[Analcuck]

The “21-Foot Rule” was developed after Salt Lake City officer Dennis Tueller timed how fast a suspect with a knife could close distance.

Result: An attacker can cover 21 feet in about 1.5 seconds, faster than most officers can react, draw, and fire accurately.

That’s why departments train to stop the threat immediately, not attempt precision wounding.

I won't bore you with Taser stats and the intricacies of the fallacy of the "shoot them in the leg" myth.

Google some shit, my cop-hating friends.

And FFS, pray that a cop in the same situation with you as a potential victim cowering behind him like this guy's wife follows his training and eliminates the threat before he and you are the ones getting eliminated.

There are dozens of examples of "bad shoots" and trigger happy pigs on this website; this was clearly not one of them.

[foxfantastic]

Originally Posted by Anal Dough ↗

The “21-Foot Rule” was developed after Salt Lake City officer Dennis Tueller timed how fast a suspect with a knife could close distance.

Result: An attacker can cover 21 feet in about 1.5 seconds, faster than most officers can react, draw, and fire accurately.

That’s why departments train to stop the threat immediately, not attempt precision wounding.

I won't bore you with Taser stats and the intricacies of the fallacy of the "shoot them in the leg" myth.

Google some shit, my cop-hating friends.

And FFS, pray that a cop in the same situation with you as a potential victim cowering behind him like this guy's wife follows his training and eliminates the threat before he and you are the ones getting eliminated.

There are dozens of examples of "bad shoots" and trigger happy pigs on this website; this was clearly not one of them.

Thank you, Helpy Helperton . I dont think a cop is gonna pull out his pocketwatch and time the slimeball, and no one said anything about hating the police. Im certainly not gonna lose sleep over this man's death.

What Im saying is that we have all of this technology at our disposal and there is absolutely nothing else that would have worked? We can land a man on the moon, send a satellite to touch the Sun, we can create AI to simulate our own thought processes....but a man with a machete is both completely unexpected and beyond our capability to tackle?

[Analcuck]

Originally Posted by foxfantastic ↗

Thank you, Helpy Helperton . I dont think a cop is gonna pull out his pocketwatch and time the slimeball, and no one said anything about hating the police. Im certainly not gonna lose sleep over this man's death.

What Im saying is that we have all of this technology at our disposal and there is absolutely nothing else that would have worked? We can land a man on the moon, send a satellite to touch the Sun, we can create AI to simulate our own thought processes....but a man with a machete is both completely unexpected and beyond our capability to tackle?

You’re arguing past what actually happens in those situations.

Nobody thinks a guy with a machete is “beyond our capability.” The issue isn’t capability, it’s time, distance, and unpredictability. Technology doesn’t replace the fact that an officer is standing a few dozen steps away (if that) from someone making split-second decisions. You can’t deploy satellites, negotiation teams, or some sci-fi solution in the three seconds it takes for someone to close a gap and seriously injure or kill another person.

All that advanced tech you’re talking about works because it’s planned, controlled, and engineered. Violent encounters are the exact opposite. They’re chaotic, fast, and messy. There isn’t a pause button where everyone gathers data and picks the most elegant option.

You don’t have to feel sympathy for the guy. But comparing space programs and AI to an immediate life-threat scenario is like asking why we have hospitals if people still die in car crashes. Different problems, different constraints, and no amount of technology removes the reality that sometimes decisions get made in seconds, not laboratories.

You should know this. I appreciate your heart, but no, we are not living in the future where crime is stopped with the accuracy of a Terminator.

[foxfantastic]

Originally Posted by Anal Dough ↗

You’re arguing past what actually happens in those situations.

Nobody thinks a guy with a machete is “beyond our capability.” The issue isn’t capability, it’s time, distance, and unpredictability. Technology doesn’t replace the fact that an officer is standing a few dozen steps away (if that) from someone making split-second decisions. You can’t deploy satellites, negotiation teams, or some sci-fi solution in the three seconds it takes for someone to close a gap and seriously injure or kill another person.

All that advanced tech you’re talking about works because it’s planned, controlled, and engineered. Violent encounters are the exact opposite. They’re chaotic, fast, and messy. There isn’t a pause button where everyone gathers data and picks the most elegant option.

You don’t have to feel sympathy for the guy. But comparing space programs and AI to an immediate life-threat scenario is like asking why we have hospitals if people still die in car crashes. Different problems, different constraints, and no amount of technology removes the reality that sometimes decisions get made in seconds, not laboratories.

You should know this. I appreciate your heart, but no, we are not living in the future where crime is stopped with the accuracy of a Terminator.

Well, actually with the advent of AI.....

I hear what you are saying, but apprehending violent, aggressive individuals is also not an "unpredictable" situation for law enforcement. As a matter of fact, it's something they encounter on a regular basis.

It ties in with the recent deaths of people protesting. You're telling me we have no ability to apprehend these people without killing them. Absolutely NONE.

[Analcuck]

Originally Posted by foxfantastic ↗

Well, actually with the advent of AI.....

I hear what you are saying, but apprehending violent, aggressive individuals is also not an "unpredictable" situation for law enforcement. As a matter of fact, it's something they encounter on a regular basis.

It ties in with the recent deaths of people protesting. You're telling me we have no ability to apprehend these people without killing them. Absolutely NONE.

Frequency does not equal predictability.

Law enforcement deals with violent people often, yes. But each encounter still hinges on variables that change second to second. Distance, weapon, bystanders, lighting, reaction time, whether the person charges or hesitates. Those factors determine whether less lethal options even have time to work. Tasers fail. Pepper spray takes time. Physical restraint requires proximity that can get someone killed if the suspect is armed.

