Police

Fatal Police Shooting of Georgia Tech Student Should Have Been Avoidable

Lack of stun guns meets the typically poor handling of people having mental health crises.

|

Scout Schultz
Georgia Tech Pride Alliance

The fatal weekend shooting of a clearly troubled Georgia Tech student by campus police is a tragedy that likely could have been avoided.

On Saturday night, Georgia Tech police responded to a call about a person who allegedly had a knife and a gun on campus. They found Scout Schultz, 21, a computer engineering student who is also the president of the college's Pride Alliance and self-identifies as bisexual, nonbinary, and intersex.

Schultz did not have a gun, but was apparently holding a folded pocket knife. The encounter with police, captured on multiple videos by bystanders, shows Schultz slowly advancing on police despite orders to stop and drop the knife. At one point in the videos, Schultz can be heard yelling "Shoot me!" at the officers.

Eventually, after many warnings, one officer shoots as Schultz continues slowly approaching them, though Schultz is still a good 10 yards away. Schultz was struck in the heart and died early Sunday morning in the hospital.

From watching the videos, it appears as though the police started the confrontation thoughtfully, attempting to defuse the situation without having to resort to shooting Schultz. In one of the videos posted at the Washington Post, we see an officer carefully position the parking gate of the garage next door between the two of them to keep himself safe in the event Schultz decided to charge him.

When a police officer decided to shoot, Schultz's hands were down at the sides and Schultz was not in any sort of threatening posture. A very clear (and very vivid) video of the shooting can be viewed here.

It's an example of how poorly law enforcement agencies in America have been situated to deal with people having mental health problems. Schultz's mother revealed to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that Schultz struggled with depression and had previously attempted suicide.

So why didn't police use a Taser on Schultz? Georgia Tech campus police don't carry them. And while police have often abused access to stun guns using pain to try to force compliance when it's not needed (to the point that people get killed), the Schultz confrontation is a textbook example of when it's appropriate for police to have and use a Taser. It was not an option.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is, at the request of the Georgia Tech Police Department, examining what happened. They will turn over the results of their investigation to the Fulton County District Attorney's office to determine whether the shooting was legal.

Advertisement

NEXT: Short Circuit: A roundup of recent federal court decisions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. self-identifies as bisexual, nonbinary, and intersex.

    That explains the picture.

    1. Schultz struggled with depression and had previously attempted suicide.

      Some people might start seeing a pattern here.

      1. Getting a cop to shoot you seems to be a pretty effective means of offing yourself.

        1. Oh, hell to the no. Considering the average competency of cops, the stupid mofo’s would probably just leave me paralyzed or some damn thing. If I’m serious about capping myself, I’ll do the whole job myself, thanks just the same. (Just for the record, I’ve never seriously considered suicide. The world will probably kill me one of these days, but it can damned well do it itself. I ain’t helping.)

          1. Make sure it’s some type of un-provable suicide involving a corporation.. your family will still get a pretty sizable check.

        2. That it took so little provocation is a commentary on the bloodlust of the police.

          So often the police are asked, “Why didn’t you shoot him in the shoulder/leg?” and the answer is, quite reasonably, “When your life is on the line, there’s no time to make that distinction. You aim for center-of-mass to have the best chance of a hit.”

          In this case, the cop was doing a slow-fire after having plenty of time to aim. There was no immediate threat. The cop chose to shoot and selected the heart as a target. This **IS** a case where the lethal force did not have to be lethal, where the cop made a conscious decision to kill rather than wound.

          The victim was a nut job, and we may be better off without him. The cop is a murderous thug and we would definitely be better off without HIM!

          1. 100% CORRECT!!!!

            1. Agreed! That is my medical opinion, as well as common sense! A folded pocket knife, being the weapon involved, sort of tells me that it has the typical appearance of a suicide by cop. The cop was, all too, eager to help the guy meet his end! Not the type that i would like to see on my police force.

      2. Some people might start seeing a pattern here.

        A pattern of college students struggling with depression?

        1. Further your education like a thug, get depression like a thug.

        2. No, a pattern of people who choose interesting identifiers and depression. Every time I see a story like this it makes me wonder if there’s something more than just correlation and if there is causation then which direction it flows.

          1. That’s racist.

          2. Which came first, the serotonin deficiency or the alienation?

            1. [Thinks. Malfunctions. Head steams.]

        3. Another such pattern was the German National Socialist conclusion that because all jews, except Jesus, are innately selfish, the entire bloodline had to be exterminated to make the world safe for altruism. This is what comes to mind when today’s socialists tell religious conservatives that gays are innately gay. The video of First Responders–to whom the Republican Party dedicated its platform–murdering that helpless wimp, is a little too reminiscent of the footage of bodies being bulldozed into mass graves. Those films were shown at the Nuremberg trials, but also at German movie theaters by order of the US Government of Occupation.

    2. It’s a “tech” school – I bet half the campus looks like that.

  2. Any bets on whether or not the investigation reveals the need for more funding? Probably not for the cops, of course, but a new Student Office for Mental and Emotional Support for the Health of Intersexuals/Transexuals.

  3. Eventually, after many warnings, one officer shoots as Schultz continues slowly approaching them, though Schultz is still a good 10 yards away.

    “What? It’s what he wanted, isn’t it?”

    1. And he had a pocket knife. What I learned from this is that if you are going to be interacting with the police, you better trim your nails. We all learned from Oz that sharp long nails can be used to kill an officer, and the officers know it as well.

    2. It’s what they BOTH wanted. Everyone’s happy! 🙂

  4. Suicide by cop apparently; it’s seems easy enough to get shot without actually asking for it.

  5. So why didn’t police use a Taser on Schultz?

    Or an Asp – I would hope they carry an Asp to at least break windows in the case of emergencies. Sure, then they would be in trouble for breaking her arm, but at least she would be alive.

    1. I’m pretty sure you’re supposed to hold an asp against the person’s heart. That’s way too close.

    2. After Rodney King, most cop shops took away all types of clubs.

      1. As far as I know a good amount still have them, they just don’t carry them on their person – they leave them in the car or something like that.

      2. Now they carry a bag of oranges.

        1. Tube sock with a couple rolls of pennies in it.

    3. “Her”?

      That’s a hate crime , rightwing shitlord.

      They went by “Their”

    4. Snakes are far too unpredictable man.

  6. Would you or me be justified in using deadly force on someone with a pen knife?

    “I feared for my life! I mean.. he/she/it could have opened my mail with that thing!”

    1. Pretty sure we would be, yes.

      1. Doubt it would be ruled as self-defense at that range and under those circumstances – and certainly NOT in any state that lacks “Stand Your Ground” laws. In Kalifornia, this is First-Degree Murder if not committed by a clown in a cop costume.

    2. It’s only a couple of inches of steel in your gut, how bad could it be?

  7. Reminds me of an xkcd from last week.

    1. I think a lid would be pretty useful in a knife fight.

      1. Never thought of it that way. Very true.

  8. They will turn over the results of their investigation to the Fulton County District Attorney’s office to determine whether the shooting was legal.

    Schultz was coming right at the officers, never mind how slowly. He had a weapon, never mind that the officers were liable to get worse cuts from the edges of all the forms they had to fill out afterwards than they would from that pocketknife. Seems like a pretty straightforward determination of Good Shoot to me.

    1. If then wasn’t the right time to murder someone, then when?

    2. So, if he was walking, and he officer could walk (or jog) away faster, you would be OK with shooting him in the heart?

      1. I would have LOVED to have watched that slow-speed chase!

  9. “At one point in the videos, Schultz can be heard yelling “Shoot me!” at the officers.”

    It’s always tragic when someone commits suicide by cop, which this would seem to indicate–and should indicate to any jury.

    Color me skeptical when it comes to the taser solution. However many cops were there might have simply jumped on him with billy clubs and handcuffs and prevented this tragedy–you know why I bet they didn’t?

    Because there were people with cameras all around.

