... -with-16-/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/woman-susp ... o-custody/

These aren't protests. They are riots, and in a few cases, insurgencies.

[mookiemcgee]

You keep claiming this, when I've just listed all sorts of news articles with the supposedly left wing media reporting riots as being committed by rioters.

They reported the police declaring a riot. It's not the same thing. The MSM organizations never used the language riot unless they were directly quoting the police. They never called criminals rioters (not once).

For like the umpteenth time, that is how news is meant to be reported. Look at the murder article, they quote the police and say what the police said was happening. Would you prefer the media declare there are riots when the police dont?

Yeah you keep claiming ALL mainstream media is doing this, I've posted several articles where they don't. You've posted nothing but you claim this is happening. Sounds more like the media you watch got you angry but didn't leave you with any evidence that ALL MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS DENYING RIOTS.

The articles report what the police said. The way the articles are written don't call rioters rioters. We are talking about two different things.

Here is a quote from fox article pusblished same day "Portland police declared a riot early Sunday" seems to me even the right wing media publishes what the police say... that's reporting the news.

Looting was reported, cars were burned and windows were smashed.

- from an article I posted. Where is this denial you keep claiming?

Couldn't find that statement in the ABC article you reference. Regardless, it would seem that they are directly quoting the police and not making the statements themselves:

Peaceful protests against police brutality and the presence of federal agents at demonstrations turned violent as police in several large cities across the country declared riots, and one protester in Austin was killed in a shooting that erupted during a weekend of civil unrest.

None of the articles say rioters are the same as peaceful protestors. You keep claiming it, it still isn't true. What some of them say is what started as peaceful protest turned violent. Are you saying that is false? You just want the news to advocate for your position... and when it doesn't take an advocacy position in your favor you say it's biased.

Here's a local news article about a recent murder. It's totally off subject and that is why i chose it, it's random and has no reason for political bias. No where does it claim murder is wrong, or call the suspected murderer an evil bad man. It's just a simple article, describing what occurred and quoting officers (AKA NEWS). Does this this article have a left wing bias in your view, because by your logic it was denying the man did a bad thing by not going out of it's way to mentioned murder is bad and against the law.

https://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/article243552057.html

Yeah, you know why there isn't a condemnation there? Because there is no video, audio, or other evidence to suggest what happened, other than the police report that will come out. The murder of George Floyd was captured on video. You don't need a political bias to call something factually wrong when you see it. These two scenarios are completely different. I agree with the report of the story you provided because there is literally zero information to go on. Once evidence is released, then based on what happened, we can make a proper judgment.

Look, I think we are going in circles here. All I'm really trying to say is that in many news articles, the word "protestor" and "demonstrator" and "peaceful" are all being used to incorrectly describe people who commit crimes and acts of violence. Protestors don't commit acts of violence by definition. It's rioters. MSM needs to correctly call the people who are commiting these acts protestors and call them rioters. They need to stop making it seem like these people aren't violent by the language they use. Below are three articles that use the word "protestor" in place of "rioter" (excluding every single article you presented that did the same thing) and I could pull many more that do this currently.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... rs-houses/
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020 ... -with-16-/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/woman-susp ... o-custody/

These aren't protests. They are riots, and in a few cases, insurgencies.

Ok, agree to disagree...you seem hung up on the use of a specific word. Not sure why you seem so sure the media must use a specific word or else its being dishonest. If an article suggested protestors are committing crimes which all of these articles you posted do in fact say... then your problem is just the use of the word protestor/demonstrator or opposed to rioter? That's the big bias you want to bring light to? You are welcome to that opinion, but i mean if saying they presented all the facts legitimately and then just didn't use the word you prefer when they wrote about it , expect that they did when quoting the police regarding what happened (because, as you say there is little to no video, just what the witnesses interviewed said, in this case what the police said... well I guess we just have different views of what news journalism is and we will have to leave it at that. This will probably be my last post on the subject, you are welcome to continue as you see fit.

