any one know what protocol is for police and this situation?

[Sneezyone]

Oh look, the woman who’s never seen a police killing she didn’t approve of. 🙄These revised SYG statutes are too new to allow that level of certainty WRT to their application. OH’s version is only 7 years old and whether the deceased was aware that LEO arrived would have been for a jury to sort out. No one said SYG applied to the officer.

[SKL]

I am sure there aren't people who think it would have been less racist or careless for the police to stand there and watch while Person 1 slit Person 2's throat.

People have reacted to this based on assumptions without waiting for the facts.  Personally I find that unhelpful on multiple levels, but there are intelligent people who disagree with me.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Oh look, the woman who’s never seen a police killing she didn’t approve of. 🙄These revised SYG statutes are too new to allow that level of certainty WRT to their application. OH’s version is only 7 years old and whether the deceased was aware that LEO arrived would have been for a jury to sort out. No one said SYG applied to the officer.

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.

 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, ChocolateReignIII said:

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.

 

Dear God, please do. I don’t want to substitute my own assessment for a jury’s. I simply have less confidence in what that jury would decide than you.

[kokotg]

I don't know who most of these new/old posters are, but police killings sure do motivate people to make new accounts and start posting again. Weird.

[ktgrok]

3 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

A clear shot seems to be used as a synonym for guaranteed shot. There is no such thing as a guaranteed shot when there are moving hostile targets. There just isn’t. Even for a professional sharp shooter.  Life is not as seen on tv.  I *think* last I checked on the data, the odds of a professional sharp shooter missing a moving target is anywhere from 20- 40% pending the type of moving target situation. Now 60-80% success is pretty darn good for a moving target but still doesn’t change the miss rate.  And it would sure super suck to be the unlucky person the shot wrongly ends up hitting. 

This was what I was originally concerned about when I started the thread. That this so easily could have been two dead teens. 

51 minutes ago, WildflowerMom said:

That was an absolutely disgusting case and a disgusting man.  🤬🤬🤬

Yeah....Sanford has houses we can afford, and a neat down town area, but we won't consider it in our move because it is also a racist hotspot. Like, KKK type racist. Add in some southern good old boy stuff and yeah....it's off our list. 

25 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I think the problem is they do think they are well trained.  And so do a lot of people.  On this thread I’ve seen people say the police are highly trained.  
 

I know police and former police.  Outside of the academy or something like SWAT school the training is almost nonexistent, especially outside of the big city para-military forces like NYPD or LAPD.  They don’t have required range hours, they only have to re qualify with their weapons once a year. They receive a few one day seminars every year.  They aren’t spending days and weeks doing shoot houses.   They have 18 weeks of mostly textbook based academy training and a year being supervised by a senior officer.  Which, reminder - Derek chauvin was training someone the DAY he killed George Floyd.  

Actually, in some places it is only every TWO years. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

1 minute ago, kokotg said:

I don't know who most of these new/old posters are, but police killings sure do motivate people to make new accounts and start posting again. Weird.

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,

[Murphy101]

8 minutes ago, Holmesschooler said:

According to the news, he is a decorated sharp shooter who is also an MP in the National Guard. He did not appear to lack in marksmanship training in any way whatsoever. 

Great. If you read my previous posts you would see that if I had been in his shoes I think I would have shot as well. Because we base that reasoning on what ability the person had to choose otherwise. Better training and better gear can mean a cop is empowered (in the positive sense) to have more choices about how to respond.  I am not saying he lacked marksmanship training. I’m saying cops in general need more training than to have their first response be to shoot first. 

7 minutes ago, ChocolateReignIII said:

What training or gear do you believe he lacked?

For a theoretical start -  have they done training on how to handle knife scenarios without shooting?  If he had had a minute or two - did he have gear and training other than a gun to stop the threat?  For example if the only weapon a cop has is a gun - that means there’s pretty much zero chance of him using anything but deadly force to defend himself or others.

My issue is not with this cop at this scene. 