    If they’d jumped on this guy and beat the crap out of him until he let go of the knife or tazed him, right now, we’d be talking about video of police brutality against an LGBTQI+ student. The SJWs on campus would be screaming for the officers’ heads and insisting that the school President either press charges and condemn the brutality or resign. Antifa would join the protest on campus, etc., etc., etc.

    If in response to those concerns, campus police have resorted to an unwritten policy of only using lethal force when necessary and only using it in self-defense, then bringing tasers back on campus is just a tree in the forest.

    Let’s not miss the forest for the trees. SJWs and Antifa are the forest.

    1. However many cops were there might have simply jumped on him with billy clubs and handcuffs and prevented this tragedy–you know why I bet they didn’t?

      Is the answer, “because they’re pussies?”

      Because there were people with cameras all around.

      Like the cameras that caught them shooting a person who had their hands down?

      Let’s not miss the forest for the trees. SJWs and Antifa are the forest.

      Yeah, I forgot they’re always to blame.

      1. “At one point in the videos, Schultz can be heard yelling “Shoot me!” at the officers.”

        Did you not see this quote?

        That’s what the video shows. That’s what happened.

        1. Which has what to do with your SJW screed?

          1. If you don’t see how that’s a response to what you wrote, then you’re a lost cause.

            Because they’ll instruct the cops to only use lethal force in self-defense situations does not mean they’ll let the cops use non-lethal force in non-lethal situations–especially when they’re dealing with an official SJW making a big scene for the cameras.

            Antifa stays up late every night trying to think up new and better ways to get the cops beating up people on camera–and you don’t think campus police everywhere aren’t aware of that? That schools haven’t taken that into consideration when they’re instructing cops how to deal with protesters?

            Do you imagine Berkeley police–who know they’re on camera–just stand there and watch Antifa protesters smash windows, start fires, and do nothing because . . . why?

            1. Frankly, I think the guy was an Antifa plant.

              1. He was just a committed SJW.

                You don’t have to be an Antifa plant.

                Being killed on camera by the police is a glorious way to go if you’re an SJW.

                It’s like being a martyr for the cause. It’s like being thrown to the lions for Jesus.

                They’ll have a candle light vigil for the kid and turn it into a protest.

                That’s what being an SJW is–taking your identity and turning it into a tragedy for the camera and a call to action. They all want to be victims of the people they hate. Now, he’s finally achieved ultimate victimhood.

                1. Or maybe it was just a really screwed up individual trying to get him/her/itself killed. Holy shit, Ken, not everything is SJWs pushing narratives. Suicide by cop has been a thing for a long time.

                  1. Suicide by cop has been a thing for a long time.

                    It was just recently invented by the SJW, black bloc, Antifa leftists who are taking over the nation, stupid – OPEN YOUR EYES.

                    1. Pretty soon, the only people left on forums in general are going to be trolls..

                  1. They see themselves as foot soldiers in a war.

            2. I don’t understand why you believe that getting caught on camera tasering a person is somehow worse than getting caught on a camera murdering a person.

              1. You’re making a false comparison.

                The alternative to using non-lethal force is doing nothing, but doing nothing is not a realistic alternative to police defending themselves against a lethal threat.

                The comparison isn’t between lethal force and non-lethal force.

                The comparison is between using non-lethal force and doing nothing.

                Or the comparison is between using lethal force and doing nothing.

                If the police don’t use non-lethal force, then the school has eliminated any publicity from videos of non-lethal force being used. Instead of the news being full of images of the police using non-lethal force, the SJWs and Antifa get images of nothing whatsoever.

                Instructing cops not to use lethal force to defend themselves against lethal threats is a non-starter. You can’t tell cops not to defend themselves when they’re being attacked. You can’t expect anyone to just stand there and let themselves be killed.

                1. Given the number of fatalities from clubs and tasers, you should probably use the phrase “less lethal” rather than “non-lethal.”

      2. Is the answer, “because they’re pussies?”

        Nope. I’d shoot someone rather than get stabbed too.

        1. To some this situation of police shooting rather than getting stabbed is EXACTLY the same as police shooting unarmed black men running away.

          1. I see that. Those are some profoundly stupid mothetfuckers.

            1. Even funnier is that some of these cucks are Reason writers trying to get comment traffic.

    2. It’s always tragic when someone commits suicide by cop, which this would seem to indicate–and should indicate to any jury.

      Color me skeptical when it comes to the taser solution. However many cops were there might have simply jumped on him with billy clubs and handcuffs and prevented this tragedy–you know why I bet they didn’t?

      Because there were people with cameras all around.

      I’m with you here. Even if you managed to get the knife away from the person with no one getting stabbed/cut, the outcome is no better if they hang themselves in their cell or reattempt later. Not that any of these outcomes are guaranteed, but you’re starting the situation near the bottom of the moral barrel and subsequently getting upset that it comes out with a less than optimal moral outcome.

      This case almost seems a bit ‘Pride/Gay/Nonbinary Lives Matter!’

      1. Even if you managed to get the knife away from the person with no one getting stabbed/cut, the outcome is no better if they hang themselves in their cell or reattempt later. Not that any of these outcomes are guaranteed

        Which makes the former outcome better.

        1. Which is totally what he said.

        2. Which makes the former outcome better.

          ‘Former’ being the ‘suspect, begging to be shot, gets shot’ or the ‘use the taser you don’t have to possibly disable a suspect who can/will still cut/stab you and might kill themselves anyway’?

          Sure, no outcome is guaranteed, but this is a pretty blatant suicide (by cop) and not your typical police execution.

          1. It is suicide-by-cop. But disarming him “with no one getting stabbed/cut” is a better outcome, even if he later takes his life some other way.

            1. But disarming him “with no one getting stabbed/cut” is a better outcome, even if he later takes his life some other way.

              Right but ‘disarming with no one getting stabbed/cut’ isn’t guaranteed either (especially without other non-lethal options). One officer cut/stabbed and a subsequently successful suicide seems like just as reasonable or not exceedingly less/more probable an outcome as ‘successful suicide by cop’.

      2. Plus, I do not demand that police take knives away from suspects. They could get major arteries cut and die.

        These dipshits are holding weapons and walking TOWARD police. Not police jumping in front of suspect driven cars or police shooting unarmed black men running away.

        If police try and defuse the situation to some degree and then have to shoot. I support the police. Fuck these crazy death by cop people. Saves taxpayers money for a lifetime of counseling for depression or whatever.

        1. If police try and defuse the situation to some degree and then have to shoot. I support the police.

          1. Yup. Keep repeating what I said.

            I expect the police to operate in deadly situation just as me.

            If some quack is walking toward me with a knife, I try to defuse the situation and then if I am threatened with bodily injury, I double tap them.

              1. Yup. It is funny.

        2. Fuck these crazy [put favorite mental illness here] people. Saves taxpayers money for a lifetime of counseling for depression or whatever.

          I believe fascists and commies often have that same view point. Personally, I like to live in a society where people are compassionate. It just makes the whole place nicer because if cops can shoot crazy people at the point where they are not yet a risk to their safety and society says it’s okay then they can shoot anyone. We can even go back one step- if cops can shoot a black man who is feeling and society says it’s okay then they can shoot crazy people who aren’t a risk to their safety yet.

          1. Happens all the time in Albuquerque. As many deaths by cop as NYC.

    3. Let’s not miss the forest for the trees. SJWs and Antifa are the forest.

      If that’s the case, who’s the chain saw?

  10. They will turn over the results of their investigation to the Fulton County District Attorney’s office to determine whether the shooting was legal.

    Anyone placing any bets on the findings?

    1. It doesn’t fit the narrative. Nothing more is going to happen to anybody.

    2. An armed person is approaching you. That person has also expressed a desire to get shot.

      These are the known facts.

      What you do not know is whether this – obviously distressed – individual is truly willing to get all stabby on you.

      How long do you wait to find out?

      Ten yards out is perhaps a tad early, but maybe only one or two steps early.

