Nm
- Thread starter KNIGHTTIME^
- Start date
Taking 7 hot ones to the back and still alive to tell the story. Impressive.
They should have blew his head off with the first shot. Obviously, the cops need better training on how to handle violent, career criminals and potentially getting killed
Is there a situation where shooting him in the back would’ve been acceptable to you?
Yes.., if he was able to get to his car, grab a weapon and kill all the cops. Then things would all be good with Firm
Luckily the Supreme Court ruled on this 40 years ago.
Tremendous amount of KHDS in here from the typical snowflake KHDS crowd.
This doesn't affect me. Don't care. Stop being suckers and losers.
This doesn't affect me. Don't care. Stop being suckers and losers.
You didn’t answer my question as to what you, personally, believe. Especially when you deflect to a Supreme Court ruling and leave out all of the individual state precedent over the ensuing 40 years. Tell us in your own words when it is permissible.
Also, it is more than objectively reasonable that Jacob Blake was not fleeing when he reached into his car and was instead reaching for a weapon. Which would mean that Tennessee v. Garner would not even be the most applicable SCOTUS case. That would be Graham v. Connor, where the court unanimously found that “reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.”
Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Listen to yourself. Sooooo triggered and sooooo angry. You are letting your hate and stupidity blind you. Go outside. Find a hobby. Stop being such a fragile little snowflake about things that will never affect you.
The officer didn't know about any weapons in his car. He also shot Blake at point blank range while holding him. So you have a person moving away from you (fleeing) but still in your grasp and you feel that it is acceptable to shot him in the back? At what point did the officer feel that there was reasonable harm to himself and/or others?
When he saw he was dealing with an angry Black man.
Seven shots in the man's back because you can never be too careful, right guys?*
You’re leaving out a lot of important details of the interaction, as you do in all of these situations. Blake was in not in anyone’s grasp when he reached into the door of the car. An officer tried to grab him and got only his shirt but tried to use that to keep Blake away from the door. You leave out that the officers issued lawful commands to stop and were practically begging him to not reach into the door. You’re leaving out everything that happened up to that point, including that they knew he had a knife. The officer doesn’t have to know whether there is a weapon in the car. As you’ve seen in the video, waiting for the visual of a weapon kills people. But given the rest of Blake’s actions and the totality of the circumstances, it is more than objectively reasonable that Blake has a weapon in that door.
And even if he didn’t, the car itself is a weapon. There were little kids and other people running around in front of that car. If Blake gets in and quickly takes off, it’s more than possible that he runs one of them over. Which, in and of itself, satisfies your Garner condition.
This is a justified shooting blown up by Crump for his financial gain and used by politicians for their grab at power.
Also, you didn’t answer my question about when you feel it is acceptable to shoot someone in the back.
The person I feel for is his x girlfriend who was raped by this animal, and now has to see him treated as a hero.
Blake whether you believe he should or should not have been shot, did everything possible to put himself into the place where he might be.
Blake whether you believe he should or should not have been shot, did everything possible to put himself into the place where he might be.
You have got to shake your head in wonderment at the lengths posters here have gone in a bizarre attempt to justify shooting a man in the back seven times.
Just remember everybody, this is about 'law and order,' not race, right guys?*
Christ, a deadly lion or tiger that escaped from the zoo would have been treated with more genuine respect than Jacob Blake got that day, let alone Daniel Prude that man who died in police custody in Rochester.
Just remember everybody, this is about 'law and order,' not race, right guys?*
Christ, a deadly lion or tiger that escaped from the zoo would have been treated with more genuine respect than Jacob Blake got that day, let alone Daniel Prude that man who died in police custody in Rochester.
The responses from the redhats on this post are just scary crazy. wow
Right, that's a still shot showing him grabbing Blake's shirt. What did you think this was proving? That the officer had control at that point?
