Honestly is this way used the police in your country with suspects ?
ah i get you , it's about Muslims ,we are bad even if we are suspects or innocents !!?
indeed she had no knife ,Israeli "police" not always act like police.
watch this :
i am not beggin your sympathy
do you believe that police in general act like angels , don't be mistaken all time?
Lol, for me...it has nothing to do with Muslim. I don't think you are begging sympathy. I think you were asking people to look at the event fairly.There is nothing wrong with that. But I have looked at it fairly. I question whether you are looking at it fairly.
I don't like the police shooting anyone. But, if I look at it fairly some police shootings are justified.
This is what I am working with:
1) A person brandishing a knife in a crowded area (notice I did not say Muslim as this evaluation is the same for any person over the age of 18)
2) the police have a duty to intervene and protect the people. This is true regardless of whether the person is holding the knife in a threatening manner, trying to stab people or just walking in circles.
3)the police ought to be able to use resources provided for them to do their jobs.
4) police are constantly put in harm's way fulfilling their job requirements. Police should be able to act to reasonably reduce potential harm to themselves and to reduce risk of death or severe bodily injury. This reduction of risk includes using a continuum of force up to deadly force.
Deadly force should only be employed when a police officer or member of the public is faced with the potential for great bodily harm or death.
So the police need to engage a suspect wielding a knife, demanding that suspect to drop the knife, lay on the ground, and keep hands visable are all reasonable demands that must be followed to help ensure officer and public safety.
Refusal to lay on the ground or to stop are certainly violations which ought to incur a use of force, but not deadly force. Refusal to put down a weapon in conjunction with these other refusals however, is enough to constitute use of deadly force.
Muslim doesn't enter into the equation. I am not sure what non lethal tools these police have available. If they do not have them, they should.
There are certainly nuanced arguments that I think are valid. However, these nuanced arguments are very situation dependent. And again these would not matter if the person was Muslim or not.
I can see fair arguments against these police saying:
A) the police had the situation contained, no deadly force was necessary unless she lashed out. The police could have kept the situation contained until a negotiator arrived. (I don't know whether this police force has negotiators)
B) the police had the situation contained they could have used a form of less lethal force to subdue the woman such as bean bag bullets, pepper paintballs, directional sound, or rubber bullets. If the police are not equipped with these but have access to them, the situation was contained enough to send someone to get these. (I don't know what access this police force has to these)
But none of this changes that the police have a duty to do something. I am not sure what there protocol is, but we cannot expect them to engage is hand to hand combat when such would increase the risk of harm to an officer, and we cannot expect them to wait around all day. If they do not have access to a negotiator, or a psychologist, or less lethal weapons, they did very well. They subdued the woman, with out causing loss of life.
If you cannot see this, then you will need to explain better because from my standpoint it seems you are not being very fair to the police.
If you want to say that the police handle non Muslims differently, show how they would have handled a non Muslim in this situation. I have left religion out of the equation. Largely because I don't know how they handle other religious people in this situation, so I cannot say whether there is disparate treatment.