      In most circumstances I’m not a “why don’t you shoot him in the leg” guy. Lethal threats get a lethal response. But in this particular case, were I that cop, I might have been willing to try a shot to his pelvic girdle rather than the center of his chest. If that didn’t stop him there would have been time for a follow up shot. Still might have been fatal, but not nearly so as putting one through his heart.

      1. There are degrees of fatality?

        1. No need to bring in quantum mechanics into the discussion…

      2. What’s to risk? If you can’t put one in his leg at 10 yards when the guy is practically standing there, you shouldn’t have a gun in the first place. Granted, accuracy suffers under stress, but you should be able to hit dimes at 10 yards under normal circumstances. Open that up to baseballs under these circumstances.

        1. “you should be able to hit dimes at 10 yards under normal circumstances.”

          There is no polite way to put this. So,

          You are an idiot with a knowledge deficit sufficient to warrant exclusion from further participation in this conversation.

          Because there are no service type pistols that routinely can group dimes at ten yards. That sort of accuracy and consistency is simply not part of the platform. At ten yards, freehand, those types of weapons will group golf ball at best. Add in the stress of an armed opponent and now your group is larger than an orange.

          And the problem is not not hitting him in the leg. The problem is twofold – does it succeed in incapacitating him, and/or have you just escalated an otherwise non-deadly confrontation.

          Which is why I’d never shoot anyone in the leg. That is just plain stupid.

  11. So Georgia has assisted suicide now?

    1. Pretty soon legal marijuana too.

      1. And not a moment too soon. I’m tired of Georgia thugs with badges who can’t identify legal plants, assume it’s whacky tobaccy and act accordingly.

  12. Armchair quarterbacking at its most irresponsible.

    Suicide by cop scenarios are incredibly complicated and involve making a choice to take someone’s life (or not) in a matter of seconds based on calculations that occur based on countless and varied situational and experiential factors. I’ve been in them.

    To make statements like “the Schultz confrontation is a textbook example of when it’s appropriate for police to have and use a Taser” is incredibly pat and likely false (unless the writer can provide the textbook which has non-lethal interventions as an appropriate intervention to lethal situations), akin to saying ‘the solution to climate change is turning off your A/C”. Reality is, it all depends.

    However, I agree that tasers are an important part of operational policing, and based on what I saw, a tazer would be ‘worth a shot’ in this scenario. But you’re damn sure the officer using it has no business doing so without lethal overwatch ready to kill the suspect should that intervention option fail.

    1. You are aware the weapon was a pocketknife, right?

      1. Explain why you think that changes anything instead of vaguely implying it.

        We get it. You don’t think a pocketknife is a real threat. So, when can you and I set up a demonstration?

        I get a pocketknife, and because you don’t want to be a pussy and don’t think it is necessary, you get no weapons.

        When and where are we doing this?

        1. Are you going to keep your arms down and show no threatening body language?

          1. Are you going to keep lying about what happened?

            No one who was carrying a knife is showing no threatening body language such a stupid attempt to make a point and you’re an idiot for even trying it

          2. Right up until I get within arms length.

      2. As an example, you could be killed with a pocketknife in under 1 minute.

        If you think pocketknives are not reasonable weapons, you just are being intellectually dishonest.

        As another example, you could be killed with a pencil too but most people do not consider that a weapon.

        1. I won’t argue against what you just said. However there is a big difference between slowly approaching someone and rushing them. There is a big difference between arms at sides and holding a knife in a threatening manner.

          The dead guy was totally outnumbered. There was a barrier between he/she/it and the nearest officer.

          Deadly force was not warranted at that moment.

          1. Well, luckily for police you don’t get to decide what is reasonable threat of deadly force.

            As I said, all this does is lessen and deflect attention from the real cases of police brutality and police murder since this exact circumstance was not those two things.

          2. ” There is a big difference between arms at sides and holding a knife in a threatening manner.”

            No, there is not. The weapon is out and fully functional and you are approaching someone who has told you to stop.

            If you one day find yourself standing in public, minding your business while a person holding a knife walks directly towards you, ignoring your warning to stop, you too would be equally justified in perceiving the threat, and responding with lethal force.

            It is an unfortunate episode, but one that does not appear to be any sort of double standard because the shooter wears blue.

      3. Actually, the weapon was a multi-purpose utility tool, which contained a small blade.

        The blade was NOT extended, and remained folded, concealed, and not functional in that position.

    2. I agree that tasers are an important part of operational policing, and based on what I saw, a tazer would be ‘worth a shot’ in this scenario.

      How irresponsible of you.

    3. A folding pocket knife. Arms at sides. Moving slowly.

      Obviously a deadly threat.

      Yeah.

      Sure.

      I know I’d be going up for murder if I shot someone with arms at their sides and a folding pocket knife. Shit, I am quite positive that the cops who arrived would soundly mock me and call me a pussy for fearing for my life in that situation. Cops are fucking hypocrites in addition to being murderous liars.

      1. I know I’d be going up for murder if I shot someone with arms at their sides and a folding pocket knife. Shit, I am quite positive that the cops who arrived would soundly mock me and call me a pussy for fearing for my life in that situation. Cops are fucking hypocrites in addition to being murderous liars.

        I’m usually on the side of police officer bashing, but a) if someone came at you, random internet person, with a knife, likely no one would be video taping it and b) if someone called the police and said they saw someone skulking about with a gun and a knife and when the police showed up and found you with a/your gun and a body with a knife and you said you were defending yourself it would be pretty open/shut.

        I just feel very much like “If they’d only used a taser, everything would’ve been OK.” is an exceedingly cheery, “Michael Brown was innocent!” outcome/supposition.

        1. If the dead guy was on a recording with their arms down and showing no threatening body language, it would be murder for you or me.

          And when I think “folding pocket knife” I tend to think “two inches of dull steel.” Good for spreading butter or cutting slices out of an apple, but not a deadly threat.

          1. ” with their arms down ”

            “The video shows Schultz slowly advancing on police”

            “Eventually, after many warnings, one officer shoots as Schultz continues slowly approaching them”

            Why lie sarc? Why are you such a stupid, lying piece of shit? Because you STILL hate cops?

            Get over it you sad fuck.

            1. What lie? Slowly approaching with arms down is not a threat. It’s a plea for help.

              1. It is when you have a knife.

                You lose.

              2. “showing no threatening body language”

                There’s one lie right there you sad fuck.

                1. There’s one lie right there you sad fuck.

                  Um, no. And the fact that you are now throwing personal insults in an attempt to get a rise out of me tells me that I have won the argument. Good day.

                  1. The fact that you had to lie as I demonstrated proves that I won the argument and the fact that you are now running doubly proves it I’m glad that I made you run away with your tail between your legs you sad pathetic fuck.

                    I also enjoy that it obviously got a rise out of you as you made clear by pretending it didn’t get a rise out of you

                2. You gotta understa

                  1. understand that to Sarc “showing no threatening body language” means he wasn’t twirling around demonstrating mad ninja skills. Because that’s the most effective way of putting a small knife in someones neck – not a calm careful approach.

          2. It’s always tragic when someone commits suicide by cop, which this would seem to indicate–and should indicate to any jury.

            Color me skeptical when it comes to the taser solution. However many cops were there might have simply jumped on him with billy clubs and handcuffs and prevented this tragedy–you know why I bet they didn’t?

            Because there were people with cameras all around.

            Then you and I do not carry the same brand of knife. Additionally, the ‘folding’ aspect of the knife is pretty blatantly being employed to defend the ‘perp’ here. They had the knife out with the blade exposed. The officers gave them ground while issuing orders to drop. It’s not a case of Freddy Grey where they saw the knife in his pocket from across the street. Also, nearly half a dozen officers and a single shot was fired. This is not the “OMG! He’s coming right for us!” shit-your-pants case you’re looking for.

            Even then, the incident took between 2 and 5 min. If the video showed you backing away for 2-5 min. while telling the person to put the knife down and them advancing on you, you are pretty clearly being stalked and it’s pretty clearly self defense.

            1. Stalked in slow motion. Sorry, but you can’t convince me that deadly force was justified. There was no imminent threat to the life of any of the officers there. They just got tired of not being obeyed.

