Just as the verdict in the Derek Chauvin case was coming down on Tuesday, another high-profile police shooting of a Black person was taking place in Columbus, Ohio. But this case resolved very differently than the Chauvin case. Police had been called to a house where a fight was taking place and body cam video of the incident was released almost immediately. Here's what it showed:
The girl wearing black, identified as 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant, has a knife out and is obviously about to stab the girl wearing pink. A police officer on the scene shot Bryant four times before she could do any harm.
By American standards this was a righteous shooting. The police officer did the right thing and will certainly not be in any trouble over it.
But looking at this a little more broadly suggests that maybe American standards aren't very good. Police are trained to react to situations like this with direct firepower, and you can make an argument that this is the right thing to do. But was it? Would rushing the two girls have been adequate? A warning shot? A taser? In countries like Norway and the UK it would have been handled differently simply because cops in those countries don't routinely carry guns.
Shooting Bryant was, in some sense, the lowest-risk response. It was 100% guaranteed to save the girl in pink from any injury whatsoever. But would a different response have been better, even if it ran some small risk of the girl in pink suffering some (probably non-fatal) injury?
I think so.
The notion that we as a nation can put people (back) on the moon, fly helicopters on Mars, and video chat across the planet using pocket computers, cannot reliably and quickly disable somebody that presents a danger to the public without killing them, is ABSURD.
The truth is, we are a Gun Culture, and that is the weapon of choice.
100%. Killing someone to prevent them from killing someone will never make any sense to me. And there are, clearly, alternatives. We have just made a decision to be a culture that both values life on Sundays and is glad to be bloodthirsty the rest of the week. It's sick and sad, but remarkably sustainable. I don't expect any improvements in my lifetime.
Nifty take on the "man on the moon" trope there.
In this case the officer was justified for the use of his gun
Anger and INTENT were present as was a deadly weapon (knife)
If this were a fist fight? Of course keep it holstered and separate the combatants
But in this case it was a split second between the time the knife was visible and the ability for that knife to strike the victim.
A Taser has an effective range of about 10 feet. Optimally you are 7 feet from the victim but effectiveness in stopping the victim is now in question:
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/729922975/despite-widespread-use-police-rate-tasers-as-less-effective-than-believed
So estimated less than a second before the knife impacts the girl - still several feet away from the weapon and the cop has his gun at the ready?
Shoot her
Besides become a gun loving society we are also a litigation loving society and protection of LIFE is the prime responsibility here
We ask police to make INSTANT decisions using THEIR best JUDGEMENT
Some make bad decisions - Chauvin, some don't.
Some will say this cop should be charged as should the Adam Toledo officer.
I say no to both circumstances.
What we DO NEED is truly independent review and decisions made NOT based upon race. Until we have that every shooting of every suspect will be questioned.
And THAT is grossly unfair to police officers everywhere
Agreed. Pepper spray is better.
Pabodie
Reaction to Pepper spray varies from person to person.
With a deadly weapon present, and in use, a gun remains the only alternative this police officer had
The number of instant experts around here rivals Twitter.