[Dukasaur]

The guy is obviously despondent. He needs a psychiatrist more than anything. After he picks up the knife and locks the door, the cops could have backed off and called for a psychiatric counsellor to talk to him, but they chose the forcible option. They kicked down his door. There's at least three cops inside the house and presumably more outside. One cop with a tazer and two with guns. None carrying their tonfas. After they kick down his outer door he's still not directly confronting them and hides in an inner room. They kick in a second door and flush him out. They tazer him but he doesn't drop, so they shoot him and he dies.

Not the same as what you initially suggest. The video doesn't show the individual being shot, but let's assume that he ended up passing away as a result of the situation.

He is clearly despondent but no counselor could have helped unless the situation was under police control. EMT's generally have the same philosophy in regards to entering scenes that are not under police control.

It's true that a counselor wouldn't enter the building, but he wouldn't have to. He could talk to the guy through the door or through a window. He would in most cases get the guy's phone number and talk to him on the phone.

What the individual did is commonly referred to as "Suicide by Cop" because he knew that if he advanced towards police with a weapon that they will act to defend themselves. The individual clearly shows that in the video and makes advancements towards the officers.

'Suicide by Cop' only works if the police are willing to oblige. They hold all the cards. They decide whether to escalate or de-escalate the confrontation. They decide whether to use lethal or non-lethal force.

They had numerous opportunities to choose a less violent option.

1. When he locked the door, they could have let him sit and calm down.
2. They could have called him on his phone and tried to persuade him to give himself up.
3. They could have brought in a hostage negotiator or psychological counselor to talk him out.
   Even after breaking down the door.
4. they could have gone in with their tonfas instead of their guns. For a man with a tonfa to disarm a man with a knife is literally child's play.
5. all three cops could have used tazers instead of one with a tazer and two with guns, and tazering him from multiple angles would almost certainly have brought him down.
6. a cop with a helmet and a riot shield could have pinned him against the wall while the other two disarmed him.

1) The individual was antagonizing the police to shoot him. Letting him sit and calm down would have most likely achieved nothing, because the individual showed no signs of cooperation with the police. Further, the language of the individual suggested that he knew what was going to happen already before the shooting happened.

Yeah, I'm aware that he knew the likely outcome. He's the crazy; the cops are supposed to be the sane ones. They are supposed to serve and protect. If some crazy person wants to die they are supposed to talk him down and take him to a mental hospital for treatment, not oblige his momentary insanity by going through with it and killing him.

2) The police tried to get the individual to put the weapon down. They tried to negotiate with him and tried to verbally disarm the individual,

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. They did NOT try to negotiate. They yelled commands at him, establishing a master-servant relationship. Even crazy people naturally react to domination with resistance. A negotiation is a two-way street; a negotiation implies a relationship between equals; a negotiation implies joint responsibility for solving the problem at hand. They very definitely did NOT try to negotiate.

"Put the knife down!" is a command. A negotiation would start something like, "Can I get you to put the knife down? Let's not go down this road. You don't really want to die, and I don't really want to kill you."

but he did not listen to the officers. The individual locked the door knowing the police would have to break in to reinitialize the confrontation and secure the situation.

Of course he didn't "listen". Even a man at the end of his rope has some residual pride. If you bark commands at him he will get his back up and fight. If you talk reasonably to him he may calm down.

At this point, the video you show shows no signs that the officers had the situation under control or knew of any other persons that may have been in danger inside the house.

There is no reason to assume that there were other people in danger in the house. Domestic altercations are loud. Everybody in the neighbourhood knows when there's a domestic dispute going on. If there was no noise in the house, it's likely that anyone who had previously been there had already left. No doubt the cops put that in the report as a reason they bashed the door in, but it's a self-serving lie.

3) A hostage negotiator would have most likely not proven beneficial seeing as that the individual was wanting the police to come in and inflict harm on himself, due to the language that he used in the video.

