The Ma'khia Bryant shooting

[The Rogue Wolf]

Even if four bullets was the answer, why did he target center mass?

Several reasons:

- There is no such thing as a "safe" place on the human body to be shot. Arms and legs have major arteries that can cause someone to bleed to death within a couple of minutes of their being severed.
- Aiming for limbs runs the risk of a bullet either missing or overpenetrating and hitting someone behind the person being shot at.
- A life-and-death situation will turn almost anyone's aim to shit, so the best way to ensure that you only hit what you're aiming at is to aim at the biggest part of the body.

 

[happyninja42]

All I want to know is what led to her using that knife on the girl in the first place. What the hell happened in that house? Why weren't there any adults to try and stop it before getting the police involved, if possible? I know it sucks, but it is a justified shooting.

Who knows, they're teenagers, so it's entirely possible it's from them hanging out away from adult supervision. I know I did plenty of criminal shit at 16+, just non-violent. The fact that a couple teenagers were doing stupid shit outside view of parents is entirely feasible. The fact that it escalated to "a logical resolution is for me to shank a bitc*" is where things spiral off into crazy town in my opinion.

 

[Cicada 5]

My answer is that humans, especially teenagers are the dumbest creatures on earth. I'm pretty sure 8 year old me had more sense than 16. I just don't believe honestly any kid under 25 should be expected to make informed decisions, let alone at 16. If we want kids to be that way then we should lower all age requirements for everything and give them full rights as adults.

A. There were extenuating circumstances. This was not a psychopath stabbing people it was an actual fight in progress. I don't think the cop was trained or equipped to deal with it.
B. I think the officer used an excessive amount of force. He shot her 4 times when a taser would have been more effective when shooting her at all. I realize it's a lot to ask in this day and age, but he was close enough that he could have physically intervened.
C. I think as people everyone is responsible and failed. This kids life already sucked. I've been there. I'm not crying murder for the officer, but I do think his actions were emblematic of a system that punishes the poor and impoverished. I bet if I tried hard enough I could find the same circumstance where a celebrity tried to stabbed somebody and the police grabbed them or intervened rather than turning them into swiss cheese. What I'm saying is that I think this kid died because their life didn't matter in the first place. The cop "took out the trash" and that's heartbreaking.

The officer waited until the very last second to shoot. When she came chasing the first victim, the cop held fire and told her to stand down. When the first victim fell on the ground and couldn't escape, the cop held fire and told her to stand down. When she switched to her second target, the cop held fire and told her to stand down. It was only when she raised her knife with the victim pinned against the side of the car that he opened fire.

This was not a black person gunned by a triggerhappy cop who prefers to shoot first and ask questions never. This was as unambiguously justified shooting as one can humanly get. It sucks a teenager died but that would have happened if the officer did not act quickly. In this case, it was the kid wielding a knife who died, which is the less horrific outcome.

 

[Cicada 5]

I don't really want to get into yet another discussion of killings by police of minorities, but again, I feel non-lethal force was an option here. Not excusing the girl's actions or making her a martyr; I wasn't there, so I can't say with any certainty what "should" or "could" have happened, but if the officer was reacting to the situation, I feel a taser might have been enough? I mean, you're pulling a trigger either way; why not pull the trigger that incapacitates in lieu of the one that kills? He chose the latter... four times. Even if four bullets was the answer, why did he target center mass? Last I heard, a bullet to the leg or arm is enough to at the very least inconvenience a violent person long enough to restrain them to face the consequences of their actions. Just saying, if we can manage to arrest mass shooters with assault rifles, I think a teenaged child with a knife would be supremely more manageable. But we'll defer to the cops as always; she "shouldn't have," right?

A taser would have caused her to spasm which is not something you want to happen with a person holding a knife.

 

[CM156]

A taser would have caused her to spasm which is not something you want to happen with a person holding a knife.

Some people view tasers as an "off" switch for dealing with difficult people. The reality is far more grim.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Some people view tasers as an "off" switch for dealing with difficult people. The reality is far more grim.

I wish I could banish the term "non-lethal weapon" from the American lexicon. Things like tazers are "less-lethal weapons".

 

[BrawlMan]

Who knows, they're teenagers, so it's entirely possible it's from them hanging out away from adult supervision. I know I did plenty of criminal shit at 16+, just non-violent. The fact that a couple teenagers were doing stupid shit outside view of parents is entirely feasible. The fact that it escalated to "a logical resolution is for me to shank a bitc*" is where things spiral off into crazy town in my opinion.

