I imagine you already know there was a police shooting yesterday in Philadelphia where a black man with a knife was killed.
His name was #WalterWallace Jr, 27
He had a Knife and was at least 10ft away when 2 West #Philadelphia Police officers shot at least 10 times killing him.
He was a Father, a twin, and a son.
Another Black life taken at the hand of Police. Sickening!!! pic.twitter.com/0NWGU58p0P
— Maurice Ash (@TheMauriceAsh) October 27, 2020
And the usual expressions of Social Justice like arson and looting were demonstrated. I may do something on that later, but now I want to address the latest verbiage fashion coming from the left: De-Escalation.
We in the Gun Culture have been dealing with the concept of de-escalation since we started to carry and understood that we were not police, nor ninjas or spec ops in combat. One of the things we learned fast is that there is no set rule for de-escalation and than even trying to remove ourselves from a situation, there are no guarantees that we would not have to end up using deadly force to defend ourselves.
If we ourselves are unsure what is going to work on a given situation and we pray some of what we read and train works, there is no way that some idiotic BLM follower can seriously argue about de-escalation techniques and what the cops did wrong. Hell in the video you can clearly see cops retreating (which what Liberals demand from us all the time rather than defending ourselves, ain’t that funny?) which is clearly a de-escalating step, but useless if a crazed man with a knife is chasing after you.
I asked around what do they meant by de-escalation, and so far I have not had an answer of any kind. Maybe I’ll get lucky and somebody will give me his/her version of what de-escalation means.
Maybe we will learn something new that we can use to stay safe, but I doubt it.
Funny how they expect only one side to de-escalate…
Miguel, I think you’re reading this wrong, to an extent. It’s not that the “AF” saw a different video than you did, or even necessarily disagrees with the shoot deep down.
At this point, no matter what the cops do, it will – must – be wrong, or incomplete, or could have been done better. Let me reiterate: it would not matter what the cops did beforehand, if they shoot, they’re in the wrong. Because that feeds the message. Measured reflection and dispassionate analysis does not.
Monday morning quarterbacking at its worst and most evil.
It’s become pretty clear over 6 months of leftist agitation what the real meaning is: they want all their favored groups to be able to commit crimes without any consequence, ever.
Oh my, the “Anarchist Federation” is upset that the police didn’t de-escalate and get out of their way.
Perp is assuming room temperature. Situation successfully de-escalated.
No win situation for the cops. Don’t shoot, get knifed and possibly killed. Shoot and the blm/antifa terrorists take to the streets while the cops involved in the shooting are crucified for following standard policy, possibly jailed for protecting themselves. The only acceptable solution? Evidently the blm/antifa terrorists will only accept the shooting of another black attacker by allowing at least one cop to be attacked and/or killed before the attacker can be neutralized. And I’m sure they’d prefer both cops go to the hospital or morgue to be “fair” about it….
When someone preaches de-escalation, show them this video: https://youtu.be/fSwew_vyENc
You’re only allowed to fight back after they’ve killed you. And even then, you probably deserved it.
Oh boy. I saw the title link “The New Buzzword of the Left: De-Escalate” from the previous post and before this page even loaded I had Princess Bride running through my head “You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
I was right. After reviewing a video, the cops drew weapons and issued commands for the individual to drop the knife and kept moving to create space. In that situation, those are all appropriate de-escalation techniques. The eye-witnesses are some combination of ignorant and lying. Additionally I was impressed with the officers muzzle and rule 4 awareness in a high stress situation.
Much like the toddlers they are, leftists will latch onto a new word and start using without really understanding what the word means.
And, this is just another example. They likely heard the word de-escalation on some news story, or some web site, and decided that each and every situation can safely be de-escalated.
I saw “He had a knife and was at least 20 ft. away” and thought, Whoa, those cops let him get way too close. It’s too bad I know nothing about police work, or I would have realized the cops should have shot him in the leg, like I saw someone say on the news this morning.