My point is we need to stop asking if the cops are following protocol and start asking why don’t cops have better protocols and training and tools (literally and figuratively) to do their job less violence.

[ktgrok]

Batons is interesting....I went on a binge of detective/police novels set in the UK and in some, batons did play into the story line. Again, fiction, but it made it seem that a baton strike to the arm would pretty much incapacitate someone at least momentarily. 

(in some, can't remember if it was the English ones or Scottish ones, only uniforms had batons, not detectives...useless bit of trivia there, lol)

No idea if that works in real life, or if police are trained with them here. (an asp, not a billy club)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

1 minute ago, Murphy101 said:

For a theoretical start -  have they done training on how to handle knife scenarios without shooting?  If he had had a minute or two - did he have gear and training other than a gun to stop the threat?  For example if the only weapon a cop has is a gun - that means there’s pretty much zero chance of him using anything but deadly force to defend himself or others.

My issue is not with this cop at this scene. 

My point is we need to stop asking if the cops are following protocol and start asking why don’t cops have better protocols and training and tools (literally and figuratively) to do their job less violence.

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.

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, kokotg said:

I don't know who most of these new/old posters are, but police killings sure do motivate people to make new accounts and start posting again. Weird.

You could probably go back 10 years and find the same people justifying each and every incident from Walter Scott to Philando Castile to Tamir Rice. I wish I was exaggerating. It’s predictable and gross.

[brehon]

17 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

And most paramedics in the US cannot carry or use blood products. All we have is saline or lactated ringers which don’t help.

I once had a patient who had an accident with a piece of farm equipment. By the time we got to the trauma center I had infused so much saline that the patient was literally bleeding pink. This wasn’t a wound where a tourniquet would have helped and even MAST pants (yes, I just dated myself) were ineffective.

People can bleed out fast. Worst bleeders in my experience are knife or similar wounds. Bullets cause their own damage, sometimes horrific, but they usually don’t bleed out like knife wounds. 

[HeartString]

4 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Is there a better piece of equipment available today that would have had the same effectiveness as the tool this officer did use?

I saw or heard the suggestion of rubber bullets that I thought was interesting.  
 

What would an officer in this situation have done in a different country?  In the UK for example.  Just  curious about the differences.  

Edited April 22, 2021 by HeartString

[WildflowerMom]

3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Is there a better piece of equipment available today that would have had the same effectiveness as the tool this officer did use?

This is a really good question.    

[Murphy101]

2 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Batons is interesting....I went on a binge of detective/police novels set in the UK and in some, batons did play into the story line. Again, fiction, but it made it seem that a baton strike to the arm would pretty much incapacitate someone at least momentarily. 

(in some, can't remember if it was the English ones or Scottish ones, only uniforms had batons, not detectives...useless bit of trivia there, lol)

No idea if that works in real life, or if police are trained with them here. (an asp, not a billy club)

Myself and one of my sons had a rabbit trail with amateur stick fighting years ago after watching the walking dead.  LOL. I assure you that with training a well placed baton will do a hell of a lot more than buy you a few minutes. But of course it’s only a step away from hand to hand combat and that’s always dicey. Just because you know the move you can make does not mean your opponent will give you an opening to actually make that move.  I would be curious to know how much hand to hand/restraint and baton training cops have in other places and how that has affected their communities. 

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Is there a better piece of equipment available today that would have had the same effectiveness as the tool this officer did use?

I think that is a great question. 

Again, not juding this guy, but asking questions. 

Would an extendable baton, used by someone with training, with a blow to the arm/hand carrying the knife, force them to drop the knife or stop what they are doing? (outside of mediocre british crime novels, anyway? Cause it definitely works in those, lol)

[WildflowerMom]

1 minute ago, HeartString said:

I saw or heard the suggestion of rubber bullets that I thought was interesting.  

That is an interesting suggestion.  I know they are used in protests.   I don’t know that it would work here, but it’s a good suggestion, imho.  