              1. Stalked in slow motion.

                Yes, that’s what stalking is. How long would you allow someone to stalk you with a knife before you chose to defend yourself?

                1. If he was being consistent to his principles until that person put the very undeadly knife into his neck and didn’t cause him any bodily harm

                2. How long would you allow someone to stalk you with a knife before you chose to defend yourself?

                  Good question. I’ve never been in that situation. However slowly following someone is not what I would consider to be an imminent threat that justifies deadly force.

                  1. “slowly following someone is not what I would consider to be an imminent threat that justifies deadly force.”

                    Which has exactly nothing to do with what happened here, but why stop lying now.

                  2. Police typically train with a 21 foot rule for knives. If you have ever seen this it is fairly easy for someone to dash 21 feet and stab you. If you practice, you can get a holstered pistol out and shoot the person with the knife. You have less than 3 seconds.

                    For you gun rookies, that means contemplating all the legal ramifications of shooting someone, unholstering your pistol and placing good shots on a person running at you trying to end your life…. in less than 3 seconds.

                    You can try to disarm the knife wielding person, but cops in England wear stab resistant body armor because even trained cops do not like the risk of failing to disarm someone with a knife and being stabbed in the body.

                    1. If you practice, you can get a holstered pistol out and shoot the person with the knife. You have less than 3 seconds.

                      That is fine and dandy, except that in this case weapons were already drawn. That makes the rule kind of void in this situation.

                    2. The 21 foot rule was initially designed as a shooting drill and then somehow morphed into retard doctrine – every situation is unique, and the adherence to any fake “rule” is ridiculous.

                    3. Crusty: So police cannot have fundamental doctrines that they are trained to use or they get sued because they don’t have standards?

                      That’s right smart guy, police get sued all the time because they are not properly trained or did not follow standards.

                      Since you have clearly never seen a knife training session, it is evident you have no idea what you are talking about.

                    4. Crusty: So police cannot have fundamental doctrines that they are trained to use or they get sued because they don’t have standards?

                      If the standard is, “if anyone with a knife comes within 21 feet, shoot” then the training is a failure.
                      Every situation is unique, or should be.

                    5. Crusty: So police cannot have fundamental doctrines that they are trained to use or they get sued because they don’t have standards?
                      If the standard is, “if anyone with a knife comes within 21 feet, shoot” then the training is a failure.
                      Every situation is unique, or should be.

                      Every officer has to decide when to use deadly force and a person being at 21 feet does not per se demand shooting them.
                      This training is actually helpful because it can show police how fast you can be stabbed and also that with a drawn pistol, you have more time to de-escalate the situation.

                    6. Sarcasmic: So police can cannot use the fundamentals of their training, adjust based on the situation, and use deadly force to defense themselves?

                      You just don’t like the outcome, don’t know anything about being a cop nor how they are trained, and twist logic to fit what you want.

                    7. I know that people who are assured that they can do whatever they want and no one will stop them, because no cop will ever stop another cop, tend to do whatever they want.

                      I know that people who are accustomed to being obeyed get emotionally angry when they are not obeyed.

                      I know that all any cop has to do is utter the magic words “I feared for my life” and deadly force will always be justified.

                      I know that when you put that together, when you have someone who does whatever they want who gets angry when not obeyed, who can utter magical words to have their actions justified, that the result is dead people who posed no threat other than failing to obey.

                      And nothing else happens.

                    8. sarcasmic|9.18.17 @ 2:55PM|#
                      I know that people who are assured that they can do whatever they want and no one will stop them, because no cop will ever stop another cop, tend to do whatever they want.
                      I know that people who are accustomed to being obeyed get emotionally angry when they are not obeyed.
                      I know that all any cop has to do is utter the magic words “I feared for my life” and deadly force will always be justified.
                      I know that when you put that together, when you have someone who does whatever they want who gets angry when not obeyed, who can utter magical words to have their actions justified, that the result is dead people who posed no threat other than failing to obey.
                      And nothing else happens.

                      Police being above the law is a real problem and I would happily discuss that and praise anyone trying to fix that.
                      As I said in other comments, treating this shooting as police abusing their right to self-defense the same as shooting unarmed people running away lessens and deflects real government abuses.
                      This is a good shoot and if I was on a jury, I would acquit. The police kept backing up and technically did not have to in Georgia. They clearly were trying to de-escalate by getting the person to drop the knife. The officer only shot once after this person advanced with a knife. I personally would have shot the person when she took fast paces in my direction after she had been shuffling along.

                    9. They are trained by this psychopath to shoot first and then say they feared for their lives even if they didn’t. My son went through the police academy here and they don’t do things like the 21′ rule. They are seriously being trained to shoot even when they don’t fear for their lives. This guy will come and be an expert witness. All the cops there and anywhere else on the force will lie and cover it up for them.

                    10. Their training must be a bit off, if, in fact, that is what was relied on here.

                    11. What would have been the right training and action according to you?

                    12. If possible, fire a warning shot.
                      Be aware of who is lead in the action and what your options are prior to firing your weapon.
                      Try not to kill the students you are there to protect.

                    13. You just don’t like the outcome, don’t know anything about being a cop nor how they are trained, and twist logic to fit what you want.

                      This has little to do with it. Sarcasmic is a principled pacifist, which is fine, except he’s an amoral or hypocritical kind of principled pacifist. The kind that would shame the fat man in the trolley car problem for not feeling morally obligated to leap to the other track and save the other people, would get indignant when people pointed out that sarcasmic himself could’ve simply thrown the switch (killing the fat man that he’s now shaming) and saved more lives. Then, when confronted with such a moral incongruity, he’d rationalize it by saying that the train, moving as slow as it was, wasn’t a danger to your average fat man or collection of random strangers tied to the tracks.

                      Sarcasmic has the wand and chose not to save this poor soul. Why sarc chose, instead, to compel officers to shoot him is not for us mortals to understand any more than we could crucify ourselves in Christ’s stead.

                    14. What.. the… fuck..?

                    15. You just don’t like the outcome, don’t know anything about being a cop nor how they are trained, and twist logic to fit what you want.

                      You don’t know what I know.

                    16. They are seriously being trained to shoot even when they don’t fear for their lives.

                      Obey or die. That is their training. Anyone who does not comply shall be treated as a deadly threat.

            2. > They had the knife out with the blade exposed.

              No, they did not. It was a multi-purpose utility tool, and the knife was NOT unfolded.

              And Freddie Gray was lawfully carrying his knife. What he was arrested for was not even a statutory offence.

        2. I can’t tell from the video, but one of the articles stated it was a folding multi-tool knife (like a Leatherman?), and the blade WASN’T extended. So at the time the police arrived, he was holding something less deadly than my stapler (red Swingline baby!).

          I do think that for the most part, the cops were trying to defuse it. Up until that last one just shot him.

          He identified as “bisexual, nonbinary, intersex”. And then the SJW crowd argued about the police referring to him as “male”.
          Bisexual: sexual preference has no bearing on the definition of “male”
          Nonbinary: this is a “gender” reference. Male is a physical sex trait category.
          Intersex: Not unless he was missing some male bits, or also had some female bit.

          Sorry folks, Scott was a “he” for any and all purposes that matter at this point.

          1. Scott with have “he” marked on the police report and death certificate too.

            Fucking SJWs and the fantasy that they live in.

          2. for any and all purposes that matter at this point.

            Are there any?

          3. The name is “Scout”. And are we sure that this person is biologically male? The picture looks like it could go either way.

      2. ” Cops are”. Categorical conclusions about all police officers are ridiculous. Most are good people, try to do a difficult job well, and are underpaid at that. Some are crummy cops; easily frightened, unable to read people, inexperienced, etc. To say “all cops” are anything is dumb.

      3. The guy yelled “Shoot me!” also. If I were the cop, I would have thought, hm, this person is not right in the head… Odds are that a person yelling “shoot me!” and walking (with a knife) toward a person with a gun is going to be rational to deal with. In such an unpredictable situation I think “better safe than sorry” might apply. He could have had other weapons or a friggin’ bomb attached to himself. I’m not sure why it SEEMS like cops never shoot to disable rather than kill.

