You know why they tell you that? Because it's true, they don't just pull it out of their ass. Instead of repeating myself I will just refer you to my reply to Zarezhu.

 

What I said is also true. Russian net is full of news about officers shooting armed perpetrators in legs or arms, hitting them, then arresting them, and I closely work with police so am a bit familiar with their work. They use Makarov pistol, the one which is army, police, and other agencies' standard issue. I fired it myself during my Army Reserve officer training, and it is much more difficlut to handle than Glock for example.

Additionally, Russian traffic police are trained to shoot tires of a perp's car from a moving vehicle during pursuits, examples are all over youtube. As I said earlier, there are two different societies.

 

They're justified if your qualifications for justification are that the cop was scared.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/15/how-the-number-of-justified-police-homicides-has-changed-since-the-1990s/

Please take a look at some of the research posted here. Violent crime and officer fatalities are decreasing, and fatal police shootings are rising. 

 

The fact that I'm an American taxpayer and a little bit of common sense. We pay them to take risks, they have a dangerous job. They don't get to gun down everyone that can pose a threat to them, that's not how it works in other countries and we should be no different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FV53jLDlRQ

Is a mentally ill man holding a screwdriver dangerous? Maybe. Does it warrant him being killed? Absolutely not. It's really that simple.

 

The YouTube link redirects to the same topic we're posting in. Just a heads-up.

 

They're justified if your qualifications for justification are that the cop was scared.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/15/how-the-number-of-justified-police-homicides-has-changed-since-the-1990s/

Please take a look at some of the research posted here. Violent crime and officer fatalities are decreasing, and fatal police shootings are rising. 

 

The fact that I'm an American taxpayer and a little bit of common sense. We pay them to take risks, they have a dangerous job. They don't get to gun down everyone that can pose a threat to them, that's not how it works in other countries and we should be no different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FV53jLDlRQ

Is a mentally ill man holding a screwdriver dangerous? Maybe. Does it warrant him being killed? Absolutely not. It's really that simple.

 

It isn't my standards that make a shooting justified. These are the standards set by our government, a government of officials elected by the American people. And there is more criteria than fear for one's life that makes a shooting justified (officer or not).

The fact that you are a taxpayer makes you qualified to say who is a well trained cop and who isn't? So I assume that since I pay my taxes I can now go around and criticize every public worker's job performance. Let me go up to an air traffic controller and criticize him on how he is controlling even though I have no training or experience in his field. I am an American taxpayer right and I "pay his salary" (even if only less than 1% of my taxes actually go to his salary) so I should be able to tell him what he is doing wrong in his job right?

Yes, law enforcement is a dangerous job and the officers who take that job know and accept the risks of their jobs however, that doesn't mean they should just let suspects (especially dangerous ones) walk all over them out of fear of hurting someone's feelings.

Depending on the situation a screwdriver can be just as dangerous as a knife. It isn't as simple as you make it out to be, if it was we could just write a book listing all the situations when you can shoot and when you can't. There are lots of factors that have to be looked at in a deadly force situation, it isn't as cut and dry as you make it sound.

What I said is also true. Russian net is full of news about officers shooting armed perpetrators in legs or arms, hitting them, then arresting them, and I closely work with police so am a bit familiar with their work. They use Makarov pistol, the one which is army, police, and other agencies' standard issue. I fired it myself during my Army Reserve officer training, and it is much more difficlut to handle than Glock for example.

Additionally, Russian traffic police are trained to shoot tires of a perp's car from a moving vehicle during pursuits, examples are all over youtube. As I said earlier, there are two different societies.

Well for one I would be hesitant to believe anything the Russian news puts out, it is heavily influenced by the government. My knowledge is limited on the Makarov but it can't be any more difficult to shoot than other 9mm pistols. 9mm pistols are not difficult weapons to shoot compared to other pistols. And using Youtube as a source is meaningless. I can find lots of videos on just about anything, that doesn't mean it is a common occurrence or easy to accomplish. I can show you a bunch of videos showing American police officers shooting suspects in the arms and legs, does that mean it is easy to do or that it happens all the time? No.