[Goldcrest]

12 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Great. If you read my previous posts you would see that if I had been in his shoes I think I would have shot as well. Because we base that reasoning on what ability the person had to choose otherwise. Better training and better gear can mean a cop is empowered (in the positive sense) to have more choices about how to respond.  I am not saying he lacked marksmanship training. I’m saying cops in general need more training than to have their first response be to shoot first. 

For a theoretical start -  have they done training on how to handle knife scenarios without shooting?  If he had had a minute or two - did he have gear and training other than a gun to stop the threat?  For example if the only weapon a cop has is a gun - that means there’s pretty much zero chance of him using anything but deadly force to defend himself or others.

My issue is not with this cop at this scene. 

My point is we need to stop asking if the cops are following protocol and start asking why don’t cops have better protocols and training and tools (literally and figuratively) to do their job less violence.

Serious question. If your child was being raced toward by a physically mature person with a knife aimed for the throat, you would want the officer to take the chance of using non lethal force to stop this person, knowing that the odds are reasonable that non lethal force would be ineffective? Would you waive your outrage and right to sue if they sent a mental health centre professional instead and your child had their throat slit open? 

[WildflowerMom]

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

I think that is a great question. 

Again, not juding this guy, but asking questions. 

Would an extendable baton, used by someone with training, with a blow to the arm/hand carrying the knife, force them to drop the knife or stop what they are doing? (outside of mediocre british crime novels, anyway? Cause it definitely works in those, lol)

My dad used to carry a baton or at least keep it in his trunk.   I can’t imagine an elongated one having the strength at the end of the baton to do much.  
 

lol’ing at you bringing books into the convo.   I can get on board with that!  

[Goldcrest]

I question how many people would sign up to be in law enforcement if they were expecting to engage in hand to hand combat with persons wielding butcher knives or cleavers as standard procedure. Do you know how close you have to get to someone to effectively strike them with a baton? Well within strike range of a knife. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Holmesschooler

[WildflowerMom]

3 minutes ago, Holmesschooler said:

Serious question. If your child was being raced toward by a physically mature person with a knife aimed for the throat, you would want the officer to take the chance of using non lethal force to stop this person, knowing that the odds are reasonable that non lethal force would be ineffective? Would you waive your outrage and right to sue if they sent a mental health centre professional instead and your child had their throat slit open? 

I think this is what it came down to for me, personally.   After hearing what the neighbors had to say and the video taken, I just had to put myself in the shoes of the girl’s mom (the girl in the white, I think).    I don’t want anyone to die or get hurt ever.   But I will come after someone if my kid is in danger.  

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, Holmesschooler said:

I question how many people would sign up to be in law enforcement if they were expecting to engage in hand to hand combat with persons wielding butcher knives or cleavers as standard procedure. Do you know how close you have to get to someone to effectively strike them with a baton? Well within strike range of a knife. 

How is that true, if the knife is less than half the length of the baton?

[WildflowerMom]

Batons are not that long, tbh.   

[lauraw4321]

On 4/21/2021 at 2:15 PM, MEmama said:

Idk. It doesn’t sound warranted.

Then again, it rarely is. Which is why police is many (most?) western countries aren’t armed. Their freaking job is to literally to protect. How can shooting into that kind of situation possibly be a responsible action? 
 

 

Under US law, police are generally not in charge of protecting individuals who aren’t in their custody. See Castle Rock v Gonzales. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

How is that true, if the knife is less than half the length of the baton?

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.

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

a standard baton is really only like a foot long, right?  My steak knives are like 6in long, so we are talking only about a 6in difference, which is easily traversed with a footstep. 

Oh - I'm talking about the extendable batons that are like, 26 inches. More asp than club. 

[AbcdeDooDah]

Rubber bullet trajectories are unpredictable. 