Wrong. People don't actually want to die, even when they say they do. (An exception is someone who is already dying, from a terminal illness for instance, who has considered the options and decided that a prompt death is better than a slow one.) For anyone who's not actually dying, claims of wanting to die are really a plea for help. "You're going to have to shoot me" is really "My life is so fucked up, I absolutely don't know what to do. Please help me."

Most psychologists or counselors could help. A hostage negotiator (who is both a psychologist and a police officer) is highly trained to deal with exactly this type of situation. If they had brought one in, he almost certainly could have helped.

A couple weeks ago a heavily-armed nutcase here in Canada broke into the compound which (permanently) houses the Governor-General and (temporarily) is also housing the Prime Minister and his family. The cops spent three-and-a-half hours talking to him before they finally persuaded him to hand over his guns and surrender. No shots were fired and nobody got hurt. I'm certain that is the same situation had played out in the U.S. it would have ended with a hail of bullets.

It's all about where your priorities lie. If you just want to dominate people, you use one set of methods and get one set of outcomes. If you want to save lives, you use a different set of methods and get a different set of outcomes.

4) The situation, since inside, was unbeknownst to the officers on scene. It is most likely that the officers had never been inside the house, and did not know if there were any other weapons, concealed or otherwise, that the individual was planning to use to inflict potential harm to the officers or other people that may have been inside.

I'm sure they put this excuse in their report also, but it's bogus. If he had other weapons, why did he arm himself with only a knife? He didn't have the demeanour of someone who wants to harm others. He had the demeanour of someone who is desperate and needs help.

The situation was already to the point that the officers did not have time to go back to their vehicles and retrieve any sort of other means to subdue the individual. This is what we see in heat of the moment or very time-constrained situations.
5) Again, the officers did not know what situation they were walking into when going into the house. The idea of law enforcement brandishing firearms is to meet or be above the assumed force that is being presented to them at the time, as a means to try to take control of the situation.
6) Due to the situation at hand, the officers did not have time to prepare with riot gear or wait for another officer to arrive with riot gear.

They had all the time in the world. They chose to escalate the situation, by breaking down the door and forcing entry. They could have sat outside for a while, let him calm down. They could have negotiated. If they weren't capable of negotiating, they could have called in a professional who could. The only thing making them rush was their own aggressive attitude. They weren't about to let him get away with disrespecting their commands! In the end, it came down to a scrotum-weighing contest, and their scrota were heavier.

If they were actually thinking about how to save his life, they could have come up with a dozen non-lethal options for bringing him down. He has nowhere to go. They can sit outside just as long as they want, call for reinforcements, call for a negotiator, call for tear gas or flash-bangs, rearm themselves as much as they want and any way they want. He's trapped and can't see a way out. They could very easily have brought this situation to a happy ending.

This video is similar to the video above, where the individual was antagonizing the police to shoot him. He eventually laid down and the police were able to secure the situation and get him the help he needed.

So you know that it's possible.

The reason the person was shot in your initial video wasn't that he had a knife, per se, but because he advanced toward the police with that weapon and put the life of the officers in fear of serious bodily hard or death. This does not seem like a case where the death of the individual was unjustified, by any means. I think that we can both agree that this was a tragic event that happened in the video that you posted, but the officers were forced to use deadly force in the scenario which you presented.

No, we most definitely can NOT agree on that. The officers were not FORCED to use deadly force; they chose to. I've enumerated half a dozen ways they could have saved his life. Give me twenty minutes and I can invent twenty more. They did not CHOOSE a non-lethal option because they didn't care. In the end, he's just a civilian piece of shit to them, and saving his life just wasn't worth making the effort.

[Jdsizzleslice]

It's true that a counselor wouldn't enter the building, but he wouldn't have to. He could talk to the guy through the door or through a window. He would in most cases get the guy's phone number and talk to him on the phone.