        1. (*NOT* going to be rational to deal with… )

    4. Seconds?

      This was, by all accounts, a decision made in a matter of… substantial portions of an HOUR.

      There was no exposed blade. The victim had a knife… which was closed. In the time it took to open the knife, he could have been shot a half-dozen times – so what we’re really talking about is his potential to hit the cops, not with a 2″ blade, but with his fists or feet.

      A couple shots of pepper spray would have put him out of commission.

  13. Meanwhile, the SJWs are busy sifting through everyone on campus’ social media accounts to see if anyone said this guy was mentally defective because he was LGTBQI+.

    Is it alright to suggest someone who wanted the cops to kill him might have been mentally ill–even if he’s LGBTQI+?

    That’s not a rhetorical question. If I had a kid on campus, I’d probably advise him to keep his mouth shut.

    Oh, and no one should ask whether being an SJW makes unbalanced people more likely to want to die on camera through being killed by a cop–because that would be wrong. Obviously, suggesting that being an SJW activist might encourage someone to want to be the next cause celebre by being killed by a cop on camera is a clear indication of homophobia.

    And we know that because the SJWs say so–or maybe they don’t have to. Who would dare to speak out against them in the first place? Certainly not anyone who values a college diploma or an academic career.

    P.S. There’s that forest again.

    1. There’s that forest again

      Of indentitarianism?

      1. I’d ask WTF you’re talking about, but do you even know?

        1. That Antifa and the SJW forest of influential power created the situation in which a police officer – for the first time in the history of policing – shot someone with their hands down?

          1. If the campus police don’t use tasers, batons, etc. when they’re on camera and dealing with SJWs, then there’s a reason for that.

            What is the reason for that?

            Since when have police had a hard time getting the gear they want?

            And why do we see the policy holding back against SJW and Antifa protesters–all over the country, everywhere they go?

            Everyone always asks, “Why did the police just stand there?”

            I’ll tell you why–because they aren’t stupid. They know the whole purpose of SJW and antifa protests is to provoke the police into beating someone up on camera. That’s what black blocs are. They’re there for the express purpose of provoking the police into beating up people, and then blending back into the crowd–in the hope that people in the crowd will catch the policy beating up people on camera.

            I know this. Why wouldn’t campus police?

            That’s been the standard tactic of antifa, SJWs, and black blocs since, at least, the anti-WTO Battle of Seattle in the ’90s.

            When I say, “Don’t Taze Me, Bro!”, do you know what I’m referring to? It’s a reference to a YouTube video we’ve all seen. Why wouldn’t campus police everywhere react to the threat of people purposely antagonizing them into using non-lethal force on camera by moderating their use of non-lethal force?

            Yeah, there’s the forest.

            Are you being willfully obtuse?

            1. “Are you being willfully obtuse?”

              You have to ask?

            2. Are you being willfully obtuse?

              No, I am clearly stating that you are being willfully presumptuous. Your jump to conclusions mat has zipped into high gear.

              1. Jump to conclusions?

                What conclusion did I jump to?

                That campus police are probably limiting their use of nonlethal force with SJWs, antifa, etc. when they’re on camera because getting the police to beat them up on camera is half those group’s whole strategy and reason to exist?

                That’s not presumptuous. That’s an observation.

                Oh, and suggesting that you’re being willfully obtuse isn’t presumptuous either.

                1. What conclusion did I jump to?

                  That campus police are probably

                2. I seriously do not understand why you believe that the cops said, “We don’t want to appear bad on TV, so we replaced non-lethal methods with lethal methods.”

                  How are you making that leap?

        2. That would appear to make two of you.

  14. One less alt-leftist.

    Cops are chicken to wrestle a knife from a suspect when they have guns…

    but as the old adage goes: Never bring a knife to a gun fight.

    1. You’re accidentally right about one thing: anyone in a situation where they’re facing off against cops should assume that they’re about to be shot.

      1. I would caution more: anyone in a situation where they’re around cops should assume that they’re about to be shot.

  15. Do you think he became more upset when they assumed his gender?
    “Drop the knife, sir.”
    “I’M NOT A SIR!!!”
    “Drop the knife, ma’am.”
    “I’M NOT A MA’AM, YOU CISGENDER PIECE OF SHIT!!”
    “Fuck it…open fire!”

    1. lol what a weirdo that kid was

  16. Why is “campus police” a thing again?

    1. Because, apparently, students skulk about parking garages with knives screaming ‘shoot me’. Would you feel better if the Atlanta PD had shot him to death.

    2. When you have your own police, you are accountable to no one.

      1. When you have your own police, you can train them for specific purposes.

        Some of the country’s best universities are in some of the nastiest places in America.

        I haven’t been to some of these places in a while, but USC and the University of Pennsylvania come to mind.

        USC is in a shithole. Why would the campus there want USC students subjected to the police tactics of Daryl Gates? They’re trying to shield their students from the drug war, and being thrown in the city jail with local gangbangers, among other things.

        The purpose of campus police is mostly to protect students–and one of the things they protect students from is local police.

        1. I never thought of it that way. You’re probably right.

        2. This is why the military has military police. You police your own if possible. As an ex-military policeman, we kept military members out of local jails or picked them up quickly to face what is called non-judicial punishment rather than court systems that tend not to solve discipline issues.

    3. Because there is a penis size smaller than micro?

      1. So now you and Zeb both have surprising admissions in this thread

        1. I was never a campus cop.

          1. And yet, you were qualified.

  17. Why are so many idiots in this thread saying stupid shit like “you’re aware it was a pocket knife”

    I saw one asshole claim it was a pen knife.

    So what? It’s not a significant threat, but it’s not NO threat like these assholes are implying.

    1. The use of force is supposed to be proportional to the threat. You admit that the threat was not significant. By your own words deadly force was not justified.

      1. “The use of force is supposed to be proportional to the threat”

        Both a gun and a pocketknife are deadly threats, so proportional, so OK BY YOUR STANDARDS. NOT MINE, YOURS. Glad I could shut you the fuck up.

        1. If response is proportional to the threat, and a pocket knife validates getting shot, what does having a gun or a bomb or something significantly more threatening justify?

          1. Getting shot quicker.

            Just because you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself does not mean that you have to use it or use it at that particular moment.

            The cops would have been justified using deadly force earlier and they chose to try and de-escalate that situation.

      2. “The use of force is supposed to be proportional to the threat.”

        Again. No.

        The threat either justifies deadly force or it does not. Proportionality goes out the window once the threshold has been crossed.

    2. Fact: A knife is a deadly weapon.

      The next point: It being used in a threatening manner?

      Continue flow chart from here….

      1. “The use of force is supposed to be proportional to the threat”

        Both a gun and a pocketknife are deadly threats, so proportional, so OK BY YOUR STANDARDS. NOT MINE, YOURS. Glad I could shut you the fuck up.

        1. Sorry, that should have been to the idiot above you.

          1. I see. You did make the better point to shut him up.

            1. And you’ll notice, he DID shut up and slink away.

            2. I’m still here. I just don’t argue with people who act like children and call people names when they disagree.

              1. No one cares about your sex life.

              2. And, you DID shut up and slink away. You only came back to protect your ego when I trolled you out of hiding.

                1. Oh look, Tulpa won again. He’s so cool. He’s the greatest. He’s not mad, you’re mad!

                  1. You gonna cry more?

                    1. Fuck you bitch I don’t cry.

                    2. So yes, you’d like a tissue?

  18. Nice avoidance of personal pronouns in this, Shackford. How can any journalist support gender fluidity when its rigidity forces the writing of such tortured prose?

    1. Gotta keep your priorities in focus. Even in a bad situation.

  19. If only there was another option than the binary choice of do/do not shoot with a pistol.

    Bean bag round

    Bean bag rounds are used when a person is a danger to themself or others but is not a direct threat in such a manner that deadly force would be appropriate – typically a suicidal individual with a bladed weapon. The round is intended to disable the person without killing them.