[pinball]

People can google bolawrap and byrna 

these are 2 things I’ve seen news stories about that are non lethal and can be used from a distance

*i am not saying they are appropriate in this situation, or even how appropriate they’d actually be in LE. I just saw them recently in the news*

[Goldcrest]

3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

a standard baton is really only like a foot long, right?  My steak knives are like 6in long, so we are talking only about a 6in difference, which is easily traversed with a footstep. 

Yes, and the grasps on nightsticks typically are inset several inches to provide leverage. You are not holding a baton by the tippy end. Not to mention for a baton to be useful you must have a solid landed blow, not just the tip of the baton to make contact. However the tip of a knife can easily do lethal damage if it lances across the right spot. 

[Murphy101]

23 minutes ago, ChocolateReignIII said:

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.

Okay. 

13 minutes ago, Holmesschooler said:

Serious question. If your child was being raced toward by a physically mature person with a knife aimed for the throat, you would want the officer to take the chance of using non lethal force to stop this person, knowing that the odds are reasonable that non lethal force would be ineffective? Would you waive your outrage and right to sue if they sent a mental health centre professional instead and your child had their throat slit open? 

What outrage? I can’t really hear you past that nonsensical comment. I have expressed zero outrage.  Asking that cops get more training and gear and better protocols in an effort to overall reduce the need to resort to deadly force is not outrage. It’s like -2 on a scale of 1-10 outrage. 

7 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

How is that true, if the knife is less than half the length of the baton?

Batons are usually 18-24 inches and about 1 inch thick. If you have to get within arms reach of someone with a knife - you are risking getting cut. For most people over the age of 6 - that 2 feet is totally within arms reach. And much longer and you start to lose the momentum that makes it forceful enough to be effective. 

[Goldcrest]

1 minute ago, Murphy101 said:

Okay. 

What outrage? I can’t really hear you past that nonsensical comment. I have expressed zero outrage.  Asking that cops get more training and gear and better protocols in an effort to overall reduce the need to resort to deadly force is not outrage. It’s like -2 on a scale of 1-10 outrage. 

Batons are usually 18-24 inches and about 1 inch thick. If you have to get within arms reach of someone with a knife - you are risking getting cut. For most people over the age of 6 - that 2 feet is totally within arms reach. And much longer and you start to lose the momentum that makes it forceful enough to be effective. 

I was referring to being fine with having an officer stand by and do nothing while your child was stabbed. Many would find that outrageous and demand to know why the officer did not do something. 

[ktgrok]

Just now, Holmesschooler said:

I was referring to being fine with having an officer stand by and do nothing while your child was stabbed. Many would find that outrageous and demand to know why the officer did not do something. 

I don't think anyone said that?

[ktgrok]

Thank you to those that had more knowledge of collapsible batons than me! Like I said, I went into this discussion with fictional knowledge only, lol. (they work WAY better against knife attacks in books, it seems)

[kokotg]

What do LEO in the UK do? Because, for real, they have a problem with knife violence and the police almost never kill people there. Serious question--I just googled and tried to find out and found news stories about the police breaking up massive knife fights but no details on how they did it. Getting back to how this started about what police protocols are--how are they different in other countries re: this kind of situation? 

[kokotg]

5 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Genuinely, in the UK, I believe the girl in the pink would have wound up dead.   

Maybe. But whatever the police are doing differently here isn't leading to a lower homocide rate even just for knives (of course it's massively higher here for guns): https://www.euronews.com/2018/05/05/trump-s-knife-crime-claim-how-do-the-us-and-uk-compare-

[ChocolateReignRemix]

1 minute ago, kokotg said:

Maybe. But whatever the police are doing differently here isn't leading to a lower homocide rate even just for knives (of course it's massively higher here for guns): https://www.euronews.com/2018/05/05/trump-s-knife-crime-claim-how-do-the-us-and-uk-compare-

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.