In the situation you presented in the video, the entire interaction takes place around 2 minutes. That is not enough time to get a cell phone number nor have a counselor arrive on-scene. The officers had to make decisions on-scene with what they had on their person and who was currently there.

'Suicide by Cop' only works if the police are willing to oblige. They hold all the cards. They decide whether to escalate or de-escalate the confrontation. They decide whether to use lethal or non-lethal force.

In all three videos presented here, the police officers initiate the confrontation but tried to de-escalate the situation by telling the individuals to put their weapons down and that they did not want to have to result to lethal force. They state in all three videos that they want to talk to the individuals but can only do so if they have secured the situation. In one video, they secured the situation and were able to get help to the individual. In the other two situations, the individuals did not put their weapons down, and ultimately made advancements to officers while openly wielding the weapons, resulting in the deaths of the individuals.

Also, the term "Suicide by Cop" only works with individuals who do not comply with police and explicitly know that their actions (in the sense of advancing towards officers with either assumed weapons or openly seen weapons) will cause police to react with justified, deadly force in the fear of serious bodily harm or death to the officers or others around the situation, whilst explicitly uttering suicidal-like phrases moments before being shot by police.

Yeah, I'm aware that he knew the likely outcome. He's the crazy; the cops are supposed to be the sane ones. They are supposed to serve and protect. If some crazy person wants to die they are supposed to talk him down and take him to a mental hospital for treatment, not oblige his momentary insanity by going through with it and killing him.

The main difference between talking to a mentally unstable person and talking to a mentally unstable person with a weapon is the weapon they currently possess. Once they have gained control of the situation, then they can attempt to help the individual get the help they need. We see this in the first video I presented to you. If the mentally unstable person advanced towards officers and puts them in threat of serious bodily harm or threat of death, then the officers are then forced to use deadly force to take control of the situation. The key here is the "threat" of imminent harm or death, due to the fact it is impossible to perfectly predict what the person coming towards you in a fast and hostile manner will do. If the individual uses statements like "You're going to have to shoot me" or "Just kill me" implies that they do not have a regard for their life or the lives of those they immediately surround (in this case, the officers), because moving hostily towards the officers with a knife implies the intent to harm or kill.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. They did NOT try to negotiate. They yelled commands at him, establishing a master-servant relationship. Even crazy people naturally react to domination with resistance. A negotiation is a two-way street; a negotiation implies a relationship between equals; a negotiation implies joint responsibility for solving the problem at hand. They very definitely did NOT try to negotiate.

"Put the knife down!" is a command. A negotiation would start something like, "Can I get you to put the knife down? Let's not go down this road. You don't really want to die, and I don't really want to kill you."

We can debate the semantics of the word "negotiate" here in this setting. What I am saying is that the officers made an attempt verbally to try to get the individual to relinquish possession of the weapon, which is a form of negotiation. When the officers say "Put down the weapon and let's talk" or a similar variant of the phrase, that is a negotiation that if the individual puts down their weapon, the officers will listen to them in what they have to say regarding the situation. In the scenario you provided, the officers tried to help solve the problem at hand, but the individual did not want to do so. That is what the officers tried to do in all three scenarios mentioned in this discussion.

Of course he didn't "listen". Even a man at the end of his rope has some residual pride. If you bark commands at him he will get his back up and fight. If you talk reasonably to him he may calm down.

There is no way to accurately discern why the individual in your video did not listen to police, since he is not able to answer for himself. Reasonably talking to an individual may also not calm the person down. Ultimately, it's the responsibility of the officers to take control of the situation and make sure everyone is safe, as well as the responsibility of the individual to relinquish control of their weapons and let the police gain control of the situation. They did try to reasonably speak with the man until he locked the door, signaling to the officers that he was not willing to reciprocate in the negotiation.

There is no reason to assume that there were other people in danger in the house. Domestic altercations are loud. Everybody in the neighbourhood knows when there's a domestic dispute going on. If there was no noise in the house, it's likely that anyone who had previously been there had already left. No doubt the cops put that in the report as a reason they bashed the door in, but it's a self-serving lie.

