At this point, unless of course it's all about the hunt.

Never thought these guys would get pumped up after the
call comes in. Alert, sure but blood scent in the air?
Wow, could be..

“Shoot fuckers dead”?!?

There is no other way to subdue people but to murder them?

Why is it that the majority of the world’s police forces can manage to do their jobs without shooting anyone? Ever. Never. At all.

of wypipo in the police, here, at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, truly an evil destructive subset of a race of people. Fuck trump and wypipo.

shot down by some trigger happy policeman."
(The Kinks, "Twentieth Century Man&quot

in KCK. One died and the other one is in critical condition.
So we had a total of 5 people shot with 4 killed yesterday.

Two more men were shot by police. Ut was some kind of altercation over a holf cart.

Boy, the news in the KC Star is depressing this morning.

Update: the second police officer died. Just came across the news.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kansas-city-theresa-king-second-sheriffs-deputy-dies-following-shooting-2018-06-16/

Sure looks like Kansas City officers/sheriffs could use some better training.

A woman with a sword is not a threat to police. Get real. She would have to be much closer than their mace or taser. Even if it actually had a sharp blade on it.

Bayard, who used to take fencing lessons years ago. Touche.

The basic idea is that if a knife-wielding attacker is within 21 feet of a person with a holstered handgun, the attacker will be able to stab the defender before he/she can clear the gun from the holster, take aim, and fire. So yes, a woman with a sword could very well be a threat to an officer, depending on the circumstances.

There wasn't any information in the article regarding those circumstances, however, so it's impossible to say whether this shooting was justified or not at this point in time.

How is a woman barricaded in a shed with a sword a threat to anyone--other than to herself? I guess we better shoot her before she kills herself!

Mission Accomplished!

And if they went in after her, they're in close quarters with someone armed with a sword. As in, potentially closer than 21 feet. So in that event, she would be a threat.

The point I was making is that apart from the very basics, we don't know anything about the details of the encounter, and a sword is most certainly a deadly weapon.

But if you wanna just make a snap judgment with very little information, carry on. I guess it's not just conservatives who jump to conclusions based on minimal information.

It takes some kind of dumbass to charge in, guns blazing, in "close quarters," as you put it.

And no, I am not making a "snap judgment," I am making a judgment BASED ON THE FACTS, something conservatives never do.

You know what conservatives do? They reflexively support cops in officer-involved shootings, even when the FACTS indicate the cops acted unreasonably.

We know three facts. One, she had a sword. Two, she was in the shed. Three, she wound up getting shot. We know nothing beyond that at this point in time.

For all you know, the cops were standing outside the shed door and she threw the door open and took a swing. For all I know, they kicked the shed door in and blew her away. Neither of us could prove either assertion at this moment.

You're clearly confused about something else, as well. Refusing to instantly condemn the cops is not the same thing as reflexively supporting them. Where did I say "the cops did nothing wrong" regarding this shooting?

The answer is that I never said that. What I said was that given the information at hand, we don't know enough to determine if this shooting is justified. I'm not "supporting" anyone here. I'm saying "let's see what further information develops."

I'm keeping an open mind so that if and when more information becomes available, I can evaluate it and come to an informed conclusion.

You leapt to the immediate conclusion "COPS BAD." That's a snap judgment.

Last edited Sun Jun 17, 2018, 03:55 AM - Edit history (1)

And odd how you describe the facts in the passive tense, as if we don't know how it happened, when it comes to what the cops did:

Here's an objective description of the facts that does not reflexively support cops:
1. She had a sword.
2. She was barricaded in a shed.
3. Cops fatally shot her.

You can bet that if she actually "threw the door open and took a swing," the cops would have made sure that made it into the story. They already colored the facts by labeling what witnesses described as "walking with a sword" as "brandishing." People tend to describe their side of the story in the best possible light. It's basic human nature. Regardless, let's take your flight of fancy as fact for the sake of argument. If you knew there was a person in the shed with a sword, why stand close enough that they could throw open the door and take a swing at you? Why didn't they try to shoot pepper spray into the shed? Or if she came out, why not use taser darts? Why the lethal force? They knew they were responding to a call about a woman seen with a sword who had barricaded herself in a shed. It doesn't take a psychiatrist to know that you are probably dealing with a mentally disturbed person, who will need to be restrained. Why not come prepared to restrain them non-lethally? Cops are supposed to be trained and equipped to be able to do that. Virtually every scenario you can think of that stays within those three above facts indicates this was poorly handled.

