the winnipeg sandbox
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
the winnipeg sandbox

Latest topics

» Gord Steeves should run for Mayor
by FlyingRat Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:58 pm

» To discontinue?
by EdWin Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:26 pm

» Sandbox breakfast get-together, Saturday, January 25, 2014.
by rosencrentz Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:27 pm

» 2013-14 Bisons/CIS Thread
by Hollywood Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:56 pm

» Katz must resign
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:09 pm

» Best Breakfast/Brunch
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:07 pm

» Manitoba Action Party
by RogerStrong Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:24 pm

» Police Respond to a silent alarm With Guns Drawn
by EdWin Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:10 pm

» Details about Cineplex SuperTicket -- interesting promotion
by MattKel Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:08 pm

» Freep locks out non-subscriber commentary
by Deank Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:58 pm

» 7-year sentence for Berlusconi
by FlyingRat Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:32 pm

» New Stadium
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:34 pm

» Winnipeg News Android App
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:33 pm

» First Post
by grumpy old man Fri May 24, 2013 2:43 pm

» The New Sals at Pembina and Stafford
by grumpy old man Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:35 pm

» Emma Watson wants to do nude scenes for 50 shades of grey movie
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:39 am

» Museum finally admits it needs to raise more money priovately.
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:32 am

» And You Thought Your Taxes Are High Now!!!
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:21 am

» free chocolate sample
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm

» Do you want a gift certificate for A winnipeg restraunt?
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm


You are not connected. Please login or register

No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy!

+3
Deank
grumpy old man
rosencrentz
7 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

26No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:36 pm

Guest


Guest

AdamX wrote:oh boy where to start...

knock the knife out of his hand with a baton, are you crazy? depending on the brand name of baton the max size when extended is about 26 inches. thats just over 2 feet. would you really want to be that close to someone threatening to cut you? absolutely not.

not only is that waay too close for comfort with an edged weapon, but consider the small target that someones hand actually makes, and how fast a person can move their hands. The better target would of course be on the legs or body somewhere, which means getting in even closer to that knife to try and reach past it. For an officer to even attempt something as ridiculous as that would be just asking to be seriously cut or killed.


on pepper spray: it doesnt say in this article whether it was used or not, so we can only speculate that either the situation escalated too fast for them to try pepper spray first or they did try it first and it simply didnt work.

interesting fact for you all, pepper spray (actually OC spray) as a rule does not affect anyone who is drunk, high, or has a mental disorder. Aside from those large groups, it also simply does not affect about 15% of regular people. so its not as simple as just "blinding the guy with pepper spray"

"This was a 58 year old man, holding a box-cutter. He would have to get very close to pose a threat no?"

if someone is advancing on you with an edged weapon, your "safe" zone is about 30 feet away from them. From 30 feet, a person standing still can break into a charge and be on top of an officer cutting them before the officer has time to draw their gun and aim. so depending on whether you consider 30 feet to be 'very close' .....

"Did they not have feet? Move out of reach?"

training would dictate that they attempt to gain some distance. Distance is the first thing any officer wants when dealing with a weapon. But without knowing the details and the area they were in its hard to say... maybe they had nowhere to back up, or nothing to take cover behind, maybe if they moved any farther away the man would have been a threat to other members of the public. Who knows.

pretty much anywhere you go its pretty clear cut, pull a knife and advance on police officers, get shot. justifiably so.

So. Does not your training include how to disarm a person then, other than shooting them?

Seems lacking if that's the case, or has it been dumbed-down to accomodate little people being admitted to the service?

27No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:55 pm

AdamX

AdamX
contributor
contributor

training does involve disarming to a degree. However, it deals only with spontaneous knife attacks, which means you are already in close to the person and dont know that they have a knife and are going to use it on you.
In that situation you have no choice, you fight to disarm or break away or you get cut up and die.

If you have advanced warning of an attack, such as a person who pulls a knife on you and starts walking towards you, there is no way in hell that any sane instructor would recommend to go up and try to wrestle it away from the person. An edged weapon is a deadly weapon. You get one cut in the wrong place and you can bleed out in a matter of minutes. The answer is ranged weapons, either a taser (not available in this case) or a gun.

It always amuses me to see people casually talk about disarming as if its no big deal to go and wrestle a guy with a knife.
heres a fun exercise, have a friend or family member who is physically smaller than you hold a black sharpie marker, start 5 or 6 feet apart and have them do their damndest to try and put as many marks on you as they can. You try and take it away without getting marker on you. Every black mark that ends up on your hands, arms, face, whatever, is a 2 inch deep cut.
Reverse the roles and see how easy it is for you to do it to them. Let me know how it goes.

http://www.cakefarter.com

28No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:00 pm

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

sure.. I will play that game with your friend... provided I get to carrying a half of a christmas rap tube.. and every hit is a crushed bone.

29No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:03 pm

AGEsAces

AGEsAces
moderator
moderator

Deank wrote:sure.. I will play that game with your friend... provided I get to carrying a half of a christmas rap tube.. and every hit is a crushed bone.

