TBH I don't think she was aiming for any part of the body in particular. She was simply looking to make contact.

The difference is you aren't trying to figure out how to protect a single unarmed person on the verge of being stabbed. If a group of idiots is fighting you can hose them down, barrage them with rubber bullets, or whatever.

I am saying sometimes there is nothing that can be done with nonlethal means. If you can't get close enough to someone to stop them then you can't.

Breaking up a "knife fight" is different than preventing someone from stabbing an unarmed person. I would be surprised to find out police in the UK (or anywhere else) have a special tactic which allow them to cover 10-15' instantaneously.

Police aren't present at most homicides or attempted homicides in any country so I wouldn't think protocols would affect homicide rates much if at all.

I think 1-2 steps away would reasonably be considered within knife range. Depending on the scenario tasers would often be a better choice with two officers present. Protocol in a situation like that is usually one engages with the taser while the other covers with a firearm. Of course that is not relevant to a situation like this where someone is actively attempting to harm someone else with the knife.

But you said *this* cop should sue. Given the exact scenario 1.) there is no way he can disarm Bryant before she stabs the other woman, 2.) I believe he had a taser (based on pics I saw) but it wouldn't be effective in this scenario. Police will sometimes have to make very quick, very serious decisions. This is one where there was decision that would have a great outcome (shoot - someone is likely dead; don't shoot someone is possible dead). I don't see where additional training or equipment changes that 10 seconds.

I no longer had access to my old email. I have been reading now and then for some time. I actually have experience with self defense laws and jury consulting so sometimes I feel compelled to correct the comments of certain posters,

Oh look - the woman who doesn't accept facts which do not fit her preconceived narrative. This is a new account so I haven't had time to block your ignorance yet. Consider it done. And unlike you, I have read Ohio's statute and it still requires a reasonable belief of imminent death or seriously bodily harm. If you honestly think that applies to someone standing several feet away holding a small dog I am not sure what else there is to say.

What training or gear do you believe he lacked?

Stand Your Ground does not apply here as the Bryant is not facing any criminal charges. If she were alive and facing charges, her SYG claim would be weak (based on the video evidence we have) as she is physically engaging with someone who does not pose an immediate threat. While it is possible the person did previously, *generally* the defense is going to be difficult to use when the person you stab is unarmed and not engaging you. With no video evidence it would come down to witness testimony where Bryant would stand a better chance of acquittal. Police arriving on the scene would also eliminate the justification for SYG in most cases except in rare occurrences where the other party is armed and still engaging when the police arrive. (Think of a simple fist fight scenario. While you may be within your right to defend yourself with a punch, you aren't allowed to punch the guy you were fighting with 5 minutes after the cops arrive and claim you were still acting in self defense.) The SYG claim is not relevant to the officer as he can only react to what he sees in the 10 seconds before the shooting. Based on the body cam we see a violent confrontation in progress, and he then observes someone charging at an unarmed person with a knife. He gave multiple verbal instructions to all and then saw someone attempting to use deadly force against an unarmed person. The attempted use of deadly force by Bryant meets the standard criteria for the officer responding with deadly force. Based on the body cam he seems to be too far away to intervene physically before the assault can occur, and he is likely outside of or just on the edge of effective taser range. However, in general when protecting someone else from deadly force a taser would not be used due to its ineffectiveness at times. Discharging his weapon is a reasonable response to prevent someone from being potentially stabbed in vital organs. Contrary to the nonsense being displayed on twitter, he is not expected to allow the victim to be stabbed just because she is more likely to survive a stabbing than Bryant is a gunshot. Anyone trying to compare this situation to the Martin case has very limited knowledge of that trial.

Regarding HIV, you could only be charged if you knew were HIV+ and engaged in sexual activity with someone without informing them or intentionally attempt to infect someone via bodily fluids (ex. spitting, dousing someone with fluids, etc.). Generally these laws have been HIV or STD specific and do not apply to other diseases.

Once again you are misunderstanding Florida law. Openly displaying a firearm in Florida, except for limited acts around legal transportation, hunting, camping, and target shooting. FL 790.053 Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense. A person may openly carry, for purposes of lawful self-defense: (a) A self-defense chemical spray. (b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes. Any person violating this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775 ----------- The person in your example would likely be correctly cited for brandishing in Florida and Michigan, depending on the exact nature of the obscenities and if threatening behavior occurred. The person in Florida could be charged absent any threats or similar behaviors under 790.053. Brandishing and illegal exhibition are separate and distinct charges.

Based on past protests by groups of PoC carrying firearms, yes. I can't recall any armed protestors being fired upon by law enforcement in any state.

Michigan brandishing statute: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(tieu2ukilizycwfgwydfgwhv))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-234e 750.234e Brandishing firearm in public; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty. Sec. 234e. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not willfully and knowingly brandish a firearm in public. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to either of the following: (a) A peace officer lawfully performing his or her duties as a peace officer. (b) A person lawfully acting in self-defense or defense of another under the self-defense act, 2006 PA 309, MCL 780.971 to 780.974. (3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both. Florida brandishing statute: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.10.html 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. ----------------------------- Due to Michigan having an open carry statute, simply having a firearm visible is not considered a threat. In Florida there till must be something beyond the weapon being visible for the crime of brandishing to occur. You are applying a personal definition of a threat (visible firearm) that would not correctly lead to a charge of brandishing in either state. In Michigan, had the protesters made direct threats in reference to the firearms, pointed them, or done something more than simply carry them, they could be charged with brandishing. In Florida these same protesters would also not be charged with brandishing, but would (correctly) be charged with illegal open carry.

My point is that armed protesters appear to be treated consistently regardless of race. The protesters in Michigan were treated correctly according to Michigan law, and there is no evidence that other protest groups would have been treated differently, despite frequent claims to the contrary.

Fact: non-violent protesters generally face no issues with the police in the U.S., regardless of color.

Oh, so we are going with unnamed consequences? Okay, chief.

The second video was at a protest regarding Sandra Bland. Hard to argue nothing was being demanded. I just showed multiple videos with POC carrying weapons at protests. EXACT same consequences as whites carrying guns at protests. Unless you can show where armed POC protestors were treated differently then I consider your point refuted.

FWIW "brandishing" has a specific legal meaning and is illegal in Michigan. I am not sure of any state where someone simply seeing a firearm = brandishing, as there generally has to be intent to commit the act.

Shenanigans. The claims above were that any non-white group protesting while armed would be met with violence. You are moving the goal posts when the facts don't match your narrative. And the point of bringing up something from 2015? 1.) it happened (and has happened since - see other videos I posted) 2.) the act of bringing guns to protests isn't new. Open carry laws allow this to go on, and radical groups take advantage of it. It may shatter your world view to find out that it's not only whites doing this foolishness, but here we sit.

Legally open carry is open carry, and as far as I can tell Michigan doesn't restrict open carry in all public buildings. As far as the rest of your post, I suggest you review the video below. Standing off with police officers and chanting "oink, oink, bang, bang" would seem comparable, right? (Should be noted the covered faces in Michigan is required right now, but you know that.)

Of course the "protesting with guns" foolishness by any party could be cleared up by ending open carry laws, which sadly won't happen in some states. Fortunately there are many states where this behavior is illegal.

While I think carrying guns at a protest is ridiculous, I wish this tired trope of "only white men" could get away with it would go away. Firearms at protests is not new, and isn't just done by white militias. It's time for it to end but we need to be honest about it.