This is very bizarre. At first I thought this was some sort of elaborate April Fool's joke that I'm late to the party to. Or a publicity stunt for an upcoming zombie flick. But no, this is REAL.
I question why the police SHOT the assailant instead of using a stun gun?
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle
Per the story, police arrived and demanded the man stop his attack. He didn't. Because he was a violent offender--mauling another person with his teeth, the officer fired to subdue the attacker. The attacker kept attacking. Only then did the officer shoot to kill.
Because obviously, every psychopath literally chewing someone's face off is going to listen to reason, realize that they're doing something bad, obey the police, and calmly walk into the back of a patrol car. That goes double for someone who is injured by a bullet and still keeps attacking. And every officer in the country--save for the vast majority of NYPD officers--is obviously equipped with a stun gun. Except for how most police do not carry stun guns as they're considered specialty equipment used for crowd control, not every day patrol equipment like a gun or handcuffs.
If this is not a scenario where it's ok for an officer to use a gun to save someone's life, then in your mind there's never an excuse for an officer to save a victim's life unless they dive in and sacrifice their own life to someone in the process of murdering someone else in a distinctly vicious and off-kilter way.
Trent, I read the story. And I still ask why it was neccessary to shoot to kill. That's all - a question. Your reaction is uncalled for. My take on the story was the first gunshot was intended to kill, not the subsequent. I would think there would be several non-lethal ways to stop the attack. Stun gun. Pepper spray. Club. Firehose. Shoot him in the leg.
If the answer is "there was only one cop at the scene who didnt have a stun gun, pepper spray, club, firehouse, or shooting him in the leg didnt work," then thats the answer. But from reading it, it seems like he shot to kill after telling him to stop didnt work. So thats why I have questions about what happened.
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle
With this teeth. That's what is getting me worked up. He was EATING someone. What in the world was wrong with this dude? Mental illness has to play into somehow.
"Life in theater is give and take...but you need to be ready to give more then you take..."
Two naked men laying down by the exit of the MacArthur Causeway and one of them literally eating the other's face? These guys were obviously homeless and mentally ill. Why did the victim not defend himself against his attacker?
The article states they were fighting but very little else. It makes it seem like this guy just lay there at some point and let this guy have his way. It's hard to believe that he didn't try to run away.
Not only is this story bizarre but it's downright disgusting.
And for the record...they weren't both naked. The victim had his pants ripped off as part of the attack. The perp apparently shed his clothes as he was walking back from a memorial day celebration after his car broke down.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
The Seattle blog Slog polled readers if police had overreacted by shooting the attacker repeatedly. The options were "No, Yes and Are you sh*tting me? He was EATING his f*cking FACE!"
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2