    I’m no expert, and I could be completely wrong, but this might have been an appropriate response.

    1. Sure. They could’ve tried knockout gas as well. Maybe rigged a net and just backed away until he marched into that. How long and/or how many tries do they get before the guy is no longer allowed to loiter in/around a “public” garage brandishing a knife?

      This is the same double-edged sword as military vehicles and whimsically/arbitrarily ‘trivial’ fines for crimes. Successfully employed in one case of ‘suspect carrying a knife’ and it gets to be employed in all cases of suspects carrying knives.

      It’s a corner-case with little-to-no policy to be drawn from it, IMO. Sure, bean bags and tasers would’ve been nice. Spending other peoples’ money on neat toys to prevent suicides is always nice.

      1. And these are all discussions to have before situations like this happen to better equip police to not have to shoot everyone who has a weapon and can be stopped by other means.

      2. They could’ve tried knockout gas as well. Maybe rigged a net …

        I don’t know if knockout gas is appropriate or not, but why wasn’t pepper spray an option? Maybe a restraining net would have been appropriate, why wasn’t that an option?

        Sure, bean bags and tasers would’ve been nice. Spending other peoples’ money on neat toys to prevent suicides is always nice.

        Is it prudent to purchase non lethal options for peace officers? I think so. Better that than yet another wrongful death lawsuit where the taxpayers foot the bill. And that poor young man might still be alive to get help.

        1. I don’t know if knockout gas is appropriate or not, but why wasn’t pepper spray an option?

          I admit to not being an expert on either pepper spray or suicide. Given my experience with pepper spray and my understanding of suicide, pepper spray would be insufficient to the task of generally preventing suicide.

          It *could* marginally increase success rates in some instances but, again, the price of pepper spray to save someone who’s on their second (or whatever) suicide attempt? I’m dubious. Not to mention the probability of them fucking it up.

          1. Not to mention the probability of them fucking it up.

            Sadly, all too true. Maybe I am being naive.

      1. The kid was not killed by the shot. Death was massive hemorrhage.

        1. Death wasn’t from massive hemorrhage, it was from a lack of oxygen in the brain ultimately leading to termination.

          1. Bet you the death certificate says massive hemorrhage from gunshot wound.

  20. Executed for Failure To Obey.

    Next?

    1. Legal self-defense shoot of suspect for threatening violence on people with guns.

  21. There are actually stupid assholes in this thread attempting to argue that advancing on a group of cops who have told you to stop advancing and to stop and drop the knife in your hand is somehow not demonstrating threatening body language. Because arms or something.

    No no it totally makes sense to ignore all the other stuff he’s doing and focus on the fact that his arms are at his side, that’s definitely proof of something. I’m sure that it’s going to hold up among people who would look at that situation on the street and judge a person’s behavior. I’m sure that the knife and the advancement would not matter at all but the arms at the sides would be the determining factor, that makes perfect sense.

    1. By the way I really do believe the stupid motherfuckers attempting to forward the “no body language that was threatening argument”, which is stupid and not the standard anyway, are just looking for a reason to go out the cops here because they have personal beef with cops in general, but beneath that they realize how fucking ridiculous it is to try to argue that a knife isn’t a deadly weapon.

    2. Yup. I have shot someone dead in my home during a botched burglary. I could give two shits if the person had their arms to their side with the crowbar in his hand.

      I had to buy two new bullets though and clean up the blood.

      1. There is a big difference between someone invading your home and what was on that video.

        1. And there’s a big difference between no threatening body language and advancing with a knife in your hand even if it’s at your sides

        2. Of course there is which is why I mentioned the arms at the side.

          I personally would have shot that kid when it went from shuffling along to taking fast steps toward me. In Georgia, you can stand your ground.

    3. There are actually stupid assholes in this thread

      There sure are.

      1. That’s a surprising admission from you Zeb, I’m glad your counseling sessions are allowing you to develop such insight.

          1. next time just say “you got me” when i get you like i did

            1. When you do, I will.

              1. Awww now you’re just being a baby.

                Tissue?

            2. Zeb is too busy zipping in and out of comments to have time to admit anything.

              1. Zeb is a fucking idiot who is far too impressed with himself.

    4. The main differences are between what “is” and what “ought”. Sure, the police were in their legal bounds. Do we really want the police gunning down people every time they legally can? Or do we want them to value human life and try to avoid unnecessary killing?

  22. “also the president of the college’s Pride Alliance and self-identifies as bisexual, nonbinary, and intersex.”

    In defense of the Pride Alliance, they had no indication that this guy wasn’t 100% mentally healthy.

    1. More like, I am 100% convinced from video by some non-English speaking person from a window balcony that this person with the knife had mental issues.

      1. I was accepting what the article said – maybe not wise on my part.

        1. I saw the video. That kid had mental issues.

          Human nature tends to be survival not shuffling into a situation of being shot.

  23. The guy was armed and kept advancing towards the cops after they ordered him to stop. Justified.

    1. I’ve been told I’m supposed to ignore the knife and advancing on armed officers and focus on him arms.

      NOT justified.

  24. So why didn’t police use a Taser on Schultz?

    Anybody holding up tasers as terribly effective is laughable.

    Hell, watch Live PD once in a while and watch guys get tased and keep on going.

  25. Cops lives were not in danger and they shot the kid in the heart.
    Does knowing you will not be prosecuted for your actions affect your decision to shoot to kill?

    1. If you’re going to shoot, you always shoot to kill. Nobody intentionally wounds anyone except in the movies.

      But you are right. None of the officers’ lives were in imminent danger. They just got tired of being defied. So they killed the motherfucker for Failure To Obey.

      1. Actually only one cop fired his weapon. The others were more reserved. Why is that?

        1. If you want to have a conversation with sarcasmic, you’re going to have to forget about discussing what actually happened.

          1. I find most of sarcasmic’s comments more insightful than yours.

            1. Wait…you think I’m trying to be insightful?

              Ahahahahahahhaha

              No you fucking retard, just no.

              aAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

              THIS IDIOT THINKS IM USING MY “TROLL THE WHINY FUCKING RETARDS” ACCOUNT TO BE INSIGHTFUL!!!

              AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
              AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
              AHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAJ

              HOWS THAT FOR INSIGHT FUCKBOY!!!!!!

              1. And it’s pretty fucking sad you have to sock up to come at me sarc, you cowardly fuck.

              2. When you say “fuckboy” is it to let us all know your sexual preferences?

                1. So what if it was?

                  You’re a HOMOPHOBE? REALLY? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?

                  EVEN I FIND THAT ABHORRENT.

                    1. So you’re a well read homophobe.

                    2. Just trying to help you be less indolent. See, you enter the overused word and it gives you back an alternative.

                    3. I can see why you’d want me to pull stop pointing out your homophobia.

        2. Good question. Rookie? Homicidal asshole? I dunno.

        3. My belief is that one of the cops on the scene was tired of being there and killed the person because they were tired of their authority being defied.

          Perhaps the situation could have been defused had Officer Trigger Happy not arrived on the scene.

          We will never know.

          Regardless, OTH will keep his job and kill again.

          1. My belief is that this is a good shoot and I would acquit this cop of the homicide.

            Regardless, OTH this person with the knife will never breath nor threaten again.

  26. Doesn’t he have a right to die?

    This guy was no dummy. If you wanted to end your life by cop, campus police would an excellent choice.

  27. Let me add that I don’t actually know Georgia law and what it allows cops to do if they outnumber someone slowly advancing with a knife – and who possibly might have had a gun for all they knew. If the law regards the shooting as excessive, then enforce the law, but if the law allows it, don’t freak out.

    1. The question has been asked before, “does this mean any citizen has the same right to defend himself in this manner for a perceived threat?” If cops are above the law then it needs to be better defined exactly how much above the law.
      Who hired this guy on my behalf?