Here, this video explains the effects of pepper spray and shows how it's used to de-escalate a dangerous situation, with a wonderful Hawaiian cop:




I never said "COPS BAD." I certainly do not think all cops are bad, nor even that most cops are bad. I did not even call these cops "bad." I made no such "snap judgment." I made a comment of THIS SITUATION based on THESE FACTS. That's what these discussion boards are for. If people making comments about facts bothers you, perhaps this is not the place for you.

Now you're so desperate to make it out like I'm defending the cops that you're parsing word tenses? Are you kidding me? And I didn't "invent facts to give the cops the benefit of the doubt." I put forth a hypothetical situation. In fact, I put forth two: one giving them the benefit of the doubt, and one making them sound like Rambo-wannabe meathead dipshits. I used those hypothetical situations to point out, once again, that we do not know all the facts about this situation at this point in time. To my mind, making a decision based on three facts, in a situation where there could conceivably be many, many more, is a snap judgment.

Look, in the time I've been on DU (and I lurked for a while before making an account) I've noticed a trend here. That trend is that whenever a cop shoots someone, the majority of DU immediately assumes the cop is at fault and must be punished. Some go so far as to assert that cops are going around just looking for people to kill, and that they enjoy killing people. I realize that police shootings are emotionally charged, and that is why, once again, I say "wait for the facts before deciding this wasn't justified." If the cops screwed up, then I'll be the first to say they need to be held accountable. If they didn't, then they shouldn't be punished. Again, it really is that simple.

Lastly, you jumped into the thread with a snarky, sarcastic remark when I was pointing out to someone else that a sword can be a deadly weapon against someone who has a gun, so I responded in kind. I'm not telling you what you can or can't do, but maybe don't be surprised if a snarky tone gets you a snarky reply, yeah?

It is perfectly fine to comment on a discussio board based on the facts available. It's what we do here. We are not the judge, jury and executioner, unlike these cops turned out to be. We're just commenting on the known facts. Like I said, if people commenting on facts bothers you, maybe this is not the place for you.

And it's perfectly fine for me to comment that commenting and coming to a conclusion without all the facts of the situation is silly. Discussion will occasionally result in someone challenging your assertions or positions. If that bothers you, then... oh well, I guess?

I like how you keep harping on the "maybe this is not the place for you" bit, though. Because I disagree with you on something, clearly this isn't the place for the likes of me.

With your repeated "maybe this isn't the place for you" garbage, you're the one saying I shouldn't be commenting here, as if you're the bouncer or something. I never said people shouldn't comment, and if you interpreted it that way, that's not my problem.

What I said was that people shouldn't jump to conclusions without all the facts. That's not saying "don't talk," that's saying "I disagree with your conclusion, which I feel is premature." If you can't handle someone disagreeing with your position, that's also not my problem.

I'm honestly astounded that saying "wait for all the facts to come out before making a judgment" is a controversial statement to you.

...then you're not going to be happy here. Just sayin.

Telling people to wait for "all the facts" before commenting is another way of saying you don't want people commenting on the facts we do know. Who determines when we have "all the facts," or enough facts to comment? You?

You accuse me of "making up facts" when I clearly stated those were hypothetical situations for the sake of the discussion? Then you ignore the second hypothetical situation I presented, which painted the cops in a negative light? Who's "making up facts" now?

I didn't "condemn" anyone. I believe that all the facts of a situation should be known before judgment is rendered. If you think a short article presented the entire situation about this incident, then I don't know what to tell you. Everyone was ready to crucify Darren Wilson because he shot Michael Brown, based on the initial story. People were saying he "executed" Brown in cold blood while Brown was trying to surrender. Then the investigation happened, and that was found not to be the case.

That is why I say we should wait for the facts, because there's definitely more to the story than that tiny little article conveyed. So I'll reserve judgment until the investigation is complete. If you want to decide, before any investigation has taken place, that the cops were in the wrong, go nuts. I prefer to wait until the situation is fully understood.

We will never have "all the facts." That is an impossible standard and in essence suggests all comments based on known facts are illegitimate. You did indeed condemn comments, calling them "reflexive," "COPS-BAD" and "snap judgments," implying the comments are irrational and not based on the facts.

Reminds me of when the NRA insists it's "too early" to talk about gun control after a shooting.

You're not arguing in good faith and you're twisting some things and ignoring others in order to suit your narrative. If you feel "condemned" because I didn't full-throat join you in declaring that the cops screwed up here, then all I can suggest is that you walk it off.