AI doesn't solve physics, reaction time, or human behavior under stress. It can't slow down a charging person or guarantee compliance. Hell, it can barely pull off a decent joke or an acceptable response to a shit-post (despite the best efforts of some of my ChatGPT-dependent contemporaries).

There are many arrests that end without lethal force every day. The existence of those successes doesn't eliminate the rare situations where the window to act is measured in a heartbeat.

I won't continue to debate you on this. You've been here long enough to have seen what happens when cops hesitate at the wrong moment. I feel like you're just arguing from the perspective of a utopian unicorn, so pointing out any more flaws in your reasoning is likely to spiral into further fantasy land or petty semantics, and I'm just not in the mood.

Thanks for the discourse. Keep dreaming.

[foxfantastic]

Originally Posted by Anal Dough ↗

Frequency does not equal predictability.

Law enforcement deals with violent people often, yes. But each encounter still hinges on variables that change second to second. Distance, weapon, bystanders, lighting, reaction time, whether the person charges or hesitates. Those factors determine whether less lethal options even have time to work. Tasers fail. Pepper spray takes time. Physical restraint requires proximity that can get someone killed if the suspect is armed.

AI doesn't solve physics, reaction time, or human behavior under stress. It can't slow down a charging person or guarantee compliance. Hell, it can barely pull off a decent joke or an acceptable response to a shit-post (despite the best efforts of some of my ChatGPT-dependent contemporaries).

There are many arrests that end without lethal force every day. The existence of those successes doesn't eliminate the rare situations where the window to act is measured in a heartbeat.

I won't continue to debate you on this. You've been here long enough to have seen what happens when cops hesitate at the wrong moment. I feel like you're just arguing from the perspective of a utopian unicorn, so pointing out any more flaws in your reasoning is likely to spiral into further fantasy land or petty semantics, and I'm just not in the mood.

Thanks for the discourse. Keep dreaming.

I guess I'll take the last word then

Yes, there are variables, but also similarities in cases like this and the ICE shootings in Minnesota. It's an individual, on foot, with no perceivable armor. I'll concede that tasers do not always connect properly, so does that mean we cannot improve upon them?

If you're willing to kill the suspect, might as well invent something that will be severely debilitating, but still survivable for most.

AI is more capable than you give it credit for. Gemini was actually telling me how scientists now use AI to analyze and predict minute changes in a nuclear reactor in order to keep it stable, and Im speaking about microseconds. It may not be useful to apply to these types of situations yet, but we'll get there eventually.

[><0300><]

Originally Posted by foxfantastic ↗

I'll grant that he was being aggressive, violent, and ignoring clear commands, but you're telling me that after so many centuries law enforcement has absolutely no other recourse in this type of situation other than lethal force.

You cant shock the guy? Fire a pair of bolas around his ankles? Fire a net? Throw a rubber blanket? We have a spray meant specifically to incapacitate bears, but thats also out of the question.

Only death

I think .. I wanna say Deputy Herzog out of Washington. Enough said. I can pull many many more names if you'd like

[foxfantastic]

Originally Posted by ><0300>< ↗

I think .. I wanna say Deputy Herzog out of Washington. Enough said. I can pull many many more names if you'd like

I see your point, but this is 2026. Surely we can devise something that will stop someone in their tracks besides deadly force.

[ironmike]

Originally Posted by Anal Dough ↗

Frequency does not equal predictability.

Law enforcement deals with violent people often, yes. But each encounter still hinges on variables that change second to second. Distance, weapon, bystanders, lighting, reaction time, whether the person charges or hesitates. Those factors determine whether less lethal options even have time to work. Tasers fail. Pepper spray takes time. Physical restraint requires proximity that can get someone killed if the suspect is armed.

AI doesn't solve physics, reaction time, or human behavior under stress. It can't slow down a charging person or guarantee compliance. Hell, it can barely pull off a decent joke or an acceptable response to a shit-post (despite the best efforts of some of my ChatGPT-dependent contemporaries).

There are many arrests that end without lethal force every day. The existence of those successes doesn't eliminate the rare situations where the window to act is measured in a heartbeat.

I won't continue to debate you on this. You've been here long enough to have seen what happens when cops hesitate at the wrong moment. I feel like you're just arguing from the perspective of a utopian unicorn, so pointing out any more flaws in your reasoning is likely to spiral into further fantasy land or petty semantics, and I'm just not in the mood.

Thanks for the discourse. Keep dreaming.

Good points. Additionally, chemical sprays and Tasers have been studied and determined neither can be made more potent without increasing the chances their use can be deadly, depending on what medical issues exist with who they are used on. And for the "just pull out your club and whack them over the head" advocates, hand to hand combat is a bad idea against an unarmed person let alone someone carrying a weapon. Another interesting point is this is basically a domestic violence call. I have a friend who is a cop and told me of the countless times he's had to physically subdue a guy and the next thing he knows the bloody and beaten wife/girlfriend is climbing his back, trying to claw his eyes out, screaming "Leave him alone!".

[Analcuck]

Originally Posted by foxfantastic ↗

If you're willing to kill the suspect, might as well invent something that will be severely debilitating, but still survivable for most.

Not debating, just pointing out that such an invention already exists: It's called, wait for it... not beating the shit out of your wife then charging at a cop with a machete. In situations like this, it works (almost) every time.... unless you're black.

I hope your fantasy comes true one day, John Lennon, Jr. — till then, I'm grateful for the folks who make these sorts of decisions in the moment so I don't have to.