That's what bothers me so much. It shouldn't have come to that, whatever happened in that house. The fact there was no adult around until after the situation start happening, is what bothers and ticks me off. I bet the rest of those teenagers in that house, are never going to be around without adult supervision for a long while. If they have parents or guardians that cares, they'll be on the kids asses for a long while.

 

[happyninja42]

I wish I could banish the term "non-lethal weapon" from the American lexicon. Things like tazers are "less-lethal weapons".

Well it's also not a guarantee that it would prevent her from physically being able to stab the other girl.

That's what bothers me so much. It shouldn't have come to that, whatever happened in that house. The fact there was no built around until after the situation start happening, is what bothers and ticks me off. I bet the rest of those teenagers in that house, are never going to be around without adult supervision for a long while. If they have parents of guardians that cares, they'll be on the kids asses for a long while.

I agree. I've never understood the need to escalate stuff. I've been around people who were like that, but it's always baffled me.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I can't really comment on the rest of your post, but this part frustrates me every time I see someone say it. Police, or anyone with gun training, is taught that if you are going to shoot, you aim for center mass. Why? Because it's a bigger target. You aim for an arm or a leg, you may incapacitate the target if you hit them...or you might miss entirely, and oops, you just hit a random bystander. In addition, it's not like shooting someone in the arm or leg is guaranteed non-lethal. Just the opposite, given that you have a major artery or vein in each leg and arm, and given how much smaller limbs are compared to torsos, the chances of at least damaging the artery or vein grows quite a bit.

I get what you're saying, but what part of police training teaches them that it takes FOUR shots to center mass to bring down a 16-year-old girl with a knife? One shot would have been plenty to stop her (if the taser wasn't a viable option; ) you don't shoot anyone near their most vital organs FOUR times with any expectations other than to kill them; I question does a 16-year-old girl and a knife present such an immediate threat that "less" lethal force would not have sufficed?

Again, I wasn't there and am not excusing her actions, but I would hope someone taught to enforce the law with the proper gun training as you suggest, is equally trained in de-escalation that doesn't automatically resort to shooting to kill.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Several reasons:

- There is no such thing as a "safe" place on the human body to be shot. Arms and legs have major arteries that can cause someone to bleed to death within a couple of minutes of their being severed.
- Aiming for limbs runs the risk of a bullet either missing or overpenetrating and hitting someone behind the person being shot at.
- A life-and-death situation will turn almost anyone's aim to shit, so the best way to ensure that you only hit what you're aiming at is to aim at the biggest part of the body.

All understood and very logical... but why four times? He wasn't trying to stop her; he was trying to kill her and he succeeded.

 

[Xprimentyl]

A taser would have caused her to spasm which is not something you want to happen with a person holding a knife.

C'mon, I think the risk of a spasm with a taser was worth not taking her life. I mean, four shots to the body had NO regard for her life; it was intended to TAKE it, so the excuse that a taser might have caused her to cut someone or herself while she's convulsing is the same as saying my couch caught fire, so I burnt my house down to keep the couch from burning up the living room.

 

[CM156]

All understood and very logical... but why four times? He wasn't trying to stop her; he was trying to kill her and he succeeded.

How many times have you shot a firearm? You shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. You do not dispassionately fire, assess for a few seconds, and fire again. Your first shot might miss, especially in a high stress situation like this.

 

[happyninja42]

All understood and very logical... but why four times? He wasn't trying to stop her; he was trying to kill her and he succeeded.

He WAS trying to stop her, by killing her. I've heard this from other people IRL about other shootings, saying things like "why didn't they shoot the knife out of the hand" or similar things. And the reality is that is just not how they are trained. 1. that's just a crazy hard shot, and you are more likely to hit anything BUT the target, which might mean you shoot an innocent bystander, or the victim you are trying to protect.
2. They are trained to shoot center mass, and keep shooting until they are down.
Movies and TV have conditioned a lot of the public, to think that Average Joe Cop, is capable of trick shots, presumably from their police training? But the reality is they are trained to shoot for center mass.

Because the gun policy is supposed to be, roughly, that if you've gone to using the gun, it's a lethal situation, and you should kill the target ASAP. So that means firing until they are down/dead. Because 1 shot might not actually stop them from doing what you are trying to do. There is no "non-lethal" shot with a gun, for reasons Rogue Wolf mentioned. In a perfect world, you are able to de-escalate it without needing the gun. But assuming everything the cop is doing is correct and proper procedure, once lethal force is authorized, it's applied liberally until the threat is down.

 

[Xprimentyl]

How many times have you shot a firearm? You shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. You do not dispassionately fire, assess for a few seconds, and fire again. Your first shot might miss, especially in a high stress situation like this.

Admittedly, very few times have I fired a gun, and never in defense of anyone, so I can understand the "how." What I will never understand is the "why." Why is it officers escalate to lethal force when their position and training should have them prepared to be able to assess a situation and determine if lethal force is necessary. My sisters fought waaaaay back in the '80s over something stupid, a curling iron I think; teenage hormones and whatnot ended up with the younger of the two (both older than me) chasing the other down the street with a knife. My father (their stepdad) chased my knife-wielding sister down and took the knife from her; he didn't shoot her, and he certainly didn't shoot her four times. Yes, that's anecdotal "evidence," and not all situations are equal; it's simply that I'd hope the people we entrust to enforce the law with justifiable lethal action at their disposal might be better prepared/trained to handle a volatile situation than the average Joe.

He WAS trying to stop her, by killing her. I've heard this from other people IRL about other shootings, saying things like "why didn't they shoot the knife out of the hand" or similar things. And the reality is that is just not how they are trained. 1. that's just a crazy hard shot, and you are more likely to hit anything BUT the target, which might mean you shoot an innocent bystander, or the victim you are trying to protect.
2. They are trained to shoot center mass, and keep shooting until they are down.
Movies and TV have conditioned a lot of the public, to think that Average Joe Cop, is capable of trick shots, presumably from their police training? But the reality is they are trained to shoot for center mass.

Because the gun policy is supposed to be, roughly, that if you've gone to using the gun, it's a lethal situation, and you should kill the target ASAP. So that means firing until they are down/dead. Because 1 shot might not actually stop them from doing what you are trying to do. There is no "non-lethal" shot with a gun, for reasons Rogue Wolf mentioned. In a perfect world, you are able to de-escalate it without needing the gun. But assuming everything the cop is doing is correct and proper procedure, once lethal force is authorized, it's applied liberally until the threat is down.

I'm not saying a trick shot was in order; I'm not blinded by what I see in Hollywood; I'm simply saying that if any shots were necessary at all, four was too many and clear the intent was to kill, and I'm not sure a child with a knife, however threatening, warranted death at the hands of a grown man if a taser was viable option. I'd much rather learn she was tazed and subsequently fell on the knife and died, versus she was shot four times and dropped the knife because lack of life made it impossible for her to wield it.

Yet again, I wasn't there and can't speak intimately to this exact situation, but as long as I hear about mass shooters being apprehended to face justice, I'll never understand how a child with a knife got the fatal business without hesitation.

 

[happyninja42]

I'm not saying a trick shot was in order; I'm not blinded by what I see in Hollywood; I'm simply saying that if any shots were necessary at all, four was too many and clear the intent was to kill,

Yes, that was exactly the intent. He wasn't shooting her to wound her. That's my point. Four isn't too many when the goal is to kill the target. If they died, that was the right number of bullets. Now whether or not she should've been killed, instead of brought down in another manner, that's a separate question/issue from "was 4 shots really necessary?" the answer to that, per most police standards is "since the goal was to kill the target, yes."

and I'm not sure a child with a knife, however threatening, warranted death at the hands of a grown man if a taser was viable option.

That's the problem though, was the taser a viable option? As it's been shown in other cases, they aren't a perfect response to try and take someone down.
And you're not sure if the child warranted death at the hands of a grown up. Well, I'm sure the girl in pink, didn't warrant death at the hands of a girl with a knife and...whatever had her so worked up that she felt stabbing someone was the appropriate response.

I'd much rather learn she was tazed and subsequently fell on the knife and died, versus she was shot four times and dropped the knife because lack of life made it impossible for her to wield it.

I'd rather learn that too. But what you also might have learned, since we are talking hypotheticals is "a girl was stabbed to death by one of her friends, after being tazed. Sources report she didn't respond to the deterrent, nor to the officers repeated orders to stand down. When tazed, she had enough momentum to still carry through with the swing, and fatally wound the victim." And that's where the grey area comes into these type things.

To be clear, I am 100% in favor of non-lethal, I hate guns, and think they should all be removed entirely, and the world would be a much better place if not only we didn't have them, but we also had a species who didn't WANT them. But I also appreciate that we don't live in that world, and sometimes situations can be too chaotic to handle without risk to lives. And that sometimes, the only option available is deciding who will die. It sucks, and I hate it, but the girl with the knife wasn't helping the situation at all. She was in fact, the root cause of the entire situation. You keep asking "why didn't the cop taze her?" I keep asking "Why in the hell did she keep trying to stab someone even after cops had shown up? Knowing full well what was going on? Unless she simply wasn't actually aware on a certain level?" *shrugs*

 

[Gordon_4]

Based on what I see here, there are three possibly viable alternatives, however they are imperfect and I recognise this for the armchair policing that it is.

1. A baton strike to the arm. Baton quality varies but I have no doubt an adult could deliver sufficient force through one to break the attacking girl’s forearm. However, this puts everyone in close quarters where legendarily things can go totally to custard very quickly. The strike could miss, be ineffectual or merely open the officer up to being stabbed.

2. A beanbag shotgun. Conceptually this has the same motivation behind it as a taser but relies on sheer blunt force trauma rather than electricity induced spasms. This one is probably the least risky of the three since if he’s in a position to fire a pistol, he can probably fire this instead. However that’s contingent upon him, you know, having one available which he might not. And if he had one, deciding to deploy it.

3. Manual disarming. I spent ten years learning a martial art that was all about locking up joints and restraining and I can tell you controlling a knife the second most terrifying situation you can encounter. This one represents the highest risk because it’a up close enough for assailant and police officer to see the whites of one another’s eyes and let’s be honest, unless you’re James Bond even the most well drilled among the police are unlikely to have the honed muscle memory and field reflexes to pull this off. Not without discombobulating the attacker to the point of being otherwise incapable first.


So yeah, science maybe make some headway on Star Trek phasers with that much valued stun setting.

 

[SilentPony]

How many times have you shot a firearm? You shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. You do not dispassionately fire, assess for a few seconds, and fire again. Your first shot might miss, especially in a high stress situation like this.

And I should point out pistols are horrifically inaccurate. The conceal/carry trainer at the Krav Maga place I trained at in the BEFORE TIMES was a Expert level pistol marksman, which means at 20 feet he can hit a target 75% of the time. Most cops have less than 3 weeks of marksman training in the academy. One of the reasons cops fire so much is because its hard to hit - the other that dead people can sue for damages, but that's besides the point.

 

[Revnak]

And I should point out pistols are horrifically inaccurate. The conceal/carry trainer at the Krav Maga place I trained at in the BEFORE TIMES was a Expert level pistol marksman, which means at 20 feet he can hit a target 75% of the time. Most cops have less than 3 weeks of marksman training in the academy. One of the reasons cops fire so much is because its hard to hit - the other that dead people can sue for damages, but that's besides the point.

Cops do waaaaaay more marksmanship training than that voluntarily though, and their training is a bit overboard on how many times they’re supposed to shoot. I don’t disagree that a single shot is too likely to miss, but police are regularly trained to fire until the target stops or they have no more bullets, which kinda cancels out the safety granted by targeting center of mass since plenty of those extra shots can miss and hit a bystander. I don’t know enough to judge if the number of shots here is excessive.

The officer waited until the very last second to shoot. When she came chasing the first victim, the cop held fire and told her to stand down. When the first victim fell on the ground and couldn't escape, the cop held fire and told her to stand down. When she switched to her second target, the cop held fire and told her to stand down. It was only when she raised her knife with the victim pinned against the side of the car that he opened fire.

This was not a black person gunned by a triggerhappy cop who prefers to shoot first and ask questions never. This was as unambiguously justified shooting as one can humanly get. It sucks a teenager died but that would have happened if the officer did not act quickly. In this case, it was the kid wielding a knife who died, which is the less horrific outcome.

Doesn’t she grab the knife from one of the other girls just seconds before charging the girl in pink and getting shot?

A taser would have caused her to spasm which is not something you want to happen with a person holding a knife.

A spasm is almost certainly not going to be a lethal stab though. I’m not judging the cop a murderer for not using a taser, my standards for cops are too low, but it probably would’ve been the wiser choice.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So there is another on/off conversation regarding this topic in the Derek Chauvin thread, and I just feel like im going crazy here.

I'm a lefty guy, and I follow a lot of other lefty people on Social Media, and Im seeing all of the same things that we saw with George Floyd, and countless others.

Marches. Protests. Virtue signalling "say her name" posts. Authority figures coming out to say how much of a tragedy this is. The works.

And I'm just sat here like - well, she tried to stab someone!

I get it, she was 16, and that is far too young for anyone to die - but if the officer waited any longer, it is quite likely that she would have seriously hurt the girl that she was standing in front of.

No matter which way I look at this, I cannot see this as anything other than a regrettable, but completely justified response from the police officer - and not some senseless escalation that we have seen so much of, recently.

Im seeing so many people mourning the life of someone who was moments away from really hurting someone, and I feel like im going nuts thinking that maybe we shouldn't be.

Maybe Im wrong.

I don't know with this one.

Oh it gets worse


She wasn't just trying to stab one girl she'd already had ago and previously she was in the house so after calling the cops she seemingly went into the house to get a knife then came out with the knife after police arrived and decided infront of the police it would be a good idea to attack 2 different girls?

I'll say my normal response here.

The only thing I'd say could have been done different is replace the gun with a Taser. That's it.
Even then the Taser would be a risk both to her and a risk of it not catching to actually impale the girl to deliver the shock.

All this bullshit from people on twitter about "Oh knife fights are normal" or "Oh teachers break these up all the time" No teachers don't any school where that kind of thing escalates to that level will have police turn up, teachers aren't regularly dealing with knife fights most places and I did a bit of teaching in one of the most deprived schools in the UK and never saw a knife fight once. Worst I saw was one kid try to blind another with a setsquare.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

What's being seen as a big tragedy in this case for those who don't know.

The girl who was killed was the one who called the police.

She called the police because apparently the other two (who she attacked) were harassing and bullying her or something like that and were threatening her.

I think for this one the outrage is less "Cops are lying and just wanted to waste the black person" and more "How come when there's a white guy with an AR actively shooting people, the police somehow manage to take him alive, but when its a black person with a knife they have to put 4 rounds into their back to stop them?"

Cause guns run out of bullets and a lot of active shooters who get taken in alive give themselves in

I don't really want to get into yet another discussion of killings by police of minorities, but again, I feel non-lethal force was an option here. Not excusing the girl's actions or making her a martyr; I wasn't there, so I can't say with any certainty what "should" or "could" have happened, but if the officer was reacting to the situation, I feel a taser might have been enough? I mean, you're pulling a trigger either way; why not pull the trigger that incapacitates in lieu of the one that kills? He chose the latter... four times. Even if four bullets was the answer, why did he target center mass? Last I heard, a bullet to the leg or arm is enough to at the very least inconvenience a violent person long enough to restrain them to face the consequences of their actions. Just saying, if we can manage to arrest mass shooters with assault rifles, I think a teenaged child with a knife would be supremely more manageable. But we'll defer to the cops as always; she "shouldn't have," right?

Police are normally trained to aim at the core and that stops people more and unfortunately is where a lot of organs are.
Shooting a moving leg or arm is hard to do.

Based on what I see here, there are three possibly viable alternatives, however they are imperfect and I recognise this for the armchair policing that it is.

1. A baton strike to the arm. Baton quality varies but I have no doubt an adult could deliver sufficient force through one to break the attacking girl’s forearm. However, this puts everyone in close quarters where legendarily things can go totally to custard very quickly. The strike could miss, be ineffectual or merely open the officer up to being stabbed.

2. A beanbag shotgun. Conceptually this has the same motivation behind it as a taser but relies on sheer blunt force trauma rather than electricity induced spasms. This one is probably the least risky of the three since if he’s in a position to fire a pistol, he can probably fire this instead. However that’s contingent upon him, you know, having one available which he might not. And if he had one, deciding to deploy it.

3. Manual disarming. I spent ten years learning a martial art that was all about locking up joints and restraining and I can tell you controlling a knife the second most terrifying situation you can encounter. This one represents the highest risk because it’a up close enough for assailant and police officer to see the whites of one another’s eyes and let’s be honest, unless you’re James Bond even the most well drilled among the police are unlikely to have the honed muscle memory and field reflexes to pull this off. Not without discombobulating the attacker to the point of being otherwise incapable first.


So yeah, science maybe make some headway on Star Trek phasers with that much valued stun setting.

Problem with 2 is they're also not super accurate weapons either.