The fact that you are a taxpayer makes you qualified to say who is a well trained cop and who isn't? So I assume that since I pay my taxes I can now go around and criticize every public worker's job performance. Let me go up to an air traffic controller and criticize him on how he is controlling even though I have no training or experience in his field. I am an American taxpayer right and I "pay his salary" (even if only less than 1% of my taxes actually go to his salary) so I should be able to tell him what he is doing wrong in his job right?

 

Yes, it absolutely means that. If air traffic controllers killed 500 people in a year, I'm pretty sure we would be criticizing them. Police officers, even though they are localized, are government officials and deserve to be held to certain standards. 

 

Yes, law enforcement is a dangerous job and the officers who take that job know and accept the risks of their jobs however, that doesn't mean they should just let suspects (especially dangerous ones) walk all over them out of fear of hurting someone's feelings.

"Hurt someones feelings"...? We're not talking about instances of a rough tackling of a dangerous suspect or a rude cop yelling at someone. We're talking about people being killed. 

Depending on the situation a screwdriver can be just as dangerous as a knife. It isn't as simple as you make it out to be, if it was we could just write a book listing all the situations when you can shoot and when you can't. There are lots of factors that have to be looked at in a deadly force situation, it isn't as cut and dry as you make it sound.

Did the officers consider those factors? No. I'm not exactly sure whats on their belts, but we can see that they have tasers. They probably had pepper spray and/or a nightstick. (Remember that thing that cops used to brag about having, that thing that could supposedly break someones leg with one clean swing?). They didn't reach for those, they went for their guns and put the guy down before he even had a chance to understand what was happening. He was mentally ill. There's a lot of stories, mostly from local news of mentally ill people being gunned down. 

Cops in America are trained to never take an ounce of risk in a dangerous situation. If a suspect, in any mental capacity, has an object that could be used as a lethal weapon, end his life. How is that justice? Why can't cops just retreat a few feet and let a family member calm the suspect down? Why is the first instinct to kill the person? Do you mean to tell me that a mentally ill person in Germany has never done this with a cop? The problem is in the training, I've been saying this for years. It is NOT too much to ask of a government official to try not to kill someone. That doesn't mean that I hate cops, or I don't respect the tough job that they do. It just means that there's some work to be done.

Edited July 14, 201510 yr by Riley24

Yes, it absolutely means that. If air traffic controllers killed 500 people in a year, I'm pretty sure we would be criticizing them. Police officers, even though they are localized, are government officials and deserve to be held to certain standards. 

 

"Hurt someones feelings"...? We're not talking about instances of a rough tackling of a dangerous suspect or a rude cop yelling at someone. We're talking about people being killed. 

Did the officers consider those factors? No. I'm not exactly sure whats on their belts, but we can see that they have tasers. They probably had pepper spray and/or a nightstick. (Remember that thing that cops used to brag about having, that thing that could supposedly break someones leg with one clean swing?). They didn't reach for those, they went for their guns and put the guy down before he even had a chance to understand what was happening. He was mentally ill. There's a lot of stories, mostly from local news of mentally ill people being gunned down. 

Cops in America are trained to never take an ounce of risk in a dangerous situation. If a suspect, in any mental capacity, has an object that could be used as a lethal weapon, end his life. How is that justice? Why can't cops just retreat a few feet and let a family member calm the suspect down? Why is the first instinct to kill the person? Do you mean to tell me that a mentally ill person in Germany has never done this with a cop? The problem is in the training, I've been saying this for years. It is NOT too much to ask of a government official to try not to kill someone. That doesn't mean that I hate cops, or I don't respect the tough job that they do. It just means that there's some work to be done.

Being a taxpayer entitles you to ask questions and receive answers, it does not make you qualified to tell how police officers to do their jobs. If that is the sole qualification then why do police academy instructors have to go through all their training and get certified if just any American taxpayer can tell the police how to do their jobs?

My point about hurt feelings is that suspects are the ones who dictates what happens. The police shouldn't have to run away from a suspect (there is actually a law that says they don't have to) or let the suspect walk all over them just too keep people, who generally have little knowledge of law enforcement in the first place, happy.

