Florida man armed with garden shears survives gator attack before shot, killed by deputies
-
A witness told detectives they saw the suspect run at deputies with the shears. He was tased twice, but it didn't stop him.
Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said he climbed into the passenger side of a PCSO patrol vehicle, trying to get a deputy’s rifle.
That’s when two deputies, identified as a trainee and his trainer, opened fire on the suspect, killing him.
If you look up "failing up" in the dictionary, there is a picture of Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd staring back at you with his dead, dead eyes.
-
GTA VI live action promotion is wild.
We get GTA6 LARPing before GTA6
-
The ACAB brainrot is so pervasive that people are defaulting to reflexive posts that mean jack shit, and pay no attention to the actual context anymore.
Dude clearly needed mental health assistance not the cops. How about you take the boot out of your mouth and go back to X with this shit?
-
So you think beating the shit out of someone is better than tasing them?
It objectively is. Most people are put out of action by 1-2 whacks with a telescope baton. If you've ever felt one, you'll know that your muscles basically go numb when you're hit - it's not just pain.
One of the major disadvantages with deploying tasers to untrained people (e.g. American cops), is that it causes them to think they can handle 1-on-1 confrontations and then panic when the taser fails (not unlikely). The safer way to deal with a single unarmed person is to overwhelm them with several people that force them to the ground with sheer volume of baton blows (to the legs/body), pepper spray, and body mass.
-
Bullshit, man.
Clock the dude with the handle of a pistol in his head.
Kick him in the balls.
Run away from him.
Blind him.
Not that I agree with some of those options, but my point is, executing a man who clearly needs help ain't it
Terrible ideas. The first two require you being up close, which is unnecessarily dangerous. The third means abandoning the other people at risk. The fourth is just sadistic and impractical.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Region locked
-
He wasn’t unarmed.
Idk why you're being downvoted, you're right. However my point still stands for anyone not armed with a weapon with decent range.
The point is that you deal with such a person by bringing more people to the scene and swarming them. Any person that is only armed with a short-ranged melee weapon will be quickly overwhelmed by many people with mace and batons coming at them from several sides. If you have any kind of training, you should be able to maintain sufficient distance that they can't harm you with e.g. a knife, and from there it's a game of patience to wear them out or find an opening to grab them and swarm them.
-
I think Florida is situated over a hellmouth or something.
Nothing freezes to death in Florida...
-
I wish for that too. But we’re talking about the society we live in, not in the idealized one we wish we lived in. In the one we live in the situation happened and I don’t think the cops were completely wrong to act the way they did. Could and should they have done something else, I guess all the comments point to yes, but that doesn’t mean that they were entirely wrong to act the way they did. I would not put my own life on the line if I’m in the position of having to defend myself against a rabid meth head trying to steal my rifle.
Guess we'll just kick that can down the road every single time an incident comes up then.
Par for the course.
-
I didn't say the person got ahold of the rifle. That would be stupid.
Ok fine, running around with a different weapon and acting violently. Still not something where the police should say "who cares, not my problem"
-
Honestly I think in this case the cops responded as they should. They tried teasing him and that didn’t do anything and then he tried to take a rifle from them. At that point they didn’t have a lot of options.
They had to send the alligators. And when even that didn't work...
-
Japan has man catcher poles that allow you to subdue someone without getting near them. They allow you to hold the person until they get tired or you can get the weapon away from them.
These should be standard in every police force.
They really should. I've never run across this before, but they seem like a great option to have.
-
Idk why you're being downvoted, you're right. However my point still stands for anyone not armed with a weapon with decent range.
The point is that you deal with such a person by bringing more people to the scene and swarming them. Any person that is only armed with a short-ranged melee weapon will be quickly overwhelmed by many people with mace and batons coming at them from several sides. If you have any kind of training, you should be able to maintain sufficient distance that they can't harm you with e.g. a knife, and from there it's a game of patience to wear them out or find an opening to grab them and swarm them.
