Even deaf retards know when there's a gun pointed at you with the gun holder making what appears to be commands to stop, you stop. If this guy was retarded, where were his handlers? Why was this retarded guy unleashed on society for this to happen! No, cops aren't supposed to know he's retarded. Or deaf. They're supposed to know there's a man with a weapon refusing to relinquish it and advancing on them. And that a man with a weapon stupid enough to advance on cops with weapons trained on him is a threat to everyone around him.
So you don’t want to look at the facts because you know or fear you’ll be proven wrong. Which says that you know this is all BS and that these “tons” of events are just not happening.
I may be confusing this execution with a different one, but pretty sure this guy was minding his own business on his front porch and not "unleashed on society".
Defending yourself against a knife still leads to a high probability of getting cut. It doesn't take much of a cut for you to bleed out - even in boot camp I'm sure they explained that using your weapon would be the better choice than hand to hand.
Taking the time - yes only seconds but seconds is all it takes - to see if they locked up is taking too long.
Come on Mike, think about this for a second. Who was not on the scene when the witnesses say that a gun and knife was displayed? The police. They were not there so they have no way of knowing if the man actually had a gun and knife or not. Are you saying that the officers should arrive on scene with the expectation that the report that they received is wrong?
The military teaches one that the first action is to take out the enemy, so yes, if you're armed with a working firearm then take out the enemy from whatever distance is acceptable. On the other hand, originally, the police were trained to protect citizens (even criminals up to a point) so police don't arrive with guns blazing. I'm not too sure if that's always the best approach in today's social atmosphere though. Apparently there's always the exception to deal with.
If I were a cop, I would probably operate on the working assumption that absolute everybody has a gun and a knife. How to reconcile that possibility with public service is the trick.
Were their eyes functioning when they got there? What you're saying here is that anyone can call 911, say someone is armed and dangerous, and the cops will be perfectly justified shooting that person because what else could possibly be true? Why would they use their own eyesight to assess the situation? You and a couple others here are just reinforcing the fact that cops can't be expected to use any judgment and that any danger at all requires them to ventilate somebody. And then you turn around and say I should ignore those facts when dealing with cops. You can't have it both ways. If they're going to comport themselves as if everyone is a perp, and the slightest danger requires a lethal response which you guys claim is perfectly justified, then I am going to regard every one of them as a loose cannon who shouldn't be allowed to hold a gun, is untrained and probably got the job because his father was a cop. I'm just doing exactly what they're doing. To keep myself safe, I have to assume that they are dangerous. I can tell you one thing, if I had a kid that was mentally disabled, the last thing I'd tell him to do if he was lost is approach a cop. That's a good way to die since they can't be expected to be able to identify the disabled and not shoot them.
Maybe you should watch a few episodes of Cops. They use Tasers a lot and they work most of the time. They don't work if you can't aim them, though. The people not stopped by a Taser would be few and far between.
How about this - when you are approached by police, do exactly what they tell you to do, and nothing more? Seems like most of the shootings have involved not doing that.
Now you’re taking crazy-talk, haha! Gee, who would’ve thought that doing what police are asking would result not getting tasered, beat, pepper sprayed, etc.