Video: Cops Fatally Shoot Suspect Who Stabbed Student In Brooklyn Synagogue

a reply to: Domo1

Well after they let him get the knife again, there was 3 cops there.
Plenty of back up at that point.

I mean I get that you don't want to get blood on you, but I think the much more dangerous thing at that point was the knife on the table.

a reply to: Shamrock6

So you just want to refuse to answer what I asked?
I have answered yours and was met with more questions, answer mine and maybe I'll give ya some more expert advice.

a reply to: kdyam

So since he MIGHT have another weapon the cop can't secure the very real weapon that his man just dropped?!
Get out of there with this what if stuff.

a reply to: Bilk22

Go away. How many people will be able to do that?

Are you trying to kick me out of a thread I started? Lol. That's a first for me!

I think it's not that many people are able to do that, but that some are able to do that, and you don't find out what you're dealing with until it's too late. It's also pretty easy to miss with a tazer even that close. I would love to have something more effective than a tazer and non lethal, but until that happens cops have to make a split second decision about which to pull out. I believe this cop made the right decision.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Shamrock6

Would you then take your sweet time moving over to secure it?
Why would you not block the path so that knife can not be picked up again?

I've got a fooking idea! How about you; -since you know all about how to do it properly, go out and do the job you think he obviously can't do right; nice and safe where you are.

he shoulda done this; he shoulda done that. he didn't pick his nose the right way. ow my butt has sores from not getting up off this easy chair in 96 hours.

a reply to: Domo1

But it wasn't split second....and there was 2 other cops there as well...

They let this man become a threat after they had neutralized him... Why is that not a point getting discussed?

a reply to: Bilk22

Well you're 0-2 so far. You said you'd walk up and Tase him. Problem one: I didn't see a Taser on the officer's belt, did you? How are you going to deploy something you don't have? Problem two: you still have to issue commands before applying a Taser to somebody.

Why you would start telling everybody else to leave the room boggles my mind. You're going to walk up and Tase him, so why do they need to leave? But that's an aside. Guess what the primary officer's job is when responding to a violent crime in progress: to engage the threat. Whether it's a stabbing, a shooting, an active shooter at the mall, whatever. The first officer (and officers, plural) are not there to rescue you. They are not there to give first aid. They are there to find the threat and neutralize it. The subject wouldn't have gotten to anybody before the officer could've engaged him. He was engaging the threat, like he's supposed to.

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: Bilk22

Go away. How many people will be able to do that?

Are you trying to kick me out of a thread I started? Lol. That's a first for me!

I think it's not that many people are able to do that, but that some are able to do that, and you don't find out what you're dealing with until it's too late. It's also pretty easy to miss with a tazer even that close. I would love to have something more effective than a tazer and non lethal, but until that happens cops have to make a split second decision about which to pull out. I believe this cop made the right decision.

Look this was totally mishandled from allowing potential hostages and/or victims stand around instead of clearing the room, to holstering his gun, there's so much wrong with this incident. If these are NY's Finest then I should either leave NYC or pack myself. This guy wouldn't have even made a reasonable cop on a TV series. This is a staged event or our NYPD really sucks that bad.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Shamrock6

So you just want to refuse to answer what I asked?
I have answered yours and was met with more questions, answer mine and maybe I'll give ya some more expert advice.

You haven't answered mine. Guess I'm not the only one refusing

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Bilk22

Well you're 0-2 so far. You said you'd walk up and Tase him. Problem one: I didn't see a Taser on the officer's belt, did you? How are you going to deploy something you don't have? Problem two: you still have to issue commands before applying a Taser to somebody.

Why you would start telling everybody else to leave the room boggles my mind. You're going to walk up and Tase him, so why do they need to leave? But that's an aside. Guess what the primary officer's job is when responding to a violent crime in progress: to engage the threat. Whether it's a stabbing, a shooting, an active shooter at the mall, whatever. The first officer (and officers, plural) are not there to rescue you. They are not there to give first aid. They are there to find the threat and neutralize it. The subject wouldn't have gotten to anybody before the officer could've engaged him. He was engaging the threat, like he's supposed to.

He should have had a taser with him. They have them in their cars. There was no call of a gun, so a taser would be appropriate. Second, I'm not a cop, but after thinking about it, this stupid cop let people stand around who could have potentially been taken and used as a hostage or stabbed themselves.

Oh and guess what? The crime was long committed. The only potential for more violence was allowing the Hassids to stand around becoming more potential victims. You have no clue yourself.

a reply to: Bilk22

There's so much wrong with this I'm not even gonna bother.

Real life isn't Die Hard bruh

a reply to: Shamrock6

Please!
You asked what I would have done and I answered.
You then asked another question and added more specifics.
Fine, I would do the same that he did until the man dropped the weapon.
After that you I already answered.