The fact that some domestic altercations are loud does not equate to the fact that other domestic altercations are not loud. Since the officers did not have control of the situation, there was no way to objectively know whether or not other people were involved with the situation or not.

Wrong. People don't actually want to die, even when they say they do. (An exception is someone who is already dying, from a terminal illness for instance, who has considered the options and decided that a prompt death is better than a slow one.) For anyone who's not actually dying, claims of wanting to die are really a plea for help. "You're going to have to shoot me" is really "My life is so fucked up, I absolutely don't know what to do. Please help me."

Most psychologists or counselors could help. A hostage negotiator (who is both a psychologist and a police officer) is highly trained to deal with exactly this type of situation. If they had brought one in, he almost certainly could have helped.

A couple weeks ago a heavily-armed nutcase here in Canada broke into the compound which (permanently) houses the Governor-General and (temporarily) is also housing the Prime Minister and his family. The cops spent three-and-a-half hours talking to him before they finally persuaded him to hand over his guns and surrender. No shots were fired and nobody got hurt. I'm certain that is the same situation had played out in the U.S. it would have ended with a hail of bullets.

It's all about where your priorities lie. If you just want to dominate people, you use one set of methods and get one set of outcomes. If you want to save lives, you use a different set of methods and get a different set of outcomes.

Since the individual is not currently here to divulge his reasoning, and no death note was found at the scene, there is no conclusive way to determine that someone actually wanted to die but the character of their actions. When the phrase "you're going to have to shoot me" or "kill me" or similar phrases are used, coupled with the advancement with a deadly weapon towards police officers, shows that these individuals did not have a regard for their own life. There is no way to completely prove this, but their actions show that they lean in the direction of not wanting to live on this earth anymore.

Also, as previously stated, since the interaction took place within 2 minutes, there was no time to get a hostage negotiator on-site.

Are you completely certain that the same thing would have happened in the US? 100% positive? That's speculation at this point, because there is no similar circumstance to which we can equate the actions here.

I'm sure they put this excuse in their report also, but it's bogus. If he had other weapons, why did he arm himself with only a knife? He didn't have the demeanour of someone who wants to harm others. He had the demeanour of someone who is desperate and needs help.

The motives of the individual are unknown at this point, and the only thing we can draw from are the actions of him drawn from the video. He is clearly under mental duress but also threatens the officers with serious bodily harm or death. The demeanor was definitely confrontational, as he advanced toward the officers openly wielding a knife.

If they were actually thinking about how to save his life, they could have come up with a dozen non-lethal options for bringing him down. He has nowhere to go. They can sit outside just as long as they want, call for reinforcements, call for a negotiator, call for tear gas or flash-bangs, rearm themselves as much as they want and any way they want. He's trapped and can't see a way out. They could very easily have brought this situation to a happy ending.

The situation unraveled in a matter of two minutes. There was no time for the officer to responsd but with what they had on their person. One officer tried to use a taser, but that ultimately did not work. They also cannot wait outside because they did not know if there were other people that were involved in the situation. The job of the police officers at this point is to gain control of the situation, and sitting outside waiting for other personnel to arrive would not be gaining control of the situation.

So you know that it's possible.

Yes, it is possible, but that is up to the individual to comply with the officers. Notice the difference between the first video I presented and the last video I presented and the video you presented. In the first video I presented, the individual eventually complies with the police officers and surrenders himself. Regardless, the officers in the video clearly state that if he made sudden moves or reached for what appeared to be a weapon in his pocket, that they would have to use force. They also clearly state that they didn't want to have to shoot the man but would in the instance he made an advancement towards the officers with a gun.

In the other two videos, you can clearly see the individuals raise the knife and advance toward the officer. This puts the officer and those around him in threat of severe bodily harm or threat of death, to which the officer is justified to use deadly force.

