No bro, DO tase him.

The only difference here seems to be a lack of ego. These guys aren't acting like they're constantly under threat of looking stupid, or need to maintain control via threat of physical violence. They're controlling the guy by letting him think he's in control, while everyone's still safe. Reflecting on what we see of the american police force online, it really makes them look like a one-note cannon when it comes to local civic diplomacy.

@kulpims, why do you think he would have been killed in the States?


He doesn't look black...

I was hoping for a good old fashioned English sword fight and a display of a disarming technique. Instead there are a bunch of fat old men waddling around waiting for the invincibility shields. I'm disappointed in you, England. You used to be so badass.

He wouldn't have survived in 'merica, then again, in good ol' 'merica, he would more likely have had an assault rifle.

Um, safety must mean something different between you and I. The guy was way, way to close to be stopped should he have chosen to simply lunge at the officers. In no way am I trying to take away from their pacifism. The fact that they saved the man's life is to be applauded. Much better than shooting the man at first site.

Now, I also think you assume they are using reverse psychology on the guy...I think they are genuinely afraid to kill the man even if necessary. That isn't lack of ego, that is uncertainty.

Yes, because online videos of policing practices are representative of the whole. Excellent comparison, your degree in statistics serves you well. If the civilian standing in his doorway at 0:15 becomes the target for some reason, and this lunatic goes after him with his knife, then is it ok to shoot him? If this lunatic was in the middle of a mall or on a busy street and pulled this shit, I would hope that they would shoot him instead of trying to wrangle him to the ground with shields and batons... to serve and protect and all that. If he sliced up a civilian during this kinder gentler policing, the populace would be screaming for heads and at the police for more assertive action. Give them a taser, give them some non lethal rounds, give them a fine Calvary Sabre but control the situation immediately and remove the threat. The fact is the cops weren't in control at all.

No need for snarky. I argued your point but less one-sided. Yes, America is too quick to put bullets into flesh and blood. And yes, I agree this was a dumb risk they took. But it was their risk, and it paid off. If this was the stock market, they would be rich.

This is an example of what happens when law enforcement are taught sociology and psychology and de-escalation training. Where as in the US many (especially urban) police departments teach little more than how to use their new military hardware which end of a gun fire's the bullets. To many believe that they are soldiers in a war and criminals or even regular people - especially minorities - are the enemy.

This seems woefully inefficient. A few tazers would have incapacitated him a lot quicker and more safely and woudn't have required 30 cops with riot shields. This guy was a threat and the longer the cops waited to subdue him, the more likely he was to hurt someone.

And now the guy's in a mental hospital (probably on taxpayer money), receiving treatment that probably won't work. If he is ever released or escapes, there's a fair chance that he'll hurt someone or do something dangerous. If he is never cleared for release, he'll continue to be a drain on resources while contributing nothing to society or the economy.

First statement = opinion
The remaining life of one man versus 30 minutes of time for 30 men.

Second statement = uninformed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident

Third statement = uneducated opinion
The incident involved a large number of trained officers presumably adequately trained to assess and address the situation

The entire last paragraph = biased conjecture
All projected outcomes proposed are negative. All possible positive outcomes ignored.

Troll Score = 10/10
Every word inflammatory and pointless yet I am compelled to reply...

Well played sir.

The raving lunatic with a machete is a clear threat to everyone in the area. Incapacitating him with tasers is far quicker and safer (to the cops and civilians) than trying to contain him with riot shields. Is there a chance that the taser could kill him? Sure. However, the chance is far lower than if you shoot him with a gun. And again, it isn't just the life of one man at stake. The suspect was obviously deranged, violent and unpredictable. At any point, he could have made a beeline for one of the cops or some random pedestrian and done serious damage. That's 30 minutes of putting lives at risk vs 1 minute of relatively safe tasering.