[kokotg]

1 minute ago, ChocolateReignIII said:

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.

okay. but the idea here is the police action DID prevent a homicide. When I googled to see how the police would handle such a situation in the UK, I did find multiple accounts of police present at and breaking up knife fights, but I couldn't find any details on HOW. Clearly it wasn't by shooting people, though.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Just now, kokotg said:

okay. but the idea here is the police action DID prevent a homicide. When I googled to see how the police would handle such a situation in the UK, I did find multiple accounts of police present at and breaking up knife fights, but I couldn't find any details on HOW. Clearly it wasn't by shooting people, though.

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. 

[kokotg]

Just now, ChocolateReignIII said:

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. 

I am genuinely interested in finding out what the protocols are for law enforcement in the UK facing similar situations. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. That the protocol is to let people die? That it's so rare there simply aren't any protocols? That you have no idea but you're positive they haven't come up with anything better? Like, I'm not debating whether the cop in THIS situation did the right thing or not; I'm actually wondering what a cop faced with the same situation in country with a very different attitude toward policing would do. 

[SKL]

7 minutes ago, kokotg said:

okay. but the idea here is the police action DID prevent a homicide. When I googled to see how the police would handle such a situation in the UK, I did find multiple accounts of police present at and breaking up knife fights, but I couldn't find any details on HOW. Clearly it wasn't by shooting people, though.

Knife fights - as in gang fights using knives?  That's different from an armed girl suddenly attempting to slice an unarmed girl's throat.

And a lot of times, you have a person with a knife saying they are going to do XYZ, and you have a chance to talk them down.  That's also not pertinent to the present case.

I often hear of stories in the US of cops talking people down from various potentially deadly situations.  I don't think it's true that the go-to reaction is to shoot first and ask questions later.  Nowhere close.  From what I've read, most US LEOs have never even shot their guns while fighting crime.

IMO the rhetoric we see in cases like this just causes more problems.  And yes, there are problems, but we should strive to be factual if we actually want to solve them.

[Goldcrest]

22 minutes ago, kokotg said:

What do LEO in the UK do? Because, for real, they have a problem with knife violence and the police almost never kill people there. Serious question--I just googled and tried to find out and found news stories about the police breaking up massive knife fights but no details on how they did it. Getting back to how this started about what police protocols are--how are they different in other countries re: this kind of situation? 

There is an entirely different approach it seems in that UK policing in general is much more preventative than it seems American law enforcement is in the present day. Preventative tactics like stop and search are routine there as opposed to American where such tactics are seen as endemically racist and frowned upon. Police also partner more with communities up front. You could perhaps say it is preventative versus reactive policing. 

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mopac_knife_crime_strategy_june_2017.pdf

Officers also wear knife proof vests and train specifically against knife crime. There is a group from Scotland who has actually gone to America to help train police forces in other ways to combat knife crime, without lethal force. Being said however, how many knifings there still are that occur with frequency, particularly among teenagers males. 

[SKL]

15 minutes ago, kokotg said:

Maybe. But whatever the police are doing differently here isn't leading to a lower homocide rate even just for knives (of course it's massively higher here for guns): https://www.euronews.com/2018/05/05/trump-s-knife-crime-claim-how-do-the-us-and-uk-compare-

The US population isn't really comparable to the UK population.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Just now, kokotg said:

I am genuinely interested in finding out what the protocols are for law enforcement in the UK facing similar situations. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. That the protocol is to let people die? That it's so rare there simply aren't any protocols? That you have no idea but you're positive they haven't come up with anything better? Like, I'm not debating whether the cop in THIS situation did the right thing or not; I'm actually wondering what a cop faced with the same situation in country with a very different attitude toward policing would do. 

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.

[kokotg]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

The US population isn't really comparable to the UK population.

no. it's way more murdery for one thing.

[kokotg]

3 minutes ago, ChocolateReignIII said:

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.

So you don't know the answer to my question.