The video you linked just brings me back to this thread but I am pretty sure I know which shooting you are talking about so I will tell you why most of the tools on their belts were bad ideas. OC spray: honestly this is probably the worst tool police carry, it doesn't actually incapacitate an individual (it isn't hard to keep fighting after being sprayed), how long it takes to take effect and how much the individual is affected varies from person to person so the results are not always reliable, and you are almost always going to contaminate yourself. Baton/nightstick: they were in close quarters and while there are baton tactics you can use in close quarters they aren't meant to be used against someone holding a sharp weapon, batons are rarely used by police at all due to the very brutal nature of the weapon, ever since Rodney King the public has a very negative perception of batons. Taser: This is probably the only other tool they had that might have been effective. I say might because tasers only work if certain conditions are met, if one condition is not met then it won't incapacitate the suspect. First, both prongs have to hit the subject and penetrate through their clothing; next the prongs have to get a wide enough spread in order to be effective, if the prongs land too close to each other the suspect might feel some pain in that area but there won't be neuromuscular incapacitatation. It isn't uncommon for a taser to fail due to not meeting those conditions (although it isn't the taser's fault). Now consider that they were in close quarters and he was coming at them. There was only a couple seconds reaction time. I don't know about you but if I have one chance to stop a suspect before they start stabbing me with a screwdriver I am going to go with the tool that almost guarantees the suspect will be stopped.

You say cops have a dangerous job but are trained to never take a risk. So which is it? Do they have a dangerous job or are they trained to never take risks? If they never take risks then they don't have a dangerous job. If police never took risks then they would never do traffic stops because there is too much risk involved.

 

Well for one I would be hesitant to believe anything the Russian news puts out, it is heavily influenced by the government. My knowledge is limited on the Makarov but it can't be any more difficult to shoot than other 9mm pistols. 9mm pistols are not difficult weapons to shoot compared to other pistols. And using Youtube as a source is meaningless. I can find lots of videos on just about anything, that doesn't mean it is a common occurrence or easy to accomplish. I can show you a bunch of videos showing American police officers shooting suspects in the arms and legs, does that mean it is easy to do or that it happens all the time? No.

News about apprehending a drunkard with a gun are not influenced by anything, and firing weapons from a moving car is actually a standard part of traffic police training. In Russia if an officer uses a weapon and kills a person he may be fired or imprisoned himself, which is extremely common. So if they are forced to use a gun they try to be as less lethal as possbile.

The only reason I mentioned Youtube is that I doubt you speak Russian and that's the only way to somehow prove myself. However if you simply refuse to believe it, well, nothing can be done here.

News about apprehending a drunkard with a gun are not influenced by anything

 

It is pretty well known that many of the Russian media outlets are heavily influenced by the government.

Being a taxpayer entitles you to ask questions and receive answers, it does not make you qualified to tell how police officers to do their jobs. If that is the sole qualification then why do police academy instructors have to go through all their training and get certified if just any American taxpayer can tell the police how to do their jobs?

So you're saying I can't judge a cop because I'm not a cop? If that were the case, nothing would get done nationwide on any issue. If the public trash collectors throw my garbage bins onto my lawn, I don't have the right to complain? I can think of 100 examples. It is very easy, and very simplistic to say "well, you don't know what its like to be a cop". But since we have video, we can literally see exactly what went wrong, and ignoring our responsibility to fix it is, well....irresponsible. I'm not a banker, but I know that the Wall Street bankers fucked up pretty bad.

My point about hurt feelings is that suspects are the ones who dictates what happens. The police shouldn't have to run away from a suspect (there is actually a law that says they don't have to) or let the suspect walk all over them just too keep people, who generally have little knowledge of law enforcement in the first place, happy.

You keep saying "walk all over them", but what exactly do you mean? Disrespecting a police officer is not a crime. 

