Suicide by cop is actual becoming much easier for a citizen these days.
Simply grab a knife, sit on the ground and ask a cop to kill you... Bingo, suicide by cop is accomplished.
Regards
CCJ
Suicide by cop is actual becoming much easier for a citizen these days.
Simply grab a knife, sit on the ground and ask a cop to kill you... Bingo, suicide by cop is accomplished.
Regards
CCJ
I didn't see the subject that was sitting on the ground any time during the video.
Uh, know cops will not do that, assisted suicide is "illegal" in MO. Cops can get in big trouble.Suicide by cop is actual becoming much easier for a citizen these days.
Simply grab a knife, sit on the ground and ask a cop to kill you... Bingo, suicide by cop is accomplished.
Regards
CCJ
The police report claims that the officers shot the man because he was coming at them holding a knife in an overhand grip. It also claims that they didn't shoot until he was within 3 or 4 feet of the officers. Can anybody tell if he is actually holding a knife? I can't see one. And the idiot definitely wasn't 3 feet from the cops. Seems like yet another case of historical revisionism via police report, even if their action was justified in this case. Only a slight exaggeration, not as bad as some of the whoppers other officers have come up with.
The internet is your friend.... Research something called the 21 foot rule and The Tueller Rule....
Originating from research by Salt Lake City trainer Dennis Tueller "rule" states that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet
Bottom line: Within a 21-foot perimeter, most officers dealing with most edged-weapon suspects are at a decided - perhaps fatal - disadvantage if the suspect launches a sudden charge intent on harming them. "Certainly it is not safe to have your gun in your holster at this distance," Lewinski says, and firing in hopes of stopping an activated attack within this range may well be justified.
"If you shoot an edged-weapon offender before he is actually on you or at least within reaching distance, you need to anticipate being challenged on your decision by people both in and out of law enforcement who do not understand the sobering facts of action and reaction times," says FSRC National Advisory Board member Bill Everett, an attorney, use-of-force trainer and former cop. "Someone is bound to say, ''Hey, this guy was 10 feet away when he dropped and died. Why did you have to shoot him when he was so far away from you?''"
SO.... by waiting until the suspect is closer, The Officer could or possibly would be killed..... is that what needs to happen, the Officers need to be injured to PROVE they had no choice, but to shoot the assailant?
The guy wanted to be shot, he told them that, he approached them with a knife, they told him to drop it, and stop.. He chose to do neither, so he got his wish. A NORMAL person would not do what he did, so he wasn't acting NORMAL... so I will use the word CRAZY.... and no matter what you do, you cant stop CRAZY.
The Tueller "Rule" is the result of objective research/testing of reaction times in a defensive scenario. It is not a legal representation, not codified as such, but has been used as a defense tool in various courts very effectively.Good reply, and very informative. I do have a question... Is this rule applicable to civilians as well, and can use of force be justified as such (all other variables set to LEGAL SHOOT)?
Good reply, and very informative. I do have a question... Is this rule applicable to civilians as well, and can use of force be justified as such (all other variables set to LEGAL SHOOT)?
Agree.Uh, know cops will not do that, assisted suicide is "illegal" in MO. Cops can get in big trouble.
Crazy dude with a knife, doing crazy things, gets shot. Tough situation, even tougher on those two cops.
Anyway, as a side note, a friend wanted to know why the cops shoot so many times. Well, I says, cops will shoot until the threat is stopped, this ain't the movies where a single pistol bullet throws a dude back 15 feet. Shoot until the threat is on the ground. Cuffing a dead man is a little much, but hey, it ain't me out there.
The police report claims that the officers shot the man because he was coming at them holding a knife in an overhand grip. It also claims that they didn't shoot until he was within 3 or 4 feet of the officers. Can anybody tell if he is actually holding a knife? I can't see one. And the idiot definitely wasn't 3 feet from the cops. Seems like yet another case of historical revisionism via police report, even if their action was justified in this case. Only a slight exaggeration, not as bad as some of the whoppers other officers have come up with.
Is this a trick question? Or a rhetorical question?Good reply, and very informative. I do have a question... Is this rule applicable to civilians as well, and can use of force be justified as such (all other variables set to LEGAL SHOOT)?
Is this a trick question? Or a rhetorical question?
I'll go out on a limb and state that your local prosecutor, and his view of a armed citizenry, would be crucial in the quest for a answer to the question. A cop may walk and never get anything more than some paid time off, and a civilian may be wrung through the proverbial legal wringer before getting a "Oops, our bad, you are free to go dude. Here's your gat back. Sorry about the losing your job and life savings thing, man that sucks. Ya know how it is, right, ya know what I mean, we gotta do the right thing, just doing our job bro. We cool bro?"
Is this a trick question? Or a rhetorical question?
I'll go out on a limb and state that your local prosecutor, and his view of a armed citizenry, would be crucial in the quest for a answer to the question. A cop may walk and never get anything more than some paid time off, and a civilian may be wrung through the proverbial legal wringer before getting a "Oops, our bad, you are free to go dude. We're keeping your gat. Good luck spending even more money to have any hope of getting it back. Sorry about the losing your job and life savings thing, man that sucks. Ya know how it is, right, ya know what I mean, we gotta do the right thing, just doing our job bro. We cool bro?"
Hipsters say "brah", us hoosiers (rednecks) residing in flyover country are a little behind the times...bro.Its brah not bro.
The 90s called... They want their slang back.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Its brah not bro.
The 90s called... They want their slang back.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Actually, it's "bruh." 420 TURN UP YOLO SWAG :banghead:
Ok my bad bruh. Thanks for the education on how to sound like an a** clown.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk