this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
779 points (96.5% liked)

News

23284 readers
3528 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 74 points 8 months ago (36 children)

Maybe don't take a job of protecting and serving if a kid with a gardening tool is a bit too frightening for you to handle non-lethally.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 73 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, the kid didn't have something dangerous like an acorn.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

That's the beauty of it, police don't have to protect and serve in America. Courts made sure of that. Don't need to know the laws they're enforcing either. Just run an obstacle course and take a 40 hr course on killology - the idea that policing is the most dangerous job on the planet and everyone is trying to kill you at all times- and presto, they give you a gun, body armor, and protection from the legal and financial repercussions of your actions.

Plus, there's lots of networking opportunities with local white supremacist and christofascist organizations.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

How should police have handled it?

The bodycam video shows the officer approaching with his gun holstered, drawing it while backing up, turning and trying to run away, while the kid quickly closes the distance and tries to strike the officer's face, head, and upper body with a long-handled tool.

How should the officer have handled this?

How would you have handled this?

If a random person were attacked in such a manner, is it possible that they could have lost an eye? Is it possible that they could have been permanently disfigured? Had their carotid artery severed and quickly bled out? Been knocked out?

Is it possible that a reasonable person could have reasonably believed this attacker posed a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm to an innocent person?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

First of all, they got radios. He knew cop number 2 was a second behind him. So have the tactical patience to group properly.

Designate a lethal guy and a non lethal guy.

In the future, train actual hand to hand to trap an arm holding a weapon and neutralize it.

We don't pay police to kill us.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

So have the tactical patience to group properly.

Ah. The Uvalde Gambit.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Uvalde was a shooter attacking children while police stood by. This is a completely different situation.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Correct. I wasn't referring to this situation.

I was referring to the parent comment, where they suggested responding officers should wait around outside, while the kid is trying to kill his family members inside.

This kid charged as soon as the first officer made verbal contact with the occupants. So, when called to a domestic dispute, where a family member has been reported using a weapon, parent comment seems to suggest adopting a policy of "stick thumb up ass and wait until we have overwhelming force" before even approaching the scene.

Ignore that the enraged attacker is trying to kill people inside. Ignore that the occupants are calling for help. Just stand by and wait for more people.

That's what police did at Uvalde. Parent comment is recommending a policy consistent with the bungled response at Uvalde.

"Uvalde Gambit" concisely implies the problems with parent comment's suggestion: waiting consistently leads to worse outcomes than immediate actions.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Oh so those are the choices? No engagement at all until a third party intervenes or charging in like a Call of Duty player?

That's not a good faith argument.

[–] Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The other choice is what most humans would do. That's remove yourself from what you perceive as a dangerous situation. I know it hurts fee fees when ego is on the line but better than killing someone.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Right? The kid was no longer threatening the family. Lead him to your partner. Do a dance around the patrol car.

Nope straight to shooting kids.

load more comments (33 replies)