As for the possible positive outcomes... what, he recovers and leads a mediocre life working as a janitor because nobody wants to hire someone with a history of violent psychosis? How many years would it take to reach that point? How much taxpayer money would be spent? Is a single lost cause worth all that time, money and risk? If humanity were on the verge of extinction and every life really mattered then sure, he might be worth it. However, there's no shortage of perfectly sane and productive members of society that don't run around swinging machetes and howling like animals. Society already puts down animals that pose a threat to humans. Why not extend that policy to the most dangerous animal of all?

Did you really just advocate for the extermination of all mental defectives because it will likely cost taxpayers money to treat them?!?

I think you may wish to reconsider and retract that.

So you make up out of thin air the most depressing story of what this guy's life might eventually turn out to be, use words of divisiveness (look! he's scrounging off the taxpayer everyone!) and use that to justify pre-emptively killing mentally ill people who fit the definition of "dangerous" by your Dickensian outlook.

You want to talk about people scrounging off the taxpayer then let's talk about corporate welfare and dodgy tax havens, about how starbucks, google and amazon get away with paying no tax when we are taxed on our earnings. You call this ill man a scrounger, when george osbourne's family no less has a dodgy 6 million offshore tax deal to name but one of a million examples.

Or let's talk about this guy's parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters who paid into the social system, earning potentially millions for this country. In return they only ask that their son is cared for with respect and dignity in spite of the nature of his illness, and the social system would still have made a net surplus off their family.

How about we talk about the recovery he made as a counsellor for PTSD sufferers or other mentally ill people? Or how in ten years time he ends up as a lollipop man helping kids cross the street to school. What about all the tax he eventually paid on his subsequent and previous earnings, does that matter?

Your dim, dark prediction and understanding of mental illness AND socialism is fucking archaic. Were you frozen in Victorian Britain and thawed out last week or something? Go back to watching the idiot box, i'm sure the latest episode of benefits street will keep you distracted while cameron and his cronies swindle this country. I don't mean to make this overly political but this is EXACTLY what the politics of divide and rule is all about. The TV programs, the newspapers - with shows and stories about benefits and migrants - they all conspire to convince person A that they should blame person B, meanwhile person Z is laughing their way to the bank. And you lap it up and take it to the extreme of putting PEOPLE to sleep!?

In this country, we all contribute to the social system so that everyone can be looked after. It drives me potty hearing someone complain about taxpayer's money going to ill and unfortunate people when all it would take is one single bad day for that same person to suddenly need all that help and more.

I'm not suggesting we kill all mentally ill people. Just the ones that pose a threat to others. Swinging a machete at cops qualifies as posing a threat to others. It's all about risk vs reward. The risks of attempting to cure a violent psychotic outweigh the potential rewards.

Using that 'logic', does it not make MORE sense then to start by killing all non-mentally ill violent people, because they pose the same threat to others and the same obstacles to success in life (or even more, since medical records are private but criminal records are not) but have NO chance of being 'cured' since they aren't 'sick', while the mentally ill might just need the right dose of medication to be cured?

How might you possibly know the potential rewards of a 'cured' psychotic? Once cured, they have the same opportunities as anyone else with the same skill sets.

And to address something that I tried to ignore from your earlier post, what's your problem with the custodial field? It's a great job with fairly good pay for good honest work, often on a flexible schedule with good benefits. The best job I ever had was as a janitor at a doctors office, I made around $25-$30 an hour (which, where I live, is over double the average pay rate) for a part time job I could do any time between 9pm and 6am, but usually took only 2 hours (4 when I took over a second office). Not only that, it's a necessary position in any business with over 5 people. I don't agree at all with your insinuation that the lives of people with that job are "mediocre" and they are really better off dead, and instead I just find it insulting in the extreme.

I think you're missing the point. I propose that we execute anyone that poses a threat to the general public. That means anyone who commits a violent crime (or threatens to commit a violent crime) regardless of their mental state. People who are mentally ill tend to be less predictable (making them a greater threat in general) but the punishment should be the same regardless. You stab someone, you are executed. You threaten to stab someone, you are executed. You attempt to stab someone, you are executed.