      1. No one cares what you think, homophobe.

        1. Tony is talking about penis above, you two should get together.
          Not that there is anything wrong with two men gobbling cocks

          1. No one cares what you think, homophobe.

          2. And jesus christ, i was trolling but you actually are a homophobe, holy shit

              1. Thanks, but you’re still a monster.

                1. Are you talking about his dick? You do that a a lot.

                  1. Hmmmmm not really, a search for “dick” comes up with only your post.

                    So, a blatant lie… hi sarc.

                    1. penis, then

  28. Tulpafied….

    1. You gonna cry more?

        1. No. Tony isn’t that rude.

          1. Ahahahahahhahaha

            You responded to your fucking sock puppet!!

            I was kidding before but now it’s so obvious!!

            What kind of fucking loser ass, can’t keep from getting drunk and losing his family piece of shit does that!!

            1. It’s your whole MO. You think it makes it hard to figure out how many socks you run. It’s so fucking genius. You’re so smart.

        2. No sarc, it isn’t.

          1. Then whose sock are you?

            1. Yours.

              Cry about it more now.

              1. It’s really funny that you think you have that effect on people.

                Hey, maybe it’s Rather. She always had the same kind of weird delusion that she was making the puppets dance, while actually being the butt of the joke.

                1. as you dance

        3. The real Tony hates cops. “Reality” is more likely a Tulpa sock.

          1. Nah bro, Mary. Speakong of chicks, how’s your ex wife that you drove off with your alcoholism?

            1. Tulpa is so not mad that his wife left him.

              1. I imagine he is, but why would I care that you’re crying here about him?

                Tissue?

                1. I love that I made HR so upset that he’s actually following me around.

                  1. I love that you still haven’t figured out that your pathetic level of projection is a tell.

                    1. You gonna keep crying about it?

  29. RE: Fatal Police Shooting of Georgia Tech Student Should Have Been Avoidable
    Lack of stun guns meets the typically poor handling of people having mental health crises.

    But…but…if you use a stun gun on someone, they won’t die like when you shoot them six or seven times.
    Plus, there is no reassuring “bang” from a stun gun.
    Where’s the fun in that?

    1. Cops don’t get to be initiated into the Rite of Choad until they shoot and kill someone.

      1. I had to lookup “choad” and guess what? It means penis.

    1. You gonna cry more?

  30. Whenever you feel that you as an individual can’t possibly make a difference in the world, look at how thoroughly one Internet Tough Gai sperg-shat up this thread, and be encouraged.

    1. You gonna cry more now?

      1. It’s funny how you read those words and immediately assume they’re referring to you.

        1. Did I? Doesn’t seem I did, just that I asked you if you were gonna cry more.

          OOPS!

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

          1. No, see, you wouldn’t have responded like that unless you felt called out. That’s how human interactions work. You can think you somehow “won” a “fight” by figuring out that i was insulting you, but that is a really, really, shamefully stupid thing to type a bunch of all-caps laughter about.

            1. “No, see, you wouldn’t have responded like that unless you felt called out.”

              AHAHAHAHHAHA NOW THE IDIOT IS JOHN!

              AHAHAHHAHAHAH HE SAID SOMETHING FUCKING RETARDED, MADE A STUPID FUCKING ASSUMPTION, AND ABSOLUTELY COULD NOT TAKE THE RGO HIT OF LOOKING SO FUCKING STUPID!!!

              AHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA EVEN HIS RESPONSE IS FUCKING STUPID!!!

              “MUST SAVE FACE” HIS SAD LITTLE REATARD BRAIN SCREAMED!!! H&R MATTERS!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

              AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH RRRRREEEEETTTAARRRDDDD!!!

              1. I guess it was pretty foolish of me to respond in any way to some ‘spergie-ass troll. Time to get blocked, you sad little creature.

                1. AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

                  RUN BITCH!!!

                  AND YES, IT WAS FOOLISH, YOUR STUPID ASS ASSUMPTIONS PROVE IT!!!

                  AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHA I WIN!!

                  1. What do you win?

                    1. It claims victory if you respond to it and it claims victory if you stop responding to it. It has some deep-seated need to feel that it “won” in the most pathetic, petty ways imaginable. The psychopathology is probably pretty interesting, if you’re into that.

                    2. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH YOU’RE STILL HERE AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH JESUS CHRIST WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU AHAHAHAHAHHAHA

                      RRRRRRREEEEEETAAAAAARRRDDDD!!!

                    3. AHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA I PISSED HIM OFF SO MUCH BY POINTING OUT HOW FUCKING RETARDED HIS ASSUMLTION WAS, THAT HE STILL CANNOT STOP TRYING TO SAVE FACE!!!

                      AHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

                      I FUCKING OWN YOU BITCH!!!! HAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                    4. I thought you blocked me.

                    5. If I tell you, are you going to cry about that too?

                    6. I’m sure you’ll say I did.

                    7. Well, my name IS Reality.

                2. Is it a 7 year old? I don’t understand…

        2. AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

          THE FUCKING IDIOT SAID IT FUNNY THAT I ASSUMED IT WAS ME BUT I DIDNT, HE JUST ASSUMED IT AHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

          RAIN ON YOUR FUCKING WEDDING DAY AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA

          RRRRRRREEEEEEETAAARRRRRRRRDDDD!!!!!

          1. Please read your own comment and ask yourself, seriously, if a functional, intelligent person would write what you just wrote. The answer might unpleasantly surprise you!

            1. OMFG HE’S STILL TRYING!!!

              AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

              RRRRRRRREEEEEEEEETTTTAAAARRRDDDDDD!!!!

  31. Some inaccurate information below. The blade was NOT exposed. It was never pulled out and anyone who ever used such a tool knows that the blade part is difficult to pull out. You have to stick your fingernail in the groove and pull..it takes forever. It was a multipurpose tool that engineering students often carry. The “blade” was the size of a small nail file. Scout was 20 feet away when shot straight through the heart and killed with a single bullet by only one officer. If the “danger” was real, why didn’t all of them shoot? In fact, all but one were doing the right things.

    1. I wonder if he had been walking towards him with no pocket knife at all and disobeyed the command to “stop” if we wouldn’t have the exact same justifications for why the thing was justified as now.

    2. You sure do have a bunch of information that nobody else has.

      I would commend these cops for being good shots.

      I personally double tap because it prevents the screaming that massive hemorrhages can allow while the suspect dies.

    3. If the “danger” was real, why didn’t all of them shoot? In fact, all but one were doing the right things.

      Something can be clearly seen protruding from his hand in the video. A suspect called about a knife, multiple officers observed something indistinguishable from a knife. The suspect clearly had every intent of being mistaken for being armed/knife-wielding. A fusillade of bullets endangers more than just the person wielding the weapons as we often chastise police for on these forums.

      Again, I’m not saying by any means that police should roll up on and shoot anyone they believe to be armed or carrying a knife a la Laquan McDonald. This case has distinctive features that strongly indicate that these officers were not panicking or acting out of bloodlust. Once again, this is not the ‘[minority] lives matter’ case you’re looking for.

      1. You’re literally suggesting that the be close enough to visibly distinguish the make/model/composition of the knife, by street lamp, while not being able to defend themselves, and ensuring that the subject isn’t a threat to themselves or others (arguably against the subject’s wishes).

        Don’t move and put your hands up, officers!

  32. Kind of late to the game, but I would like to give a small anecdote.

    In Tucson in the last year or so they decided to start giving an experimental class on deescalation of situations involving someone in mental crisis. This is a good thing, deescalation is a good thing. They were talking about on the news how good this training was and how important it was. They also discussed how it was only available to senior officers with more than 5+ years experience already.

    I wonder why that is? What training do they give to new cops? And why would they gate crucial deescalation training behind a certain amount of time? Really it seems like new cops need that more than people with more experience.

    Oh well.

    1. Every department and training for said department is different, sometimes substantially different.

      De-escalation is good but there is a line and every cop has to be trained and decide where that line is if they use deadly force. The main line is that you have to be experiencing a threat of bodily injury and feel like yours or someone else’s life is in imminent danger. Or some language close to that.

