• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    9 months ago

    I see. And what training, instruction, or other expertise do you have to support your assertion that this was a “non lethal situation”?

    I believe that I could cause a permanently disfiguring, debilitating, or lethal injury with any of the long-handled tools in my shed. I believe if a racist teenager swung one of these tools at a black man, you, too, would consider it to have been a use of lethal force.

    I think a reasonable person facing a 15-year-old attempting to strike them with any of my gardening equipment would reasonably fear a threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

    I reject your characterization of this as a “non lethal situation”.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I don’t know about him but I was an Infantryman who invaded Iraq. And no. You’re wrong. You don’t just shoot kids clearly having a mental health episode. Especially with multiple cops present. You only need one designated shooter while everyone else works the problem.

      Also, pain compliance is to neutralize threats. If there is no threat then you’re just torturing them. Where I’m from that’s called a war crime.

      Surely we’re holding our police to a higher standard than a 19 year old scared shitless in a warzone? Right?

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        9 months ago

        You don’t just shoot kids clearly having a mental health episode.

        Kid tried to jam a shovel in someone’s neck. That’s not a “mental health episode”. That’s an imminent deadly threat.

        There is no ROE that prohibits anyone from using lethal force in that situation. Never has been. Never will be.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            Not at all.

            I’m referring to an upvoted comment here that suggests soldiers wouldn’t have been justified in shooting this kid in a war zone, due to ROE. The author of that comment pulled it straight out of their ass: there never has been and never will be an ROE that would have prohibited this use of lethal force.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          You’re right. A Soldier could have shot him in a war zone. I would very much like our police to perform better than a scared shitless 19 year old kid with 14 weeks of training and no sleep in the past 48 hours.

        • Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Jesus there is some hard cop-sucking cope here. A govt sanctioned gang member shows up and shoots a 15 year old. This self-aggrandizing hero kills a kid rather than retreating and licking his wounded ego. This is not public service. These are cowards who immediately soil themselves at the first sign of danger and then pat each other’s soiled bottoms over how brave they are when they kill someone.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Big talk from someone who has never had a garden hoe swung at their head.

            Please, continue criticizing the actions of someone who has.