Do people become stab proof when they swarm someone with a knife?
-
Do people become stab proof when they swarm someone with a knife?
You could have made your point without being obtuse.
When you swarm someone with a knife, you are able to attack them from many sides at once. This means that when they slash around you control distance, and if they try to single out someone, that person backs off while those behind them go in to whack or grab them. To see this in action, either look up videos of how humans pick off a cornered animal, or videos of how police without firearms or tasers in one of many countries (Norway and England come to mind) take down someone with a bladed weapon.
Of course, preferably you'll be wearing a vest, but given 5-6 people with batons and training, dealing with a single person armed with a short-ranged bladed weapon shouldn't be an issue where you get injured.
This isn't radical rocket science. It's being done regularly all around the world.
-
You could have made your point without being obtuse.
When you swarm someone with a knife, you are able to attack them from many sides at once. This means that when they slash around you control distance, and if they try to single out someone, that person backs off while those behind them go in to whack or grab them. To see this in action, either look up videos of how humans pick off a cornered animal, or videos of how police without firearms or tasers in one of many countries (Norway and England come to mind) take down someone with a bladed weapon.
Of course, preferably you'll be wearing a vest, but given 5-6 people with batons and training, dealing with a single person armed with a short-ranged bladed weapon shouldn't be an issue where you get injured.
This isn't radical rocket science. It's being done regularly all around the world.
It's not as effective as you think it is. Just google London police officer stabbed.
-
It objectively is. Most people are put out of action by 1-2 whacks with a telescope baton. If you've ever felt one, you'll know that your muscles basically go numb when you're hit - it's not just pain.
One of the major disadvantages with deploying tasers to untrained people (e.g. American cops), is that it causes them to think they can handle 1-on-1 confrontations and then panic when the taser fails (not unlikely). The safer way to deal with a single unarmed person is to overwhelm them with several people that force them to the ground with sheer volume of baton blows (to the legs/body), pepper spray, and body mass.
most people
I think you're missing the part where he's hyped up on meth and adrenaline. I've seen people take multiple gunshots in that condition before going down.
-
If they aren't in Europe why would they care if it is GDPR compliant?
I'm probably overthinking this
They are a subsidiary of NBC. If they violate GDPR, European bureaucracy will go after the parent organization. Not worth the hassle.
-
most people
I think you're missing the part where he's hyped up on meth and adrenaline. I've seen people take multiple gunshots in that condition before going down.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Sure you have. Your other comments claim you're an IT admin.
-
It's not as effective as you think it is. Just google London police officer stabbed.
First of all, I've been involved in this myself, so I'm not talking out of my ass.
Secondly, by far most cases of "London police officer got stabbed" are the result of a police officer being forced into a confrontation without time to back out and request backup. If someone at <5 m range decides to stab you, and you're unprepared, you'll get stabbed regardless what you're armed with.
My argument regards police responding to an armed person, where they have the time and space to control the confrontation.
-
most people
I think you're missing the part where he's hyped up on meth and adrenaline. I've seen people take multiple gunshots in that condition before going down.
This is not unique to people on meth, and just underscores why guns are a sub-optimal weapon in CQB. In reality, a person is reliably stopped dead in their tracks if hit in the thigh bone, hip, nervous system (spine/head) or heart. Any other hit, and they have anything from seconds to hours where they remain nearly fully functional.
Note that most of the body is not one of these critical zones. Hit someone with three lung-shots at 3m range, and they'll still be able to reach and stab you. This is a large part of the debate regarding the "stopping power" of various types of ammunition (i.e. how much of the ammunitions momentum is imparted into the target, physically stopping them), and is a large part of the reason expanding ammunition is preferred for close-range exchanges (e.g. police).
A baton strike to the liver or knee will physically shut down part of your body. Just look at any professional fighter that receives a solid strike to either and see how they go down. This has nothing to do with meth or adrenaline, but is a physiological response to the strike.