There is an older story, I don’t know the truth of it, of a championship level shooter that was also a cop. He was on duty and ran into a perp that was armed with a gun/knife. The perp charged at the cop and the cop fired one shot, hitting the weapon and flinging it from the perp’s hand. The perp was then captured, cuffed and taken to the hospital for slight damage to his hand.
The cop was praised as amazing and a goal that all cops should strive to achieve. Shoot to disarm, not to kill. He was held up on news shows and in the papers as a great hero that all cops should aspire to become.
Finally he was on one of those local morning talk shows. The host is bubbly and babbling and they tell the story of our great shooter and how he shot the weapon and didn’t actually harm/kill the perp.
The host finally turns to the embarrassed cop and asks “So you have shown what a cop can do with good training, aiming for the weapon and disarming without killing. How are you going to pass on this lesson to other cops?”
“Well the first thing I’m going to tell them is shoot for center of mass. I was aiming for center of mass and missed by almost 3 feet, I was just darn lucky that I hit anything. Practice, practice, practice and make sure you are aiming for center of mass.”
We shoot to stop the attack. We shoot to center of mass and we stop shooting when the threat is ended. If that takes one shot or a couple of magazines, the goal is always the same: Stop the attack.
I can’t find it now, but there’s a clip going around of a guy screaming at the Philly Police “You brought a gun to a knife fight!”
Like it was their fault.
Also like he would have been okay if they’d stabbed the suspect to death instead of shot him? Am I supposed to have that as a takeaway?
To us, a gun is neither good nor evil — it is a tool with a very specific purpose, its use subject to the intent of its user.
To people like that, the gun is the embodiment of evil; no good person would ever have a gun, and nobody with a gun is ever good.
The gun being the embodiment of evil, a person who is shot to death is somehow “more dead” than someone who is stabbed, drowned, poisoned, bludgeoned, beaten, etc. As if someone who is stabbed is merely dead, but if they’re shot the evil inherent in the gun devours their soul. Or something.
So, yes, in a sense he’d be more okay (or less not-okay) if the suspect had been stabbed or beaten to death than shot.
But really, the only way he’d be truly okay is if the suspect had stabbed both cops to death. Back to the second sentence, the cops had guns, so by definition they cannot be good people.
Or maybe he just wants the cops at a disadvantage. It’s not likely the knife-wielding suspect would suddenly have become evil if he had stabbed the cops and stole their guns, after all.
Funny how the moral argument is entirely subjective, which means it’s not a moral argument at all.
“You brought a gun to a knife fight!”
My response would be, “so you are saying we should carry swords?”
“No attempt to de-escalate”?
Our local news showed a five-second clip of the moments leading up to the shooting. I saw five seconds of de-escalation attempts. Retreating, making space, open palms out, “drop the knife”, etc. All approved and (mostly) effective de-escalation tactics.
“Mostly” effective because there’s always someone who simply does not want to be de-escalated. “Peace needs two willing parties, war needs only one,” and all that.
The police showed they were willing. The suspect showed he was not. The ending was predictable.
And if the intent behind the outrage was to reduce police shootings by changing police TTPs (tactics, training, and protocols), reductions would happen, but it’s not. The intent is to reduce police shootings by hamstringing police so that criminals can commit crimes — up to and including assault, rape, and murder — without fear of repercussions.
You can tell the intent is dishonest because even after police do everything reasonable to de-escalate — and even go above and beyond “reasonable” — they still get demonized when the suspect forces their hand.
It’s only a matter of time before all hell breaks loose in the cities, when the police walk out and don’t come back, and the pseudo-anarchists find out first-hand what anarchy really means.
And the tweet is gone. . .
“He was 10ft away”
Dumbass ghetto rat shouldn’t have pulled the knife.
Well, he never will again?????
Ha…say the loosers who have never been in a knife fight
1-10ft is bout .25sec away, if not less
2-half sec later, your guts are all over the ground
Or
3-your tgroat is slashed