Many people here routinely call standard table knives "butter knives", particularly if they don't usually have a separate small butter-serving knife at hand.

Such a knife, with a 5"/ 13cm blade, doesn't present much of a slash hazard, but can be a highly effective thrusting weapon, particularly when aimed at shallow, soft targets such as the neck.

The teenager had an extensive history of fighting with police, and with using knifes in his assaults. The police likely knew this when responding.

Tragic - absolutely. Murder? No, not at all.

Weaver wrote:Many people here routinely call standard table knives "butter knives", particularly if they don't usually have a separate small butter-serving knife at hand.

If they don't have a separate small butter-serving knife at hand to call a butter knife?

I sometimes use the top of a screwdriver to drift out bearings from wheel hubs if it's the nearest thing to hand but I don't call it a hammer

Yes, if they don't have a separate butter-serving knife at hand to call a "butter knife", many here will routinely call a table knife a "butter knife".

It's annoying to me, but it happens all the damn time.

I'm not a particular stickler for cutlery nomenclature, but if I were writing a news article or making a witness statement I would not call a generic knife a 'butter knife' on the basis that I can imagine a situation where I might use it to spread butter because I didn't have an actual butter knife to hand.

Surely if the report says butter knife, we should proceed on the basis that it was indeed a butter knife, not hypothesise that it was actually a dangerous knife that Crocodile Dundee might disdainfully deem suitable only for spreading butter with.

mattwilson wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

mattwilson wrote:Well clearly he shouldn't have had a knife

They manage to make shivs in prison, how you propose keeping him away from all things pointy/sharp?
Apparently it was a butterknife.

I don't, I just thought I'd play along with all the gun toting yanks about to show up and blame it on the one who got shot...

Hey now, you don't have to be gun toting to blame the victim. I do it all the time, and I don't tote.

I can't say I know all the details, but I can see how in that very instant gunfire might have been necessary to protect the officer, but the set up sounds like a cluster fuck and probably could have been avoided in the first place.

ED209 wrote:I'm not a particular stickler for cutlery nomenclature, but if I were writing a news article or making a witness statement I would not call a generic knife a 'butter knife' on the basis that I can imagine a situation where I might use it to spread butter because I didn't have an actual butter knife to hand.

Surely if the report says butter knife, we should proceed on the basis that it was indeed a butter knife, not hypothesise that it was actually a dangerous knife that Crocodile Dundee might disdainfully deem suitable only for spreading butter with.

No - we should judge based in what is known about American culture and language usage, and recognize that it is highly likely it is in fact a table knife not a puny butter knife.

Not certain - but highly likely.

Your argument from incredulity simply doesn't stack up to someone who actually knows what terms are used to reference the implements in question. The usage I refer to is very widespread, particularly in the South and in poorer demographics. My own wife regularly calls table knives "butter knives" - because that is what is used to spread butter on bread most of the time.

Well since it sounds like he was on the ground (after amazingly being put down by a shot to the leg which we all know doesn't put people down and is near-on impossible to obtain), then moved and they decided to "end that fucker" with a slug to the head, I'd say it's still murder.

You have no way of knowing that is the case - the report in the OP doesn't say that.

It says he was supposedly shot in the leg, then shot in the head after moving. He could well have still been upright and assaulting after being hit in the leg. And if that is the case, it is a perfect example of why shooting people in the leg, even if you do hit, doesn't stop them from carrying out aggressive actions virtually unimpeded.

mattwilson wrote:Well since it sounds like he was on the ground (after amazingly being put down by a shot to the leg which we all know doesn't put people down and is near-on impossible to obtain), then moved and they decided to "end that fucker" with a slug to the head, I'd say it's still murder.

Where did you get this information from?

Stories are reporting that the officer that was attacked with the knife needed medical attention so I highly doubt it was a butter knife. It's a challenge to cut a sponge cake with a butter knife.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

mattwilson wrote:Well since it sounds like he was on the ground (after amazingly being put down by a shot to the leg which we all know doesn't put people down and is near-on impossible to obtain), then moved and they decided to "end that fucker" with a slug to the head, I'd say it's still murder.

Where did you get this information from?

Stories are reporting that the officer that was attacked with the knife needed medical attention so I highly doubt it was a butter knife. It's a challenge to cut a sponge cake with a butter knife.

Not true. A butter knife can do a good deal of damage if someone is swinging it. Dull knives can cause some serious lacerations as well.

Weaver wrote:

ED209 wrote:I'm not a particular stickler for cutlery nomenclature, but if I were writing a news article or making a witness statement I would not call a generic knife a 'butter knife' on the basis that I can imagine a situation where I might use it to spread butter because I didn't have an actual butter knife to hand.

Surely if the report says butter knife, we should proceed on the basis that it was indeed a butter knife, not hypothesise that it was actually a dangerous knife that Crocodile Dundee might disdainfully deem suitable only for spreading butter with.

No - we should judge based in what is known about American culture and language usage, and recognize that it is highly likely it is in fact a table knife not a puny butter knife.

Not certain - but highly likely.

Your argument from incredulity simply doesn't stack up to someone who actually knows what terms are used to reference the implements in question. The usage I refer to is very widespread, particularly in the South and in poorer demographics. My own wife regularly calls table knives "butter knives" - because that is what is used to spread butter on bread most of the time.

The only difference between a table knife and a butter knife is a table knife has little serrations along part of its length, a butter knife has none. Not sharp serrations like a steak knife, you can very safely draw a table knife across your skin without causing so much as a scratch.

I am not making an argument from incredulity. The only incredulity I see is the apparent refusal to believe that a police officer would shoot dead an autistic child holding only a butter knife in his home, in blatant disregard for the language specifically used in the report that is the only source of relevant information available to us. I am certainly capable of believing that a police officer would shoot a child holding any kind of weapon, or no weapon at all, when presented with a news report of such an incident. The important difference between our points of view is that mine is supported by such a report.

My butter knife has a sharper point than my table knives (which I call butter knives).

I wonder how the UK police deal with these kinds of incidents, without shooting someone dead. I think sending armed police, to deal with a child (unless he had a gun) is not the way to go. I'm sure in the UK, it would be dealt with using riot shields, pepper spray, a good old truncheon, stab proof vests and a little training.

But, i suppose shooting him was the least inconvenient approach. Not the best.

james1v wrote:I wonder how the UK police deal with these kinds of incidents, without shooting someone dead. I think sending armed police, to deal with a child (unless he had a gun) is not the way to go. I'm sure in the UK, it would be dealt with using riot shields, pepper spray, a good old truncheon, stab proof vests and a little training.

But, i suppose shooting him was the least inconvenient approach. Not the best.

I think we just rely on long response times

ED209 wrote:

james1v wrote:I wonder how the UK police deal with these kinds of incidents, without shooting someone dead. I think sending armed police, to deal with a child (unless he had a gun) is not the way to go. I'm sure in the UK, it would be dealt with using riot shields, pepper spray, a good old truncheon, stab proof vests and a little training.

But, i suppose shooting him was the least inconvenient approach. Not the best.

I think we just rely on long response times

And they are long, sometimes.

Wiðercora wrote:Can't help but wonder if they'd have shot a white teen.

To clarify, I don't think the police involved shot him because he was black nor that they wouldn't have shot a white teen because he was white.

His black so he must be mad, let's just shoot him dead.

A lot of people with autism tend to fly off the rails when they reach puberty. One year you have a nice, quiet child with autism and the following year you have a raging ball of hormones who is beating the shit out of anyone who even looks at them.