The second video that has come out seems to show a single (or maybe 2) officer struggling with a resisting Blake while others stay back. The officer ends up losing control at which point Blake walks around to the driver's side of the vehicle and the video ends at the point of this still where you clearly see the officer grab for him and get only his shirt. Normally, you'd have multiple officers restrain a combative suspect. I don't know why that didn't happen. I can assume that maybe occurred as a reaction to the Floyd outrage in order to avoid the optics of having multiple officers restraining a black man against the ground, but we won't know unless either the special investigator publishes a detailed report or the officers testify in court.
You realize that cops don't decide whether someone lives or dies because someone is resisting right? What planet do you live on?
The officer is within 2-3 feet from Blake and Blake is not threatening him. What's the justification for lethal force?
I love that you take little snippets of the interaction and then evaluate them without the entire context as if that is the whole story.
In the totality of the circumstances, he had a warrant for his arrest, he actively resisted said arrest, wrestled at least one officer off of him, walked through a taser deployment, ignored orders to stop multiple times, and proceeded to reach into a concealed location in the door of his car. As I said before, given all of this, and that observers heard officers say "drop the knife" multiple times, I think that it's easy to see that anyone with the training the officers had and the experience they had in the totality of the circumstances would reasonably assess an imminent threat of deadly force or grave bodily harm and employ deadly force. That is the legal standard and that was met.
The 7 shots is just inflammatory rhetoric by people who care not for the truth. Real leadership that is not interested in radical social revolution would be trying to bring out both sides in order to create a common understanding. As would real media. We have neither.
7 shots is a little bit disconcerting. Obviously that cop needs to retire his 9mm and get a gun that has some stopping power.
WTF? How does a man with his back turned to the police officer suddenly become a lethal threat?
Nothing about your "whole story" changes that troublesome fact.
Once you start shooting, the number of shots is irrelevant, I agree with you there. I also have a feeling that there is an issue with their tasers, we will see. So after everything you mentioned above, why not shoot earlier? The purpose of a firearm is to extend force beyond your reach or if there is immediate harm. Sounds like wrestling with the police is grounds for shooting. Why not shoot in this moment? The police felt safe enough to get closer.
Cops need to carry bigger guns. Something more like a .500 SW mag. One shot, no questions asked.
Over the years since the Civil Rights movement, racists have gotten good about exhibiting their racist contempt for Blacks in subtle, carefully coded, ways.
But thanks to Trump, I've noticed more and more that posters don't even bother hiding their racism anymore.
Given this is the year 2020, that's a hell of a wake-up call.
Tasers are imperfect weapons. They have to be deployed correctly to incapacitate. If not, then they just cause pain, which some can withstand, especially if they’re on something like PCP.Once you start shooting, the number of shots is irrelevant, I agree with you there. I also have a feeling that there is an issue with their tasers, we will see. So after everything you mentioned above, why not shoot earlier? The purpose of a firearm is to extend force beyond your reach or if there is immediate harm. Sounds like wrestling with the police is grounds for shooting. Why not shoot in this moment? The police felt safe enough to get closer.
Even if you deploy the prongs in the right areas, the prongs need to embed in the skin to convey current for any amount of time. If the prongs gets hung up in a shirt or shorts, then no contact and no current. If the prongs don’t embed, then someone can walk right out of it.
The tasers can be deployed in contact without the prongs like a stun gun but that doesn’t incapacitate immediately or easily, regardless of what you see on TV.
I don’t know why they didn’t shoot him there. Maybe they knew that he didn’t have anything in his pockets from when they tried to arrest him initially. Again, we don’t have the totality of the circumstances in the videos and the media doesn’t feel it’s important to even ask the questions that you are asking.Once you start shooting, the number of shots is irrelevant, I agree with you there. I also have a feeling that there is an issue with their tasers, we will see. So after everything you mentioned above, why not shoot earlier? The purpose of a firearm is to extend force beyond your reach or if there is immediate harm. Sounds like wrestling with the police is grounds for shooting. Why not shoot in this moment? The police felt safe enough to get closer.
I just quoted your racist filth. "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."
The fact that he closed ground on Blake tells you that he did not feel that his life was threatened.
The 'vile rapist' who deserved to be taken out in this example was a Black man.
Am I still losing the argument?