Let me give you a hypothetical that could've prevented an innocent man from being killed. What if the cops that arrived on that scene had undergone training when dealing with mentally ill suspects, and were taught that yelling only agitates the mentally ill person, and that they likely have no idea who the police are or why they're there? So that when he emerges from the door, they know to calmly tell him to put down the screwdriver or better yet, let a family member keep him calm? And if the suspect still comes at you with a screwdriver, maybe back up a few feet and tase him? If there's ever a time to use a taser, its when someone has a weapon that could be lethal. Do I need to be a law enforcement professional to think that that is a logical way to handle this situation? Please, tell me how that doesn't sound like good police work.

 

The video you linked just brings me back to this thread but I am pretty sure I know which shooting you are talking about so I will tell you why most of the tools on their belts were bad ideas. OC spray: honestly this is probably the worst tool police carry, it doesn't actually incapacitate an individual (it isn't hard to keep fighting after being sprayed), how long it takes to take effect and how much the individual is affected varies from person to person so the results are not always reliable, and you are almost always going to contaminate yourself. Baton/nightstick: they were in close quarters and while there are baton tactics you can use in close quarters they aren't meant to be used against someone holding a sharp weapon, batons are rarely used by police at all due to the very brutal nature of the weapon, ever since Rodney King the public has a very negative perception of batons. Taser: This is probably the only other tool they had that might have been effective. I say might because tasers only work if certain conditions are met, if one condition is not met then it won't incapacitate the suspect. First, both prongs have to hit the subject and penetrate through their clothing; next the prongs have to get a wide enough spread in order to be effective, if the prongs land too close to each other the suspect might feel some pain in that area but there won't be neuromuscular incapacitatation. It isn't uncommon for a taser to fail due to not meeting those conditions (although it isn't the taser's fault). Now consider that they were in close quarters and he was coming at them. There was only a couple seconds reaction time. I don't know about you but if I have one chance to stop a suspect before they start stabbing me with a screwdriver I am going to go with the tool that almost guarantees the suspect will be stopped.

America; where cops would rather kill you than take a risk. Its easier and safer to gun down everyone that could possibly be a threat, but that doesn't make it good police work.

You say cops have a dangerous job but are trained to never take a risk. So which is it? Do they have a dangerous job or are they trained to never take risks? If they never take risks then they don't have a dangerous job. If police never took risks then they would never do traffic stops because there is too much risk involved.

They have an inherently dangerous job, nobody else chases bad guys. But if you leave a mentally ill man with a screwdriver bleeding out in his driveway, you're nobody's hero. 

 

So you're saying I can't judge a cop because I'm not a cop? If that were the case, nothing would get done nationwide on any issue. If the public trash collectors throw my garbage bins onto my lawn, I don't have the right to complain? I can think of 100 examples. It is very easy, and very simplistic to say "well, you don't know what its like to be a cop". But since we have video, we can literally see exactly what went wrong, and ignoring our responsibility to fix it is, well....irresponsible. I'm not a banker, but I know that the Wall Street bankers fucked up pretty bad.

You keep saying "walk all over them", but what exactly do you mean? Disrespecting a police officer is not a crime. 

Let me give you a hypothetical that could've prevented an innocent man from being killed. What if the cops that arrived on that scene had undergone training when dealing with mentally ill suspects, and were taught that yelling only agitates the mentally ill person, and that they likely have no idea who the police are or why they're there? So that when he emerges from the door, they know to calmly tell him to put down the screwdriver or better yet, let a family member keep him calm? And if the suspect still comes at you with a screwdriver, maybe back up a few feet and tase him? If there's ever a time to use a taser, its when someone has a weapon that could be lethal. Do I need to be a law enforcement professional to think that that is a logical way to handle this situation? Please, tell me how that doesn't sound like good police work.

 

America; where cops would rather kill you than take a risk. Its easier and safer to gun down everyone that could possibly be a threat, but that doesn't make it good police work.

They have an inherently dangerous job, nobody else chases bad guys. But if you leave a mentally ill man with a screwdriver bleeding out in his driveway, you're nobody's hero. 

No, what I am saying is that your ability to judge what correct police action is and what isn't is very skewed and not a complete picture because you do not have the training or experience to know what correct procedures are (for the lack of a better term). When I say "walk all over them" I am referring to the video that this thread is about. The police shouldn't let a suspect force them to run 30 meters backwards away from their car, which was actually a risky thing for that officer to do.

In your hypothetical situation you make the situation sound so calm and slow moving. If that were the way it actually was then yes, the police could have easily done that. The suspect started coming out of the door then pulled out a screwdriver. The officers did initially ask calmly for him to put it down, they said calmly "Can you drop that for me bud?" several times and the family member was actually the one that started yelling first, the mother started yelling and that is when the suspect started moving towards the officer. Now you are saying they should back up a few feet; where the officers were standing there were several cars in the driveway that would have made it difficult to back up. They are in a confined space and when you watch the video the entire situation from when the suspect takes out the screwdriver to the moment he moves towards the officers and is shot happens in the span of about 8 seconds. This shows how quickly the situation escalated and how much reaction time the officers had. Also the time to use a taser is NOT when a suspect has a weapon that could be lethal and any force matrix or defensive tactics instructor will tell you that. If a suspect has a weapon that could be lethal then you want to match the suspects resistance level because what happens when the taser fails and now you used your one shot and have no time to switch to another tool?

I am not saying you can't ask questions and suggest different ways of doing things but I am telling you why some of the things you suggest are not the correct way of handling a situation or aren't realistic or safe choices. Asking why they didn't tase him or pepper spray them are legitimate questions, but since you don't have the same training or experience as a police officer there are some things you won't take into consideration because you simply don't have the same knowledge that police officers do. Nobody is saying that is a bad thing and that is why I have taken the time to have a discussion with you and explain these things, so that you can possibly have a new understanding of it.

The police shouldn't let a suspect force them to run 30 meters backwards away from their car, which was actually a risky thing for that officer to do.

It's actually smarter to back up a few feet before engaging in lethal force, if the officers had backed up a few feet and drawn their tasers nobody would likely be dead. That's always the preferred outcome.

In your hypothetical situation you make the situation sound so calm and slow moving. If that were the way it actually was then yes, the police could have easily done that. The suspect started coming out of the door then pulled out a screwdriver. The officers did initially ask calmly for him to put it down, they said calmly "Can you drop that for me bud?" several times and the family member was actually the one that started yelling first, the mother started yelling and that is when the suspect started moving towards the officer. Now you are saying they should back up a few feet; where the officers were standing there were several cars in the driveway that would have made it difficult to back up. They are in a confined space and when you watch the video the entire situation from when the suspect takes out the screwdriver to the moment he moves towards the officers and is shot happens in the span of about 8 seconds. This shows how quickly the situation escalated and how much reaction time the officers had. Also the time to use a taser is NOT when a suspect has a weapon that could be lethal and any force matrix or defensive tactics instructor will tell you that. If a suspect has a weapon that could be lethal then you want to match the suspects resistance level because what happens when the taser fails and now you used your one shot and have no time to switch to another tool?

 The mother likely started screaming because she was worried the cops would shoot him, sad that we've reached that point in America. Can you explain to me with all your experience, why it would be impossible to train police officers to always try to leave a few feet of space behind them, and when operating in pairs, designate one officer to use non-lethal force? People hold objects possibly lethal objects in front of cops every day all across the world, and yet you're saying that this is the only way that two trained LEOs could've handled the situation? I've gotta call bullshit on that. Lethal force should always be the last resort, as I've seen you say before.

I am not saying you can't ask questions and suggest different ways of doing things but I am telling you why some of the things you suggest are not the correct way of handling a situation or aren't realistic or safe choices. Asking why they didn't tase him or pepper spray them are legitimate questions, but since you don't have the same training or experience as a police officer there are some things you won't take into consideration because you simply don't have the same knowledge that police officers do. Nobody is saying that is a bad thing and that is why I have taken the time to have a discussion with you and explain these things, so that you can possibly have a new understanding of it.

Yeah, they're legitimate questions, and there's no legitimate reason why they couldn't have used them. "They're not always effective in every situation" is not a legitimate reason. Having a taser is almost pointless if you don't use it as soon as someone has a small maintenance tool.

Edited July 15, 201510 yr by Riley24

 

It's actually smarter to back up a few feet before engaging in lethal force, if the officers had backed up a few feet and drawn their tasers nobody would likely be dead. That's always the preferred outcome.

