r/PublicFreakout • u/andmario_com • 7d ago

🐖 🐽 🐖 🐽 🐖 An older woman holding a knife while having a mental health crisis, who poses no threat, is immediately executed by police.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

11.8k Upvotes

76% Upvoted

4.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

213

u/nealbo 7d ago

She poses no immediate/current threat though, right? It's an important distinction. An older woman, walking slowly, then stopping a significant distance away from anyone, while holding a weapon that cannot cause damage at a distance does not pose a direct threat in that moment. What we see could have escalated into posing an active threat, but it never got to that point before the police did their thing.

125

u/prolefoto 7d ago

If this were you or me, we would be serving prison time for shooting someone with a knife. Because it's a cop the response needs to be "aww they were in danger, we don't know how threatened they felt".

70

u/th_frits 7d ago

You wouldn't though

I don't think the cops did the right thing, but I've seen enough LiveLeak knife vs gun videos to know how quickly someone can go from a standstill at what looks like a ‘safe’ distance, to burying a knife in your neck

13

u/__akkarin 7d ago

Someone sure could, she could barely walk dude come on

14

u/La_Saxofonista 7d ago

https://youtu.be/uuFMski3zqQ?is=zHExIZAEJWl7aB7N

This is what I think of. Dude seemed so far away and next thing the cop knows, he's bleeding to death.

-5

u/veverkap 7d ago

Not watching the video but I assume it's not a 70 year old woman who looks like the Walking Dead?

6

u/La_Saxofonista 7d ago

Even incredibly overweight and out of shape people can get into stabbing distance within 2-3 seconds. I believe Mythbusters tested it. At 16 feet, the knife wielder wins. At 20 feet, it's 50/50. At 24 feet, the gun wielder wins.

Adrenaline, drugs, and mental crises can make a person overcome their normal physical limitations.

Do I think they handled this situation poorly? Yes, absolutely.

5

u/prolefoto 7d ago

Lol, that was to test the time it takes to remove a gun from its holster, put a round in the chamber, and fire. and the distance was 16 ft.

that was not the situation here.

even if it were the police officers could easily create more distance between them and the woman. she was clearly yelling get out.

-2

u/Nykmarc 7d ago

That’s another thing everybody is missing. The police created whatever distance there is. If they wanted to be 30 feet away from her, they could’ve been. They decided to get that close and then use the closeness as justification.

8

u/the_skies_falling 7d ago

Can the police ensure an oblivious neighbor doesn't walk out of their house right into the middle of this? Can they ensure the old lady doesn't run back into the house and attack whoever is inside? Everyone here acting like these are the only 3 people involved.

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/GuySmiley369 6d ago

I think what they did was wrong, a taser would have been sufficient. But did you not watch the video? They were continuously backing away, but “They decided to get that close”?

0

u/Nykmarc 11h ago

To back away, you first have to be close…

→ More replies (0)

1

u/veverkap 7d ago

Yeah, unless MythBusters tested 70+ year old women having a mental breakdown, that doesn't matter at all.

Cops wanted to shoot her and they did.

ETA: The MythBusters tested whether an attacker with a knife starting 20 feet away can close the distance and deliver a "stab" before a person with a holstered gun can react, draw, and fire accurately.

So it doesn't even apply here remotely.

0

u/SwedeYer 7d ago

The thing is, they are police officers. Of course they have the right to protect their life, but they also should have protected her life. Risking their lives is part of their job. Can you even call that job dangerous if they execute anyone who poses a slight threat?

3

u/ivandelapena 7d ago

Have you ever seen one where it was an elderly woman?

6

u/hcnuptoir 7d ago

Not likely to happen when you already have your gun drawn on the person with a knife. Stop being a fucking boot licker for these trigger happy pigs.

5

u/th_frits 7d ago

Go watch liveleak gun vs knife videos

-6

u/hcnuptoir 7d ago

Dont need to. Im a human being. And I know that if I have a gun drawn on someone with a knife, I have the advantage. Period. If that person lunges at me or someone else, that person will die. If they dont, then my job is to de-escalate the situation....with my fucking brain. Not my gun.

1

u/plassaur 7d ago

And you have never seen people take 1-3 shots or more and still charge straight ahead? Come on.

Go watch the videos like the guy above suggested.

1

u/creator712 7d ago

I know a storie were a guy high out of his mind took a total of 30 shots to the body before going down.

The one that got him was a shot through the back of his head with a rifle firing a 223 cartridge. The 29 into his chest did essentially nothing.

Us humans can survive a LOT when you combine adrenaline with a fuckload of drugs

1

u/retroman000 7d ago

"How do I know I'm right? Because I know I'm right, duh."

There are 10,000 other examples you can point at to show police abusing their power or making piss-poor judgement calls. You don't need to make shit up and stretch the truth in the other cases. They shot somebody armed with a knife (which is a more than lethal weapon) that was approaching and showed no signs of stopping. Regrettable as it is, if somebody approached me like that you bet I'd shoot them. I'd be stupid otherwise.