If you want to make judgments about complex incidents based on very skimpy facts, go for it. I'll carry on reserving judgment until the situation is fully understood. I gave you a perfect example of why the latter view is preferable, and you ignored it to keep right on harping. Surprise surprise.

What's the matter, feeling "condemned" again?

All you've done in this entire conversation is dodge things you don't want to address and mischaracterize the things you did address. It's not the best tactic in a debate, but I guess it's the best you can do.

You insisted that commenting on facts about these cops is a "COPS-BAD" mentality, and "reflexive snap judgment." You insisted that we shouldn't comment on this police shooting until "all the facts are in," which of course means we can never comment since we never have "all" the facts. You added a pro-cop spin to the facts we do know. You described it as "she wound up getting shot," as if she might have shot herself, rather than the clear execution by police that the known facts indicate it was. You refused to condemn what all known facts indicate was a horrifically botched, if not potentially criminal, police operation.

I pointed out how wrong that is. You didn't take it well. That's on you, Jedi Guy.

What I said - "We don't know the details yet, so we shouldn't make any conclusions."

How you misrepresented what I said - "No one should talk about these incidents, ever." This is a straw man argument, since I never said that.

What I said - "The cops may have had no choice, or they may have acted like Rambo meathead dipshits."

How you misrepresented what I said - "You're making up facts to support the cops!" When I said you were ignoring things that were inconvenient to you, this is an example of that. You outright ignored the latter example while harping on and on about the former and twisting it into something it clearly wasn't.

What I said - "Here is a great example of why coming to a conclusion before all the facts are known is a bad idea."

You didn't address that point at all because it was inconvenient to the argument you were framing.

Three examples of you doing precisely what I said you were doing: arguing in bad faith. You twist meanings and create straw man arguments because you got all hot and bothered at someone pointing out that it's a bit early to decide that the cops were in the wrong because the information is limited.

As for the "you refused to condemn the cops!" bullshit, I clearly stated early in the discussion that if the facts showed that the cops were in the wrong, then they needed to face consequences. I just wasn't willing to make that conclusion as early as you were. I prefer to wait until more than three facts are in evidence.

From the available information at the time I'm typing this, it appears the cops were in the wrong, so... yes, they deserve to face the consequences of their actions, based on the facts we know now.

Just “being seen” with one is not a reason to be executed.

wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Kansas

Sadly, it appears this woman was mentally ill. The police basically executed someone for being mentally ill. The Kansas City Police Department desperately needs better training.

From what I gathered, she was topless while brandishing a sword. According the eyewitness, they spent several hours trying to talk her down, but somehow she managed to get our of the garage and took off running. That is when they shot her. I would think we would need to see any body cam video before making any final judgement on this. After all, we would look pretty silly if we decried the police if she was about to hit someone with a sword before they shot her. That being said, I can't help but feel that in the several hours they were talking to her, that the police should have been able to have positioned themselves and any civilians in a way that would have made shooting her the last resort. But like I said, I will wait for more information before making any final judgement.

Missouri.

Subject to local regs.

If she was about to plunge the sword into someone, that might be a justifiable shoot, but hiding out in a shed with a sword is not execution worthy.

Not saying that it was justified, but they didn't shoot her as she was cornered in the shed. They apparently tried to get her to surrender for several hours before she got loose. It's not clear if she was running toward anyone with the sword, or if they shot her as she was running away. To me, that would be the critical fact that would determine if the police we 100% in the wrong or not. Although, I wonder why police don't have more non-lethal options that may be dangerous, but are less dangerous than shooting the suspect. For example, as a kid I remember watching a cartoon in which dog catcher were able to catch a mentally ill talking rabbit using a butterfly net. Why are our police not equipped with butterfly nets, or at least have the ability to call someone out with a butterfly net. If not that, then perhaps rubber bullets or just clever usage of shields and batons. They had her cornered for several hours apparently. Seems like some out-of-the-box thinking may have saved her life.

Got a link for that new info?

Here's a link to one article that lays it out. There is also a video with a neighbor talking about it. If they shot her in the back then I agree that it would sound like murder to me. However, if they release a video in which it shows her charging a person (officer or civilian) with the sword, then I don't know what other brilliant ideas I could suggest the police could have employed at that point. Now, whether or not they could have handled the situation leading up to that moment in a better manner is something worth looking into either way.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article213260674.html

Clearly the cops were not in fear for their lives. Thanks for the link.