 

Watch this, and the same could be said about a taser, which is not as reliable as a firearm. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R2PCMM

Watch this, and the same could be said about a taser, which is not as reliable as a firearm. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R2PCMM

I appreciate the video, Pavelow. I just think that because of the suspects mental and physical state, he wouldn't be able to pull off those crazy karate moves lol. An officer facing off against a trained knife wielder is obviously an incredibly dangerous situation that obviously warrants lethal force, but I honestly don't see too many parallels. In the same way that a taser isn't as deadly as a gun, a screwdriver isn't as deadly a knife. Of course tasers can cause heart attacks, and screwdrivers could puncture flesh. Both instances are not guaranteed, and often times unlikely. But when an officer uses lethal force, he is essentially saying "There is no other way to handle this situation. If I don't fire, my partner or I, or an innocent bystander will be in immediate danger." That's essentially the mindset behind the "last resort" mentality. I'm sorry, but I just don't think that's the case here. 

I'm not a law enforcement professional, but European, Canadian, and Australian cops are. They manage to apprehend suspects like this without lethal force, and still maintain very low officer mortality rates. They're doing something right.

 

It's actually smarter to back up a few feet before engaging in lethal force, if the officers had backed up a few feet and drawn their tasers nobody would likely be dead. That's always the preferred outcome.

 The mother likely started screaming because she was worried the cops would shoot him, sad that we've reached that point in America. Can you explain to me with all your experience, why it would be impossible to train police officers to always try to leave a few feet of space behind them, and when operating in pairs, designate one officer to use non-lethal force? People hold objects possibly lethal objects in front of cops every day all across the world, and yet you're saying that this is the only way that two trained LEOs could've handled the situation? I've gotta call bullshit on that. Lethal force should always be the last resort, as I've seen you say before.

Yeah, they're legitimate questions, and there's no legitimate reason why they couldn't have used them. "They're not always effective in every situation" is not a legitimate reason. Having a taser is almost pointless if you don't use it as soon as someone has a small maintenance tool.

Yes, it is always best to have some distance between you and a suspect but that isn't always a realistic option. The world is not always an open place where you can have the perfect distance between you and another person.

My point was that you said the officers should have calmly asked him to put down the screwdriver, not yell at him, and let the family member talk him down. What did the officers do? They calmly asked him to put down the screwdriver, they weren't yelling at him, and the mother only made the situation worse by yelling (the thing you said they shouldn't have done).

Officers are trained to leave distance between them and the individual but as I said before you can't always stay a certain distance. Sometimes you are working in close quarters (as they were in that video), also you aren't going to come off as friendly and approachable if you are constantly staying 20 feet away from people. You don't normally have conversations with people 20 feet away and people won't want to talk to you or give you information if they feel you are treating them as a dangerous felon when they are just talking to you. Officers are also trained that having one officer using non-lethal while the other officer covers him with lethal, but unfortunately things don't always allow for that. Like I said in my previous post, the entire incident happened in 8 seconds. The officers didn't have time to designate who would go to a non-lethal option, they had 4-5 feet between them and the suspect and less than 8 seconds before he started coming at them.

You are using my reasoning out of context. I didn't say that the sole reason for using deadly force was because "tasers aren't always effective", it is that plus the fact that they only had a very limited amount of space and time.

I'm not a law enforcement professional, but European, Canadian, and Australian cops are. They manage to apprehend suspects like this without lethal force, and still maintain very low officer mortality rates. They're doing something right.

I have found that it is very difficult to compare things like these to other countries, the cultures are vastly different. Not to mention, what do you think the number of attacks on police are in Canada or Europe are? Probably a lot fewer than they are in the US, so obviously when you have fewer incidents happening the number of shootings are going to be a lot less.