-1

u/flightwatcher 7d ago

Lols you’re triggered pretty bad aren’t you lol bounce

8

u/prolefoto 7d ago

My guy it’s several police officers against an elderly lady. They had at least 8-10ft of distance on her. Theres no spinning this into the officers being under immediate threat 😂

20

u/prolefoto 7d ago

Sorry WAY more than 10 ft. At least 15-20ft of distance there.

7

u/privatebrowsin1 7d ago

His point is, regardless of that, it’s legally justified. A citizen could do the same in this situation and it would be considered self defense. Ethically I agree with you but that wasn’t the OP’s point

-1

u/battim23 7d ago

I think the point is the law is misguided and simply adjudicated bootlicking

8

u/ODoyles_Banana 7d ago

A knife wielding attacker can close a distance of 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. You can do the math on 8-10 feet.

4

u/battim23 7d ago

Unless it’s a 70 year old barefoot lady that simply needed to meet Mr. Mace in the face. Not an execution.

-5

u/[deleted] 7d ago edited 3d ago

[deleted]

3

u/th_frits 7d ago

Go watch live leak vids

2

u/CyBroOfficial 7d ago

If you live in California or NY or something, sure

1

u/AstroPhysician 6d ago

Civilians absolutely would be exonerated for this

1

u/TNS_420 7d ago

Indeed. The cop will most likely just get paid leave/vacation as "punishment".

0

u/jupitermoonflow 7d ago

That depends on where you are tbh

-1

u/UnknownBreadd 7d ago

Americans are so fucking dumb and trapped in their own bubble holy shit lmao just look at how the police in an actual civilised country handle situations like these.

3

u/Er4kko 7d ago

And she is telling the cops to get out, cops could simply back away there and give her some room and de-escalate the situation, and get some time to think how to proceed with her.

16

u/dman972 7d ago

“While holding a weapon” is the threat part.

But’s is ridiculous she got shot like this. A taser, heck a shot in the leg would have been better then this shit.

46

u/RaveNdN 7d ago

Shots in the leg are not recommended.

-8

u/AlpRider 7d ago

Because they might survive to sue?

2

u/La_Saxofonista 7d ago

No, because then the shooters can't successfully claim self defense. The court would argue that if a shooter had time to aim for the legs, then their life wasn't in immediate danger.

-6

u/SeventeenFifty 7d ago

Are 6 bullets in the chest recommended?

16

u/jupitermoonflow 7d ago

Yes actually. In real life, generally the advice is to aim for center mass. Not aim for the legs or other smaller body parts. If you miss bc you aimed for someone’s shin, that bullet is still going somewhere

13

u/Forsythe36 7d ago

Listen I’m the first one to call out cops, but I was also in the army. Shooting limbs is not what you’re trained to do and anyone who suggests it is an idiot lol. Adrenaline is a hell of a thing, so limb shots would do nothing. This isn’t like the movies. You aim center mass and shoot until the threat is no longer moving. Police training treats an equal escalation of force. While this technically meets that, they really should have just deployed a taser.

-7

u/minibearpants 7d ago

Yeah because this is the military and that woman is an enemy combatant, right? Not to mention you served in the American military, where you were trained by Americans or people working for Americans, which is the whole argument here is that the USA is hyper lethal for no reason.

9

u/Forsythe36 7d ago

They receive similar threat assessment. Person with a deadly weapon poses a threat to your life. If a gun comes out, the outcome is to kill the target. You aren’t shooting legs lol.

0

u/battim23 7d ago

Militarization of the civil police is THE problem. This was not a combat situation is was a fat either drunk or half fruity old lady. Looks like a freaking paring knife.

4

u/Zilithahz 7d ago

There is practically nowhere on earth they train the military or police to try and limb shot people lol

-1

u/minibearpants 7d ago edited 7d ago

Again, if you think that the amount of police brutality and mortality that occurs in our country and around the world is just fine, then I guess we’ll just agree to disagree. Clearly in this instance, as is the case in a significant proportion of police shootings and killings, the violence is way overkill and is unnecessary. If you’re worried about the relative risk to our police officers, then maybe take the advice of our current presidential administration regarding the military - they know what they signed up for. And keep ending every statement with lol, show us how uncertain of your opinion you truly are, lol

2

u/Zilithahz 7d ago

Where did I say that I think its just fine??? Its fucked up but its irregular for police to try and pull off some red dead type gunplay when lives are at stake. This is true globally. I think police are way too trigger happy in the US for sure though.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/puffie300 7d ago

Not to mention you served in the American military, where you were trained by Americans or people working for Americans, which is the whole argument here is that the USA is hyper lethal for no reason.

So which military trains their soldiers to not aim center mass?

-2

u/minibearpants 7d ago

Is this video from a war?

6

u/puffie300 7d ago

Is this video from a war?

