UK Cops Disarm Man Wielding a Machete | Firsthand | CBC

> if you want to enforce the law for dangerous and violent people, doesn’t it seem reasonable you’ll need at least equally if not more dangerous and violent people to do so? No. There are other ways. For example, mobbing with massively superior numbers, resulting in no harm to anyone, and a suspect getting the hospital care they needed: ▶ this video

In most other countries, training encourages the use of lethal force as a last resort. In Germany (pop. 84M), in 2015, a total of 101 rounds were discharged by police for the entire year: * link How the UK police dealt with a machete-wielding individual: * ▶ this video

There’s a fair number of videos from eg the UK where they do exactly this. The usual playbook seems to be: get a few people distracting the guy from the front, and another few rush them from the back whilst distracted and hit them with batons or just jump on them. Or just distract them for a long while and wait for more backup and people with shields. ▶ this video It takes a bit of effort and coordination but is obviously massively preferable to being executed on the spot by the state.

This is missing the forest for the trees so badly it hurts. Why do you think I said I'd be forced to shoot? Because even without training common sense tells you "not allowing the attacker to close enough distance with you to use the knife" is a pretty good course of action By your logic the moment a person calls 911, the people who are supposed to help, the person has been sentenced to death. Think about that for a second. 1. The cops will arrive 2. "avoid knife getting close to me" 3. Less than lethal is not reliable, hell even lethal force isn't instant, I feared for my life, they're shot very dead. - It's not an easy problem, but how is that ok? There's not many ways to fix it other than trying something other than lethal force. ▶ this video link link Like the stuff in those videos is not easy, I'm not trying to pretend I could do it, or most people could. It requires cops being able to put the most efficient response for self-preservation behind trying to save someone, which again, I'm not saying we require of anyone... But let's call a spade a spade at that point. That's not the concept of policing I see paraded. That's not the "thin blue line", it sounds more like a cell of civilians that are deployed to bad situations where they then "apply self-defense"...

Circumstances matter, but it can be done (eg ▶ this video made the news a while ago). Here in Germany, people wielding knives get killed from time to time as well. Pepper spray tends to get used first, and I do not remember any case where a dozen rounds were fired[1] (German police fire on the order of 50 rounds total per year, cf link ). [1] edit: apparently, this does happen, cf link

> If you were a police officer, would you, unarmed, engage another person wielding a hatchet? I'd say that's unlikely. Would you even take the job if you were unarmed? Great example! Here's how the UK engage someone wielding a machete, without guns or any other weapons beside extendable batons. ▶ this video They try to deescalate, they bring in reinforcements, they surround, then they disarm him using shields, not weapons, and he survives to stand a fair trial. No guns needed. And if they thought they couldn't arrest him using shields they could call in a specialist firearms unit, who are specifically trained, authorised, and accountable.

I was going to bring that up. Totally agree - further normalizing the use of violence by the police should be avoided. While not a sniper, this is the police in the UK apprehending a suspect with a machete. I've never heard of similar tactics being used in the US. And conversations with police have led me to believe they would actively avoid such tactics and instead resort to violence. ▶ this video