    2. In Tucson in the last year or so they decided to start giving an experimental class on deescalation of situations involving someone in mental crisis. This is a good thing, deescalation is a good thing. They were talking about on the news how good this training was and how important it was. They also discussed how it was only available to senior officers with more than 5+ years experience already.

      I don’t know the true rationalization but it’s easy to foresee or conceptualize that you don’t want to give experimental deescalation training to rookies who are likely to panic anyway and/or to give experimental training to inexperienced officers who then manage to get themselves killed and you end up back at square zero defending a war on police.

      Sure, you can roll salary, retirement, union rules, and complaint/arrest records into the mess, but it doesn’t change the other facts, logistics, and optics. At the very least, I remain unconvinced of the value of training rookie officers in deescalation based on intentions alone.

      Technically/arguably, there could be a nation-wide police disarmament executive order tomorrow. No guns for rookies, vets, former, off-duty, and all. I remain unconvinced that, despite relatively straightforward thinking of that leading to fewer police shootings, it would achieve the desired ends without any consequence (foreseeable or not).

      1. back at square zero defending a war on police

        That is to say, “back at square zero defending your anti-police-shooting stance against an(other alleged) war on police”.

  33. It’s almost like transsexuals are seriously mentally ill or something.

    1. I am saying there is causation here but every transtestical that I hear about in the news has obvious signs of mental illness.

      1. …not saying that there is causation…

  34. There are over 370 “mental disorders” listed in the latest version of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) The list includes “Tobacco Addiction Disorder” among other equally mundane and ridiculous so-called “mental illnesses.”

    If the DSM is the standard by which politicians wishes to remove our rights to own guns, then I’d guess 90% of the American people could probably be classified with a mental disorder of one kind or another.

    BEWARE, BEWARE

  35. “He’s a ramblin’ wreck from Georgia Tech and a helleva gender-queer, a helleva, helleva, helleva gender-queer!”

    It’s like the new fightsong writes itself. The Rainbow Jackets will take the field with their new mascot “lugs”.

  36. What Reason should really being saying to the Georgia Tech police: Good marksmanship! Or is that markspersonship? I’m so gender confused.

    “Ze could have been your own brosis or sisbro! Or whatever ze was feeling that day because that would be completely normal. Don’t tell ze there is anything abnormal about their adult gender fluidity or you’re a bigot!”

  37. What the hell. At 10 yards the officer couldn’t shoot him in the leg? A folded pocket knife requires deadly force? I can’t understand the mind of a person (office) who places so little value on a human life. I can’t comprehend the community that accepts that mindset in their law enforcement officers.

    1. In addition to whatever anyone else will tell you about “shooting people in the leg”, the use of lethal force is only justified when one’s life is in danger–and if the cop’s life is in danger, using lethal force and shooting them in the chest is entirely justified.

      As far as “shooting someone in the leg”, there are so many problems with that idea, logistically, that it’s typically laughed off the forum by people who know what they’re talking about.

      For one thing, hitting a femoral artery in the leg can be just as deadly as taking one in the chest, and, for another, a cop is legally responsible for every bullet he fires. If he misses (and even the best miss a lot) and the bullet ricochets or hits an innocent bystander, he’s both morally and legally responsible for that. The best way to make sure your bullets land is to hit the biggest part of the target, and the biggest part of the target is the chest. That’s what they train to do–hit people in the chest–and that’s why. They even choose loads that won’t over-penetrate for fear the bullets will go through someone’s chest and hit an innocent bystander.

      Chests are hard enough to hit under stress. Legs are an even smaller target and they move around more.

      Whatever your side in any gun debate, you’ll find that you’re more persuasive if you never use that “just shoot them in the leg” logic ever again.

  38. Let’s not conflate this issue with asshole cops busting down doors and shooting innocent dogs.

    Maybe something different shoulda woulda coulda been done but if the only time cops killed someone was during a bona fide suicide by cop, I think most of us would take that as a win.

  39. If the police have abandoned using non-lethal force on campus because of the tactics of Antifa and SJWs, and if that’s why the police don’t have tasers and don’t use non-lethal force, then blaming this sad outcome on the unavailability of tasers would seem to miss the bigger picture–about why they don’t have tasers.

    The word of the day is “myopia”.

    Incidentally, I used to read articles here critical of the police for using non-lethal force devices like tasers on students. I myself faulted the cops at UC Davis for using tear gas on peaceful protestors way back when. Seems to be a side over principle kind of thing for a lot of other people, though. Personally, yeah, I might blame this latest tragedy on the tactics and ideology of the SJWs and Antifa.

  40. Routinely use tactics that put the police in a situation where they’re extremely reluctant to use non-lethal force–and then turn around and blame them for not using non-lethal force, too?! As libertarians, do we really want to encourage the police to use non-lethal force against protestors?

    Like I said, I think this is what happens when SJWs and Antifa create a pervasive situation on campuses all over the country where the police need to deal with violent protestors every time someone schedules a controversial speaker–and the main goal of those protestors is to goad the police into using non-lethal force against them on camera

    Yeah, criticizing the police for not tazing people is missing the libertarian point.

    Maybe we should be criticizing SJWs and Antifa for trying to provoke the police to violence every time someone books a speaker the protestors don’t like. Oh, and as a side note, the SJWs and Antifa might get more support from average people if they were more about sticking up for the First Amendment and less about attacking people’s First Amendment rights.

    1. Criticizing armed agents of the state for using a disproportionate amount of force that a private citizen most likely would not be entitled to – not the libertarian point.

      Criticizing large groups of private citizens for the actions of a small few while imputing motives upon them that justify armed agents of the state using a disproportionate amount of force because they were asking for it – THE LIBERTARIAN FUCKING POINT!

      Go fight your culture war somewhere else, Ken.

      1. There is nothing in Georgia law about disproportionate force. The issue is justification for use of lethal force. And a knife is a deadly weapon. So yes a private citizen would be equally justified using the same force under similar circumstances – being approached by a knife wielding person who has refused multiple requests to stop.

        And in case you missed it there was a riot on the campus last night. The usual suspects are trying to turn this into a blut fahne like always.

        I’d say Ken is looking pretty sage right now.

  41. Sorry, but how is it that advancing slowly with a folded pocket knife under circumstances where there is no other threat and nothing being protected, a justified shooting ?

    I am not even sure that I think a Taser would be appropriate given the low threat involved.

    Ordinary people would be required to retreat, if a police officer is not actually protecting someone or something else that precludes retreat, I can not see deadly force being justified in this circumstance.

    1. “Ordinary people would be required to retreat”

      Only in jurisdictions that treat citizens like subjects.

      Liberty means that if you have done nothing to warrant a threat you are under no obligation to retreat from a threat. The aggressor is at fault for what follows.

      You do understand the NAP, right?

  42. Doesn’t he have a right to die?

    This guy was no dummy. If you wanted to end your life by cop, campus police would an excellent choice.
    My recent post: Conversion Gorilla Review

  43. Any bets on whether or not the investigation reveals the need for more funding? Probably not for the cops, of course, but a new Student Office for Mental and Emotional Support for the Health of Intersexuals/Transexuals.
    My recent post: Profit Whirlwind Review
    My recent post: Gigavid V2 Review

  44. The GBI said that the caller had described to police a white man with long blonde hair, wearing a T-shirt and jeans, and carrying a knife and possibly a gun.

    They also claimed to have found three different suicide notes inside the dormitory where Schultz was living.

  45. Schultz provoked the confrontation, taunted police to shoot her. Police officers across the nation are on high alert for their safety due to ambushes by ANTIFA and the BLM thanks to the media support for these groups.
    A Supreme Court decision many years back ruled that law enforcement officers are not obliged to put their lives at risk while enforcing the law. Suspects who fail to obey police commands and appear to threaten an officer’s safety do so at their own peril. Officers in Ferguson, NYC, Baltimore who have been put on trial for shooting suspects have all been acquitted on the grounds they acted under “color of law.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.