I appreciate the video, Pavelow. I just think that because of the suspects mental and physical state, he wouldn't be able to pull off those crazy karate moves lol. An officer facing off against a trained knife wielder is obviously an incredibly dangerous situation that obviously warrants lethal force, but I honestly don't see too many parallels. In the same way that a taser isn't as deadly as a gun, a screwdriver isn't as deadly a knife. Of course tasers can cause heart attacks, and screwdrivers could puncture flesh. Both instances are not guaranteed, and often times unlikely. But when an officer uses lethal force, he is essentially saying "There is no other way to handle this situation. If I don't fire, my partner or I, or an innocent bystander will be in immediate danger." That's essentially the mindset behind the "last resort" mentality. I'm sorry, but I just don't think that's the case here. 

I'm not a law enforcement professional, but European, Canadian, and Australian cops are. They manage to apprehend suspects like this without lethal force, and still maintain very low officer mortality rates. They're doing something right.

Haha, obviously he's not. But it just goes to show that it's easy to be caught off guard like that. "Action is ALWAYS faster than reaction". 

What I meant by saying the taser is less effective, was that it's not reliable to always work. Prongs may not stick, it may not immobilize the suspect completely, suspect may be on drugs, etc. With a screwdriver, all it takes is one stab ANYWHERE and that is enough to effectively incapacitate an individual. 

 

Comparing fatality rates of other countries to the US isn't even close to being fair. The US maintains over 1 million sworn LEOs to a population of over 300 million . Canada, for instance maintains about 70,000 to a population of about 35 million. The fatality rate for US LEOs is about 66 per year ('14). In Canada, it was about 5('14). By simple math, if Canada had a sworn LEO count of around 1.2 million similar to the US, their fatality rate would be roughly about 80 per year. Similar to the US.

 

*I did a rough search for fallen Canadian LEOs. If anybody has a more accurate number, let me know.

What I meant by saying the taser is less effective, was that it's not reliable to always work. Prongs may not stick, it may not immobilize the suspect completely, suspect may be on drugs, etc. With a screwdriver, all it takes is one stab ANYWHERE and that is enough to effectively incapacitate an individual. 

Here is a very good video that I found awhile back that really shows the advantages and disadvantages to a taser and explains how tasers actually work.

https://www.facebook.com/ActiveSelfProtection/videos/759579630816486/?pnref=story

It is pretty well known that many of the Russian media outlets are heavily influenced by the government.

So rather than admitting that somewhere people do employ different tactics and manage to do good police work you prefer to insist on irrelevant things. I guess I am also a Kremlin propagandist or a lier. Ok.

So rather than admitting that somewhere people do employ different tactics and manage to do good police work you prefer to insist on irrelevant things. I guess I am also a Kremlin propagandist or a lier. Ok.

What he means to say is that you cant belive everything  that comes out of Russian media outlets. They'll never report on something that reflects poorly on themselves. Quite the opposite of the United States. The US would appear  to be a country where cops always kill innocent minorities,  based on our media outlets. 

So rather than admitting that somewhere people do employ different tactics and manage to do good police work you prefer to insist on irrelevant things. I guess I am also a Kremlin propagandist or a lier. Ok.

What I said is that it is well known that the Russian media is heavily influenced by the government so things you see on lots of Russian news channels must be taken with a grain of salt. I didn't say anything about whether or not Russian police are better than American police because I don't know much about Russian police. And like I said before, regardless of what other countries do it doesn't necessarily mean it will work in the US. The cultures in other countries compared to American are vastly different, it doesn't mean one is better than the other or that one is the right way and the other is the wrong way.

But nice attempt at putting words in my mouth.

 The cultures in other countries compared to American are vastly different, it doesn't mean one is better than the other or that one is the right way and the other is the wrong way.

 

In that case we probably misunderstood each other since one of my first answers was essentially the same. Different countries, different methods. 

What he means to say is that you cant belive everything  that comes out of Russian media outlets. They'll never report on something that reflects poorly on themselves. Quite the opposite of the United States. The US would appear  to be a country where cops always kill innocent minorities,  based on our media outlets. 

Well, this is correct to a certain extent. Hard to explain, actually, so let it be :)

Well, this is correct to a certain extent. Hard to explain, actually, so let it be :)

Actually it isn't very hard to explain, there is clear cut evidence that Russia isn't the friendliest of places for journalist if you are critical of the Russian government. I will leave it at that though since that is not what this thread is about.