Fair analogy...though not quite strong enough.

Me dodging a knife/marker is significantly different than taking a baton and batting the knife out and breaking a few fingers.

I guarantee given the advantage of pain...disarming someone is not that big of a deal.

One big problem people have though, is the aversion to inflicting pain on someone else...whether it's for their own survival or not. Or being willing to accept a certain amount of pain in order to prevail in a situation.

http://www.photage.ca

30No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:10 pm

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

I don't think anyone here was advocating disarming a knife-wielding assailant with their bare hands. I know I suggested the TWO officers should have backed away and maybe used their batons to disarm the old guy.

I can say that I've never been in that position so I am speaking from my a$$, but put in a life and death position with a baton I'd have no trouble smacking dude on the hand, the head, the arm whatever.

31No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:11 pm

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

having been stabbed, having been cut with a chain saw ( okay that one is my own fault), having been punched.. slapped, kicked, elbowed, thrown agaisnt a wall, through a door, into a door and hit with bats and batons of one sort or another I can tell you with some certainity that getting hit hard with a thin batton hurts alot more then most other things (even the bat) and if nothing else at least makes you drop what you are holding quite quickly.

32No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:17 pm

AdamX

AdamX
contributor
contributor

heh, the problem is actually hitting that small target, and the repercussions when you miss and are now in close to the knife.
go ahead and use a cardboard tube and try and hit the persons hand, you will still get marked up if they are really trying.

a baton hit is not an automatic crushed bone, btw, it'll hurt yes, but many people can shrug it off because of adrenaline or drugs or whatever.

its simple science, how fast can you move your hand from your waist to your head? its something like .25 of a second on average. Your brain can not keep up with a target like that and reliable lock on to it for an accurate strike. you have to hope for a lucky hit.

the same reason that cops and military shoot for centre mass, and not the legs or arms.

http://www.cakefarter.com

33No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:20 pm

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

I can move my hands faster in a fight then most people, then again I have not had police training.

yes its easy to shrug the pain off... but the initial force usually makes you drop the weapon in your hand.

34No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:22 pm

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

for the record.. in most cases I believe that the police would be quite justified in shooting the ever lovin crap out of the perp in such a situation

Just based on eye witness accounts this did not appear to be one of those cases. too bad there is no video.

35No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:24 pm

AdamX

AdamX
contributor
contributor

you can not swing a baton as fast as the average person can move their hands with a smaller object in it. At least not accurately anyways. Like i said, you might get a lucky hit but trying to hit a target the size of a closed fist with a thin 26inch piece of metal just doesnt work.

if you are going to take your baton to their head, its most likely to be fatal, so in that case you might as well keep your distance from the knife and pull the gun instead.

http://www.cakefarter.com

36No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:26 pm

AdamX

AdamX
contributor
contributor

and for the record i'm not automatically assuming that these officers are innocent without knowing all the details, just trying to explain the training and reasoning that is typically behind these situations

http://www.cakefarter.com

37No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:29 pm

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

"you can not swing a baton as fast as the average person can move their hands with a smaller object in it. "

umm yeah actually I can..(or at least used to be able to) you can ask all my friends with the bruised hands... its all about proper training. ( which in no way am I blaming individual officers, but the police for the most part just do not recieve enough individual training )

38No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:37 pm

AdamX

AdamX
contributor
contributor

well look at it this way.

sure you may have faster reflexes than the average person. But missing means you get cut, why take the risk? Officers are trained to always give themselves the advantage, because you never know who might be stronger or faster. Why would any reasonable person fearing death or greivous bodily harm not give themselves every advantage possible? why risk going hand held weapon vrs hand held weapon when there is even a small chance that the person might be a hair faster than you, and you get cut.

that just wouldnt make any tactical sense, not when the officer has the tools (gun) to stop the threat definitively.

http://www.cakefarter.com

39No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:51 pm

AGEsAces

AGEsAces
moderator
moderator

but they don't.

In this case...it was (most likely) an inexperienced or under trained female officer who was threatened by a homeless drunk/semi-drunk.

She probably felt intimidated by his size, or shaky hands...and overreacted pulling the trigger.

If he was truly a threat...then I could understand her shooting...but he wasn't. He was nervous, and she (or they) made a mistake.

To be fair...most police ARE taught, that if someone is within about 20' of you with a knife...they ARE a threat, as they can reach you with the blade, before you can even get a shot off. But that's typically someone who has had experience fighting, and who might actually be able to move.

http://www.photage.ca

40No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:07 pm

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

Yeah again was training the issue? Was the amount required to pass the police entrance exams the issues. I think all our cops should be 6 or more feet in height and over 180lbs..

cops need to be big and strong and somewhat smart. we need to quite selling ourselves short just to make people feel better about their life longs dreams of being a cop/.

41No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:37 am

AdamX

AdamX
contributor
contributor

AGEsAces wrote:but they don't.