The main difference between all three of these videos is compliance with police officers by surrendering yourself versus advancing/charging the officers with a deadly weapon. The person who surrendered himself did not die, whilst the other individuals who ran at the officers with a deadly weapon ended up dying.

No, we most definitely can NOT agree on that. The officers were not FORCED to use deadly force; they chose to. I've enumerated half a dozen ways they could have saved his life. Give me twenty minutes and I can invent twenty more. They did not CHOOSE a non-lethal option because they didn't care. In the end, he's just a civilian piece of shit to them, and saving his life just wasn't worth making the effort.

Ok, we can disagree on the semantics of the use of the words "forced" and "chose" here, but the crux of where this discussion comes down to is the use of lethal force in the event of a threat of serious bodily harm or death. When an individual charges you with a knife, and is openly wielding it, pointing it at you, you have a split second decision to make. "Am I in danger of serious bodily harm or death?" In the cases presented in this discussion where the individuals ended up being shot by police, both individuals put the lives of the officers at risk of serious bodily harm or death by welding a knife and advancing towards officers. The individual who did not make an advancement towards the officers and ended up surrendering himself to police did in fact live to see another day, and the officers assisted him in getting him the mental help he needed.

What I was saying is that we can agree that these three situations are tragic in the sense that someone lost their life. Ultimately, in these three videos, we see the police trying to de-escalate the situation. One person chose to listen to the police, and he is alive today because of it. The other two did not, advanced towards the police in an aggressive manner, whilst wielding a weapon, and ended up being shot because of it.

The main fork in the road that determines the outcome of the future events in all three of these instances is the choice of each person to either comply with police or not comply with police.

[Dukasaur]

A lot of this is repetition. I'm trimming it down to keep it manageable. If you feel I've left out something essential you can re-insert it, but I think I've got the key areas of disagreement pinned down.

It's true that a counselor wouldn't enter the building, but he wouldn't have to. He could talk to the guy through the door or through a window. He would in most cases get the guy's phone number and talk to him on the phone.

In the situation you presented in the video, the entire interaction takes place around 2 minutes. That is not enough time to get a cell phone number nor have a counselor arrive on-scene. The officers had to make decisions on-scene with what they had on their person and who was currently there.

You've said this multiple times, multiple ways. "There's not enough time." The key thing is that the cops choose how much time there is. They decide whether to advance quickly or slowly. The victim shut the door. They chose to knock it in. They could have taken all the time in the world, re-armed, re-organized, reconsidered. He's trapped, he's got nowhere to go. They can sit outside all day and all night if they want to and let him calm down and surrender. You keep saying they "didn't have time" to bring in a negotiator or get additional armour, but they chose not to have the time. They bashed in the door and chose the rush.

The victim, despite the false bravado of "you're going to have to shoot me" wanted to live. He shut the door and backed away. They chose to knock down the door and follow him. They could have de-escalated and done a million things differently.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. They did NOT try to negotiate. They yelled commands at him, establishing a master-servant relationship. Even crazy people naturally react to domination with resistance. A negotiation is a two-way street; a negotiation implies a relationship between equals; a negotiation implies joint responsibility for solving the problem at hand. They very definitely did NOT try to negotiate.

"Put the knife down!" is a command. A negotiation would start something like, "Can I get you to put the knife down? Let's not go down this road. You don't really want to die, and I don't really want to kill you."

We can debate the semantics of the word "negotiate" here in this setting. What I am saying is that the officers made an attempt verbally to try to get the individual to relinquish possession of the weapon, which is a form of negotiation. When the officers say "Put down the weapon and let's talk" or a similar variant of the phrase, that is a negotiation that if the individual puts down their weapon, the officers will listen to them in what they have to say regarding the situation. In the scenario you provided, the officers tried to help solve the problem at hand, but the individual did not want to do so. That is what the officers tried to do in all three scenarios mentioned in this discussion.

Here's the thing. It's far, far more than semantics. It's a fundamental issue of attitude.

A negotiation is a problem-solving discussion between equals. What a good negotiator does as the first order of business, is to establish that he's on the same side as the other. "There's a problem and we both want to solve it."

Barking commands at someone is the diametric opposite of negotiation. It implies a master-servant relationship. "I give the orders. You obey." The cops' expectation of obedience is the key reason why so many of their interactions end in violence.

If they were actually thinking about how to save his life, they could have come up with a dozen non-lethal options for bringing him down. He has nowhere to go. They can sit outside just as long as they want, call for reinforcements, call for a negotiator, call for tear gas or flash-bangs, rearm themselves as much as they want and any way they want. He's trapped and can't see a way out. They could very easily have brought this situation to a happy ending.

The situation unraveled in a matter of two minutes. There was no time for the officer to respond but with what they had on their person. One officer tried to use a taser, but that ultimately did not work. They also cannot wait outside because they did not know if there were other people that were involved in the situation. The job of the police officers at this point is to gain control of the situation, and sitting outside waiting for other personnel to arrive would not be gaining control of the situation.

The key fundamental difference is attitude. Yes, most police colleges teach that "establishing and maintaining control" is paramount. Which is a major part of why police violence is so out-of-control. The motto on their cars says "to serve and protect" but their true operational doctrine is "to dominate and control."

A civilized approach would be to put saving lives ahead and de-escalating ahead of establishing control. If the cops actually cared about lives, they have a panoply of non-lethal methods available. Their decision to put "establishing and maintaining control" ahead of de-escalating and saving lives is why so many of these situations end as they do.

Here's an even more blatant example:

[mrswdk]

Once you remove all the police shootings and firearm homicides from the data, Americans are almost as safe as Europeans and that is entirely thanks to the fact they can buy guns.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Last post I make on this specific discussion, it seems we cannot come to an understanding here on standard police procedure when it comes to life-threatening situations.

You've said this multiple times, multiple ways. "There's not enough time." The key thing is that the cops choose how much time there is. They decide whether to advance quickly or slowly. The victim shut the door. They chose to knock it in. They could have taken all the time in the world, re-armed, re-organized, reconsidered. He's trapped, he's got nowhere to go. They can sit outside all day and all night if they want to and let him calm down and surrender. You keep saying they "didn't have time" to bring in a negotiator or get additional armour, but they chose not to have the time. They bashed in the door and chose the rush.

The victim, despite the false bravado of "you're going to have to shoot me" wanted to live. He shut the door and backed away. They chose to knock down the door and follow him. They could have de-escalated and done a million things differently.

Again, since the police do not have the situation under control, it is their job to get the situation under control. All they know at this point is that there is a person who is wielding a knife stating "You're going to have to shoot me." This individual clearly does not have a regard for human life. Still, at this point, the officers do not know of anyone else that may be impacted by this individual, so the main job of the police is secure the area.

If it was 100% known at the time that there was no other persons inside the house, then it is plausible to suggest what you are suggesting. However, in almost every police case like this, the status of the situation is unknown to the officers until the area is secured. What you are suggesting is not a plausible tactic for police to use in an overwhelming majority of hostile situations that arise in confrontations like this.

Here's the thing. It's far, far more than semantics. It's a fundamental issue of attitude.

A negotiation is a problem-solving discussion between equals. What a good negotiator does as the first order of business, is to establish that he's on the same side as the other. "There's a problem and we both want to solve it."

Barking commands at someone is the diametric opposite of negotiation. It implies a master-servant relationship. "I give the orders. You obey." The cops' expectation of obedience is the key reason why so many of their interactions end in violence.

The thing here is that individuals in the community are not equal with police and should not be. Police are given the authority to enforce the law, and are therefore held to a higher standard when enforcing that law. By the police initially stating "Put the knife down, we just want to talk" or a similar situation implies cooperation is desired both by the individual and by the police from the standpoint of the police.

Suppose that police were barking orders, as you suggest. This still does not mean that the individual has reasoning to not listen to the police and surrender himself. We see the opposite of that in two of the three videos displayed earlier, where the suspect initially does not listen to police, and then rushes the officers openly wielding a knife.

The key fundamental difference is attitude. Yes, most police colleges teach that "establishing and maintaining control" is paramount. Which is a major part of why police violence is so out-of-control. The motto on their cars says "to serve and protect" but their true operational doctrine is "to dominate and control."

A civilized approach would be to put saving lives ahead and de-escalating ahead of establishing control. If the cops actually cared about lives, they have a panoply of non-lethal methods available. Their decision to put "establishing and maintaining control" ahead of de-escalating and saving lives is why so many of these situations end as they do.

Officers de-escalate the situation by trying to establish control, that's the thing. We see this clearly in the first video I displayed. It was tense until the individual laid down, and the officers were able to control the situation. The man did not lose his life.

In the other two videos, the officers tried to de-escalate the situation, but ultimately the individuals did not listen to the officers, escalating the situation to the point where the officers had to use deadly force. These people did lose their lives.

Again, we get back to the main fork in the road. Compliance with police did not get the one individual killed, the other two didn't listen and rushed police with weapons, and they died. It's clear to see here that the actions of one are distinguishable from the two.

Here's an even more blatant example:

In the video that you show here, the individual did not listen to police instructions. From what we see in the video, his right hand appears to move to his right hip, where conceivably a firearm can be holstered. Clear instructions from the officers told the man to have his hands visible at all times. Reaching to your right hip with your right hand makes your hands not visible to the officer in this case, and presents the assumption that you are going for your holstered weapon to draw it, since that is one of the most common places to holster a handgun and one of the most common motions used to draw it out.

From the perspective of the officer, the action of the individual reaching for his right hip with his right hand put the lives of the officers and the other people that had been detained in danger of serious bodily harm or death, because the assumed action of the individual was that he was reaching for a gun, and since the situation was not entirely under police control at that point (a.k.a, the individual is in police custody), they had no idea of knowing if he had another weapon on him or if he intended to harm them or the other people around them.

This story, just like the others, is a tragic thing that happened. But the shooting was justified.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Interesting viewpoint on Police Brutality from Sam Harris.

[Dukasaur]

Here's an even more blatant example:

In the video that you show here, the individual did not listen to police instructions. From what we see in the video, his right hand appears to move to his right hip, where conceivably a firearm can be holstered. Clear instructions from the officers told the man to have his hands visible at all times. Reaching to your right hip with your right hand makes your hands not visible to the officer in this case, and presents the assumption that you are going for your holstered weapon to draw it, since that is one of the most common places to holster a handgun and one of the most common motions used to draw it out.

Jesus Christ, man. His entire body is visible and he's wearing a very thin shirt and a thin pair of pants. There's no bulge where he could be hiding anything larger than a pack of matches.

He was obviously terrified and desperately trying to obey all the instructions they were giving. Why his hand went behind him I can't say for sure. Maybe he was losing balance and trying to readjust. Maybe he had pain there and instinctively reached to the area where the pain was. Maybe his pants were sliding down and he reflexively tried to pull them up. Whatever the reason, it was very clearly not an aggressive move.

If you're going to do mental backflips to justify this level of police aggression, I have no further hope for reaching you.

[mrswdk]

He prefers FOX to CNN. Try finding a clip of FOX News criticising police brutality.

[Jdsizzleslice]

He prefers FOX to CNN. Try finding a clip of FOX News criticising police brutality.

skip to 0:25, Laura Ingram says the "senseless killing of George Floyd."

Sean Hannity says that "when I look at the video there is nothing I like when I see it."

Clear condemnation of the police brutality of George Floyd.

Do you need more sources, or will two do just fine for you?