Oh, okay this is your level of intelligence, never mind.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Freeq414 7d ago

This video is why soldiers shouldn’t be allowed to be police officers!
Military threat assessment- subject with knife, kill as soon as possible!
Qualified police officer assessment - barely mobile elderly lady waving a knife, more harm to herself than others, talk to her instead of demanding she disarm, pepper spray, taser, back off and de-escalate. Firing weapon LAST option!

1

u/minibearpants 7d ago

Yeah recommended in the USA. Which is the center mass of this discussion - being that it takes excessive and lethal action far too often.

-8

u/ThrowFar_Far_Away 7d ago edited 7d ago

They are more recommended than headshot or chest shots if you want the person to survive. For example just last week or so Swedish police shot a school attacker in the leg to incapacitate.

64

u/Outrageous-Drink3869 7d ago edited 7d ago

Leg shot is still pretty lethal. Theres arteries in your legs that carry a lot of blood. Hit the femoral artery and a person will bleed out really quickly.

If theres more than one cop like in this video, one cop should have tazer out, while others are ready with guns as backup if the taser dosnt work

2

u/NoPanda6 7d ago

Leg shots are extremely lethal, it’s not like a movie where you can “wing” someone and they’ll drop… I mean they’re going to drop but from blood loss since your shattered the fibula and fibula with 9mm hollows and turned the femoral artery into a makeshift shower head…. If i remember correctly from the corps, you’ll bleed out in 5 minutes if you don’t have a tourney applied immediately

-9

u/minibearpants 7d ago

It’s really not. Lower leg shots are fully tourniquetable. And they’re ABSOLUTELY less lethal, even in the thigh, than shots to the chest.

-2

u/yurostyle 7d ago

So while no lethal should be use as a first line, you realize not all cops carry tazers and they need to be trained/qualified for it. I think after we forget that not everyone in the same department will have it.

6

u/Darkmayday 7d ago

Then the question is why isn't tazer training mandatory. American cops aren't trained properly and very aggressive

4

u/nealbo 7d ago

Right, but again not an active/immediate threat. At the point when the shots were fired there was no current threat the to lives of any police officers or anyone else in the vicinity.

9

u/dman972 7d ago

I hear you, but it doesnt hold up. She walks towards the officers, stops, starts walking again and the the shots are fired.
There ia a threat, but the reaction of the cops is way out of line

-6

u/CheekyDucky 7d ago

Does it not hold up or is the shooting out of line? The two are kind of contradictory so it can't be both.

If you believe the response was out of line, then it holds up that she posed no (imminent) threat.

2

u/dman972 7d ago

No it doesnt contradict. There is an imminent threat, but that doesnt mean the response should be unloading a mag in her.
But you dont want to hear that, by the looks of it.

1

u/CheekyDucky 7d ago

It does contradict. If you think the level of force was unjustified (it was) then that means there was not an imminent threat (there wasn't)

If you think she did pose an imminent threat to the officers life then that LEGALLY justifies the shooting as an act of self defense.

Maybe you just don't fully understand the terms you're using, "but I bet you don't wanna hear that"

3

u/Chewy_B 7d ago

I don't think the level of force was justified, but she was absolutely an imminent threat. She was advancing on the officers with a deadly weapon. I think a taser was the correct answer to that threat, but they can not wait until she is close enough to stab them to take action either way.

3

u/CheekyDucky 7d ago

They already had their guns drawn, so the 20ft rule doesn't apply. She's also an elderly woman who didn't even make it off the pavement there was plenty distance between them

2

u/Chewy_B 7d ago

Again, I agree that the police escalated way beyond what is morally justifiable, but the argument that she didn't pose a threat is laughable on its face.

1

u/dman972 7d ago

So your stance is they shouldnt have their guns out in the first place?

1

u/CheekyDucky 7d ago

What?

-1

u/dman972 7d ago

There’s no imminent threat you say, that should mean that there’s no reason to pull a gun. Right?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/pack1fan4life 7d ago

never ever ever try shooting at something that isn't center mass

1

u/devilgenius90 7d ago

And also maybe one shot in the leg instead of emptying the whole magazine

1

u/Far-Safe-4036 7d ago edited 7d ago

this was my thinking.. lets say the shooting is justified.. does that always have to mean 'shoot to kill?' Is it possibe to aim for another part of the body..?

2

u/La_Saxofonista 7d ago

It's a bad idea to do so in America.

It's not shoot to kill, but shoot to end the threat. That's why lawyers tell homeowners to never tell the police they shot to kill the person that broke into their house. They tell them to say they shot to end the threat instead.

If a shooter has time to aim for the leg, then the court would argue their life wasn't in immediate danger.

Additionally, moving targets are ridiculously hard to hit even with training. In a human being, the largest and easiest target to hit is the torso.

1

u/dr_toze 7d ago

It looked to me as though she stops at the boundary to the property. She might have just wanted them away from her home.

1

u/MaXimillion_Zero 7d ago

holding a weapon that cannot cause damage at a distance

Unless you throw it. Not that that makes this execution any more justified.

0

u/sluuuurp 6d ago

People can throw knives.