In this case...it was (most likely) an inexperienced or under trained female officer who was threatened by a homeless drunk/semi-drunk.

She probably felt intimidated by his size, or shaky hands...and overreacted pulling the trigger.

If he was truly a threat...then I could understand her shooting...but he wasn't. He was nervous, and she (or they) made a mistake.

To be fair...most police ARE taught, that if someone is within about 20' of you with a knife...they ARE a threat, as they can reach you with the blade, before you can even get a shot off. But that's typically someone who has had experience fighting, and who might actually be able to move.


i thought i read that both officers had 5 years on the force? thats hardly inexperienced and by that time they would have dealt with thousands of drunk homeless people, so i doubt that intimidation was a factor.

also i dont know how you know the man was nervous and shaky, it doesnt say that, it just says that when he was approached, he pulled a knife and advanced on the officers.

as far as training, you are right, if someone is within 20 feet of you with a knife, they ARE a threat, however you are incorrect in saying that its typically someone who has had experience fighting.

the average person is a threat within 20 feet, thats a typical person with no training whatsoever, standing perfectly still. A person with experience in fighting or any sort of training or ability is actually a threat at far greater distance, 40 or 50 feet at least.

Dean i tend to agree with you that police should be big and strong, maybe not 6 feet 180 pounds always but not 5'2 and 100 pounds either.
(although i have some small people on my department who can take out any of the biggest guys!)

although again we dont know the size of the officers involved as that wasnt disclosed either, so we cant make assumptions.

http://www.cakefarter.com

42No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:41 am

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

They were women. Good likelihood they were smallish.

43No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:50 am

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

Heh...I guess it is very easy for us to postulate from the safety of our armchairs, but quite another in the real world.

That marker exercise got me to thinking. We don't don't pay our cops to get "marked up". That's really the bottom line here imho.

We're all second guessing the situation (me included) and seem to forget that fact.

44No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:57 am

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

"Dean i tend to agree with you that police should be big and strong, maybe not 6 feet 180 pounds always but not 5'2 and 100 pounds either.
(although i have some small people on my department who can take out any of the biggest guys!)"

True... very true.. sometimes small is good... but I guess really what we are both saying is that they should be able to "handle themselves" if they ever get into a fight. Like the cop in Edmonton who was being swarmed and actually had the ability and thought to protect his gun from being stolen and used against him.

45No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:05 am

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

My fear is that perhaps there may be a different approach to policing that may be at odds with the true realities of the job...a touchy-feely thingy.

Seems to me that cops have gotten smaller over the years. Didn't you once have to be 6' / 200lbs. to even be considered? Now, do you have a Social Work degree?

46No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:13 am

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

JTF wrote:We're all second guessing the situation (me included) and seem to forget that fact.
Nope. Didn't forget. It is what we do. We all have opinions in this matter and can freely express them here.

What we gain is perspective. AdamX provides me with a perspective I don't have. It gives me pause to reconsider my opinion. I may now temper my view. I may not.

47No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:18 am

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

I was referring to the fact that we don't pay our cops to get injured. That's a possibility, but it is mitigated.

48No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:07 pm

AdamX

AdamX
contributor
contributor

true true to all of the above. I would definitely hope that any officer is able to "handle themselves" in a fight if they need to. but i also think that they should have the tools and training not to have to get into a fight in the first place, simply because you never know how strong or fast or experienced someone else is.


i think it was actually not too long ago that they started lowering standards for applicants height. way back in the day my uncle was rejected because he was not 6' tall (he was just shy, like 5'11), and a couple years later when he applied again they accepted him. nowadays it doesnt matter what your height is


i'm not sure how i feel about having a height restriction, on the one hand it means you get that big tall officer presence type of effect, but on the other hand, i know plenty of smaller people who are into bodybuilding or martial arts who could kick my ass with one hand behind their backs Razz

actually, come to think of it, the instructor who gave me my instructors course was about 5'3, but built like a brick sh!thouse. he bodybuilds, he has been a self defence instructor in BC and in Regina for something like 15 years now, he also runs his own martial arts dojo. there is not a chance in hell i would consider messing with him lol. It would be a real shame if people like him could not become police officers simply because they did not meet a certain height requirement.

on the flip side, lower requirements means that they do get the odd person who maybe can get through training but cant physically handle the reality. so in a nutshell i dont know what the answer is Smile

http://www.cakefarter.com

49No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:16 pm

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

The thing is AdamX the smaller people being hired today aren't built like sh1t-brickhouses. They may be fit. They may be tougher than the average bear. They are still short and light.

However, if the police could simply demand and get only 6' 200lb male officers they would take as many as they could get and fill every open position.

50No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:11 pm

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

That smallness can be deceiving though. You don't need to have bulging muscles to be physically outstanding.

51No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! - Page 2 Empty Re: No Tasers So We Had To Kill The Guy! Fri Apr 10, 2009 5:11 pm

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

Problem is height and weight are such a small part of the screening proccess , they want to know more who you are then what you can beat up.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum