444
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 May 2025
444 points (97.6% liked)
Not The Onion
16648 readers
272 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No one said to reason with them. Just neutralise them without using a lethal weapon. Mace, batons and manpower will put any unarmed person on the ground.
So you think beating the shit out of someone is better than tasing them?
Let's see: do we want to see Daddy all beat up and bloody for a few days while he recovers / detoxes in jail, or do we want a nice tidy closed casket?
It objectively is. Most people are put out of action by 1-2 whacks with a telescope baton. If you've ever felt one, you'll know that your muscles basically go numb when you're hit - it's not just pain.
One of the major disadvantages with deploying tasers to untrained people (e.g. American cops), is that it causes them to think they can handle 1-on-1 confrontations and then panic when the taser fails (not unlikely). The safer way to deal with a single unarmed person is to overwhelm them with several people that force them to the ground with sheer volume of baton blows (to the legs/body), pepper spray, and body mass.
I think you're missing the part where he's hyped up on meth and adrenaline. I've seen people take multiple gunshots in that condition before going down.
Sure you have. Your other comments claim you're an IT admin.
Ah yes, my career shields me from all horrors on this earth
This is not unique to people on meth, and just underscores why guns are a sub-optimal weapon in CQB. In reality, a person is reliably stopped dead in their tracks if hit in the thigh bone, hip, nervous system (spine/head) or heart. Any other hit, and they have anything from seconds to hours where they remain nearly fully functional.
Note that most of the body is not one of these critical zones. Hit someone with three lung-shots at 3m range, and they'll still be able to reach and stab you. This is a large part of the debate regarding the "stopping power" of various types of ammunition (i.e. how much of the ammunitions momentum is imparted into the target, physically stopping them), and is a large part of the reason expanding ammunition is preferred for close-range exchanges (e.g. police).
A baton strike to the liver or knee will physically shut down part of your body. Just look at any professional fighter that receives a solid strike to either and see how they go down. This has nothing to do with meth or adrenaline, but is a physiological response to the strike.
He wasn’t unarmed.
Japan has man catcher poles that allow you to subdue someone without getting near them. They allow you to hold the person until they get tired or you can get the weapon away from them.
These should be standard in every police force.
Guy in the back is having fun
That’s the guy in front, there is a mirror.
They really should. I've never run across this before, but they seem like a great option to have.
Idk why you're being downvoted, you're right. However my point still stands for anyone not armed with a weapon with decent range.
The point is that you deal with such a person by bringing more people to the scene and swarming them. Any person that is only armed with a short-ranged melee weapon will be quickly overwhelmed by many people with mace and batons coming at them from several sides. If you have any kind of training, you should be able to maintain sufficient distance that they can't harm you with e.g. a knife, and from there it's a game of patience to wear them out or find an opening to grab them and swarm them.
Do people become stab proof when they swarm someone with a knife?
You could have made your point without being obtuse.
When you swarm someone with a knife, you are able to attack them from many sides at once. This means that when they slash around you control distance, and if they try to single out someone, that person backs off while those behind them go in to whack or grab them. To see this in action, either look up videos of how humans pick off a cornered animal, or videos of how police without firearms or tasers in one of many countries (Norway and England come to mind) take down someone with a bladed weapon.
Of course, preferably you'll be wearing a vest, but given 5-6 people with batons and training, dealing with a single person armed with a short-ranged bladed weapon shouldn't be an issue where you get injured.
This isn't radical rocket science. It's being done regularly all around the world.
It's not as effective as you think it is. Just google London police officer stabbed.
First of all, I've been involved in this myself, so I'm not talking out of my ass.
Secondly, by far most cases of "London police officer got stabbed" are the result of a police officer being forced into a confrontation without time to back out and request backup. If someone at <5 m range decides to stab you, and you're unprepared, you'll get stabbed regardless what you're armed with.
My argument regards police responding to an armed person, where they have the time and space to control the confrontation.