[Goldcrest]

To clarify my post above, I was not meaning preventative versus reactive to the situation in question with the officer using lethal force. Rather in general, I do not think it is currently in favor in America to use preemptive and preventative policing. I believe it was called Stop and Frisk and how that is now a frowned upon tactic. There are differently held views on surveillance, preventative tactics, such as questioning, searching and other things that would not be tolerated in America and would be seen as a violation of rights. That makes it difficult to broach an apples to apples comparison. You do not have an equal protection to Miranda or unlawful search in the UK like in the US. There are rights of course, but they are no where near as broad  in the UK. Although I am not a legal expert to be able to compare on a point by point legal basis. But generally speaking, Americans have and hold more tightly to certain rights. I do not think the general video surveillance in the US is quite the same either, although perhaps so in large cities? 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Holmesschooler

[Sneezyone]

The restrictions in place for LEO stops in the UK are in no way comparable to the US.  For starters, LEOs are required to tell you what they’re looking for before a search. It is interesting to me that they are required to identify themselves and provide a record of these interactions too. We don’t have those rights in the US. https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights

Edited April 22, 2021 by Sneezyone

[HeartString]

18 minutes ago, Holmesschooler said:

To clarify my post above, I was not meaning preventative versus reactive to the situation in question with the officer using lethal force. Rather in general, I do not think it is currently in favor in America to use preemptive and preventative policing. I believe it was called Stop and Frisk and how that is now a frowned upon tactic. There are differently held views on surveillance, preventative tactics, such as questioning, searching and other things that would not be tolerated in America and would be seen as a violation of rights. That makes it difficult to broach an apples to apples comparison. You do not have an equal protection to Miranda or unlawful search in the UK like in the US. There are rights of course, but they are no where near as broad  in the UK. Although I am not a legal expert to be able to compare on a point by point legal basis. But generally speaking, Americans have and hold more tightly to certain rights. I do not think the general video surveillance in the US is quite the same either, although perhaps so in large cities? 

Stop and Frisk was stopped not because it was seen as racist, but because it was found unconditionally because it was being used in a racist way.  Black people were stopped far more often.  And crime didn’t spike after it was stopped so it seems like it was doing nothing but harassing people.  

https://civilrights.org/edfund/resource/nypds-infamous-stop-and-frisk-policy-found-unconstitutional/
 

 

“In 1999, Blacks and Latinos made up 50 percent of New York’s population, but accounted for 84 percent of the city’s stops. Those statistics have changed little in more than a decade. According to the court’s opinion, between 2004 and 2012, the New York Police Department made 4.4 million stops under the citywide policy. More than 80 percent of those stopped were Black and Latino people. The likelihood a stop of an African-American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of White New Yorkers stopped, and the likelihood of finding contraband on an African American who was stopped was one-third that of White New Yorkers stopped”

Edited April 22, 2021 by HeartString
Context

[ktgrok]

46 minutes ago, kokotg said:

What do LEO in the UK do? Because, for real, they have a problem with knife violence and the police almost never kill people there. Serious question--I just googled and tried to find out and found news stories about the police breaking up massive knife fights but no details on how they did it. Getting back to how this started about what police protocols are--how are they different in other countries re: this kind of situation? 

Good question. 

27 minutes ago, ChocolateReignIII said:

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. 

I'm not sure that a knife fight with MORE weapons is less dangerous than with only one armd person?

21 minutes ago, kokotg said:

Like, I'm not debating whether the cop in THIS situation did the right thing or not; I'm actually wondering what a cop faced with the same situation in country with a very different attitude toward policing would do. 

Its a good question, and like you, one I'm wondering without trying to say this cop was right or wrong in this situation. It just has me thinking and asking questions. 

21 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

IMO the rhetoric we see in cases like this just causes more problems.  And yes, there are problems, but we should strive to be factual if we actually want to solve them.

But asking questions is how we find out those facts. Asking questions (honest ones, not rhetorical) is how we find out more, and think through stuff. 

[HeartString]

The culture in the UK towards police is probably far less fear based.  Our police kill far more people, and our jails are far more hellish.  When people are less afraid they will act differently and you get a different kind of feed back loop than we have.