As for being a janitor, most people don't want to clean toilets or mop floors even if they get paid to do so. It's a last resort when nothing better is available. If you took a survey of janitors and asked how many would rather have a different job even if it paid the same, I'm pretty sure most say that they want a different job. Janitors are definitely a necessity and I appreciate their work but I would never want to actually be one myself.

@Jerykk
capital punishment much?
look,i get it,eye for an eye,choices have consequences,violence should be responded to with violence.

i do not necessarily agree with that premise but i can understand why someone would adopt that premise, but YOU....you take it to a whole new level.

"You threaten to stab someone, you are executed"

really?
you really feel that this is a justifiable stance?
in your world merely threatening violence should be countered with actual execution?

have you even considered the gravity and weight of what you are proposing? the implications alone are horrifying.

i struggle to understand your commentary.
you consistently seem to promote an extremely fascist worldview.i wonder if you are even aware of this facet.

OK, that's a large change from your original post where you limit the death sentence to the mentally ill.

Wow. I'm certainly glad people like you don't make societies rules then. Death sentence for a simple threat?!? Sweet zombie Jesus! That's EVERYONE at some point.
What if you threaten to stab someone who's trying to stab you? You threatened, so you die?
What if I claim you threatened me to get the state to kill you? You can't prove you didn't, so you die?
What if you just hit them with a stick? You still get executed, right?
What if you turn a corner and accidentally stab someone? You still get executed for being unsafe, right?
What if you just push someone? You still get executed because that's also violence, right?
Or is it ONLY if you use a knife? Your position is so odd and illogical to me that that's a reasonable question to ask. Exactly where is your line where violence is met with death? At what age do you implement it?
I don't think you thought through the full implications of your 'idea'.

People in general are unpredictable. Period. Those that are assumed to not be mentally ill, yet are still prone to violence are MORE dangerous and unpredictable than those we know to be wary of, not less.

I don't think you've actually ever deigned to speak with a custodian, considering your assumptions about them. I would counter that most take great pride in their work, work that's a necessity, that pays well, and does not require extensive training or school, only a willingness to work hard and an ability to be conscientious about your work.
Your idea, to ask if they would like a cushier job with the same pay, is patently ridiculous and applies to ANY job....'Would you like to work much less in a far cleaner environment with less stress for the same money?'...DUH...who's not going to say "yes" to that deal? If you asked them would they quit their job for another job they might actually GET at it's pay rate, I would suggest you'll likely find 99% would say "no fucking way, are you stupid?!? I would need to work 3 fast food jobs to equal one custodial job". That goes for those with and without degrees, BTW. A diploma is no guarantee of a job in your field, and a job in your field is no guarantee of happiness.

Do you not see that, while you likely do greatly appreciate their work, you are denigrating them and the job they do? It's like you think only 'untouchables' should do that kind of work, and they're all really sub-humans so that's OK, but a real person would/should never stoop to 'cleaning' after others.
Just wow.

EDIT: In a way, your mindset is the reason why custodial work pays so well, so I guess I should really thank you.

Just ignore @Jerykk.

He's probably just trolling.

Obviously there would still be trials and investigations. Circumstances like self-defense and accidents would still be considered and evidence would still be a necessity. But instead of a slap on the wrist or pointless prison sentences (keeping people in prison is a colossal waste of money), the sentence for convicted criminals would always be death. This would be a pretty effective deterrent for people posting death threats on Facebook or Twitter.

This isn't an all or nothing situation. Adopting death sentences doesn't mean that we have to abolish the entire judicial system and become a fascist state that persecutes people without reasonable justification. Truth is, fear of death is a pretty compelling reason not to break the law and people who pose a physical threat to others should be punished accordingly.

As for custodians, I'm sorry if I offended you but it doesn't change the fact that the occupation is seen as undesirable by the vast majority of people. Nobody says "I want to be a janitor when I grow up!" It may pay relatively well and have flexible hours but the work itself is tedious and unpleasant. Granted, there are a lot of jobs that are tedious and unpleasant but when given the choice between being a janitor or an office worker, 99.99% of the population would choose the office job. Janitors are a necessity but nobody would ever want to be one if other options with equivalent pay were available.