What is so unreasonable about stating that cop should have secured the weapon?
Why is it less of a danger for him to leave a path to the weapon that is not in the hands of the man then it would be to block the path?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Bilk22

There's so much wrong with this I'm not even gonna bother.

Real life isn't Die Hard bruh

The first protocol for any situation like this is to clear the room of potential hostages. You have no idea what you are talking about. Go away.


Edit Bruh? LOL How old are you? 12?

originally posted by: Bilk22
Oh and the first thing this cop did wrong was to not clear the room of potential hostages. This cop needs to be fired. He has no clue what to do. His training failed him.

Thank you! You've nailed it. Why on earth did they not clear the area?!!!! Dumber than a box of dirt sandwiches.

Shamrock: What is wrong with expecting professionals (which the cop is supposed to be), acting and speaking like professionals? Yep, I think it is entirely possible to conduct law enforcement without the gutter language.
This skinhead needs to find a new line of work.

a reply to: Bilk22

So....you say NYPD has Tasers in their patrol vehicles, correct?

Then why is it the NYPD policy on Tasers is they're assigned to ESU and sergeants? The entire NYPD has about 2,000 Tasers. And that's after they ordered 500 more in May of this year. For a department of over 8,000 vehicles and 34,000 officers. So tell me again how you know what you're talking about?

As for the "bruh" comment, no I'm not 12. I just know how to talk to my audience

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: kdyam

So since he MIGHT have another weapon the cop can't secure the very real weapon that his man just dropped?!
Get out of there with this what if stuff.

Great so the cop goes to "secure" the weapon this guy dropped and then gets stabbed or someone else gets stabbed while doing it? Are you living in the real world or in make believe land? If I wanted to throw someone off I would drop the weapon they could see for a little easing of the stress, for the weapon they couldn't see. People who look to cause violence usually carry more than one weapon.

a reply to: kdyam

But that is not what happened, you are the one involving an imaginary knife and want to tell me I'm in fantasy land?

What if he doesn't get stabbed while he goes to secure the weapon and is able to do his job and arrest this man and get him in front a judge and offer him his due process like the constitution dictates?

See I can do what if's too.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: kdyam

But that is not what happened, you are the one involving an imaginary knife and want to tell me I'm in fantasy land?

What if he doesn't get stabbed while he goes to secure the weapon and is able to do his job and arrest this man and get him in front a judge and offer him his due process like the constitution dictates?

See I can do what if's too.

Has anything come out saying that the guy didnt have another weapon on him?

a reply to: kdyam

It's your claim that he most likely he had another weapon since

People who look to cause violence usually carry more than one weapon.

So maybe you can find the info to back it up

a reply to: Sremmos80

It's not unreasonable in a black and white world.

I would've done exactly the same as this officer did, up to a point. As the primary, his job is to contact the threat. He did so. He got the subject focused on him. The job of getting everybody else out of the room falls on following officers, not the one who's in contact with the threat. He got the guy to put the knife down. Ok, still good. This is where I vary from this officer: I wouldn't have left the subject standing. He would've been on his face. At this point, and ONLY at this point would I consider telling everybody to get out. I probably wouldn't have though, because this guy was obviously agitated as all get out, and I don't know how he'll react to the sudden commotion of everybody scrambling for the exit. And that's IF these people left, which I obviously can't make them do and am not going to debate it with them. Given that these people were also trying to defuse the situation, I think it very likely that at least a few would've stayed in the room anyway. So now we're up to securing the weapon. In this situation, I wouldn't have moved. Period. I would've waited for following officers to arrive, and then and only then would I have moved to secure the SUBJECT, not the weapon. Again, I have no idea how this guy will react to me approaching him, much less trying to put cuffs on him. Beyond that, given everybody'so position to the knife, I don't see how the officer could've secured the knife in any way without a) turning his back on the subject, or at least having to contort his body around to try and grab the knife and b) what's he supposed to do with it then? You can't stick a knife in your belt like you can a gun. Were he to have tried to position himself between the subject and the knife, he would've been in extremely close proximity to the subject, and would've had to approach the subject to do so.

In the end, we can see that the subject reacted aggressively to two things: the officer approaching him, or at least getting close to him, as well as the officer taking his attention off the subject. I don't find fault with the officer for not trying to get into a fistfight with a knife in arm's reach, nor do I fault the officer for not trying to grab the knife before the subject did. If there's a fight, the subject is going to keep going for the knife. If the officer misses the knife when he grabs for it, he's now totally unarmed and facing off with a subject who's already demonstrated a willingness to attack somebody and to square off with the officer.