michael libby wrote: > Caught my eye: I was watching COPS or some such show on Saturday night on > channel 41 or 45 (I was just channel surfing during a commercial) and I > saw some police on that show disarm an obviously upset man, carrying not a > machete, but a shotgun. They tackled him from behind. Perhaps a little > cross-training is in order?
There has been a lot of misinformation and incorrect assumptions about how it is possible to do to disarm someone. What I have been trying to do is keep the options within the range of reality so that what might come out of these discussions is a solution that will stand a good chance of actually working. Showing how to disarm someone with a shotgun and doing it are two different things. Martial arts demonstrations are just that demonstrations. Situations in real life rarely go as smoothly. Secondly, depending on how close and where I was positioned in relation a person, I'd rather try taking a shotgun away from someone than a machete. No one has mentioned yet that organizations have been researching non-lethal means for more than twenty years now. I don't know about you, but I'm not paranoid enough to believe that there's a conspiracy to suppress the results. I just think that there may not be any perfect solutions. One poster suggested that it might have been better to have shot Mr. Jeilani 14 times with rubber bullets, which just goes to show what a lack of understanding there is on these issues (just ask a Palestinian). Another poster gave a number of links, one of which was an FBI report on non-lethal means, people should read it. > Since the taser is obviously ineffective, how about tranquilizer darts? > They seem to work on all those PBS wildlife shows. Will the makers of the > apparently broken taser be contributing some money to Jeilani's family > because the defect in their product may have lead police to concluce > thatdeadly force was necessary? Does the City at least cover funeral > expenses when the police kill someone? > Eleven minutes is not enough time for a small group of people to decide to > deprive a man of his life, a wife of her husband, and children of their > father. When can we expect not only the results of an investigation, but a > real plan for preventing future similar tragedies? I don't believe that the police debated for eleven minutes and then formed a consensus to murder Mr. Jeilani. I think that the decision was the result of training and a split second decision on the part of one or more officers (of course there might have been prior agreement that if he rushed anyone with the machete that they would shot him, which is not to say that he actually did rush anyone). I also don't believe that an investigation should take more than two or three months, and I think the Sheriff's investigation should be done in coordination with a citizens' police review board. There should be a permanent police advisory board composed of respected members of the minority community, along with a retired police officer, a representative of the public defenders office, a city council member, and a member of the mayor's staff, and a few other respected concerned citizens. This board should make a recommendation on the most effective non-lethal means to use in future situations (after reviewing all of the research). Michael Atherton Prospect Park _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
