Authorities release new details about police shooting of Jacob Blake

[bluesmoke]

You weren't there, so you don't know that.

It has not yet been proved there to have been a threat of imminent bodily harm. I don't have to be there. No evidence has been produced. All that is visual does not show the man in any kind of a threatening pose. You describe to me what the man was doing that was a threat of imminent bodily harm.

 

[apdst]

It has not yet been proved there to have been a threat of imminent bodily harm. I don't have to be there. No evidence has been produced. All that is visual does not show the man in any kind of a threatening pose. You describe to me what the man was doing that was a threat of imminent bodily harm.

According to the evidence, the cops believed they were in danger. Nothing has been presented proving them wrong.

 

[bluesmoke]

Of course it does. That's no different than every time someone reaches for their waistband or a pocket.

If a jury can be convinced that it was reasonable for the officer in mind to believe reaching into a waistband or pocket made for an imminent threat, then they would probably get a not-guilty verdict. But I don't know of any police dept guidelines I've heard of where reaching for something unknown constitutes in and of itself by dept policy an imminent threat. There have been cases of someone reaching in and pulling out a cellphone and being thus shot as an imminent threat. I don't know of any LEO ever been being found guilty, if even going to court, but there have been decision of civil awards favoring the claimant. Others not, depending on circumstance.

 

[bluesmoke]

of course there was. Blake had assaulted the officers, fought off a tazer, and was armed with a knife. At this point he falls under the "fleeing felon" rule and the shooting is completely justified.

You have no proof of assault. You have no proof Blake was armed with a knife. You have no proof Blake was a "felon". The shooting has not been ruled "justified" by the officer's own PD.

 

[bluesmoke]

it's literally on video, lol

Yet you can't describe what on video was the act that constitute your allegation.

 

[bluesmoke]

Literally is in the video. Get a clue.

You know what it looks like, but you can't describe it. Point it out, you can't.

 

[Noodlegawd]

If a jury can be convinced that it was reasonable for the officer in mind to believe reaching into a waistband or pocket made for an imminent threat, then they would probably get a not-guilty verdict. But I don't know of any police dept guidelines I've heard of where reaching for something unknown constitutes in and of itself by dept policy an imminent threat. There have been cases of someone reaching in and pulling out a cellphone and being thus shot as an imminent threat. I don't know of any LEO ever been being found guilty, if even going to court, but there have been decision of civil awards favoring the claimant. Others not, depending on circumstance.

This case doesn't involve someone "reaching for something unknown ... in and of itself." Not even close.

What police dept guidelines do you know of? What do they say about when the shoot/no-shoot line is crossed?

 

[rahl]

You have no proof of assault. You have no proof Blake was armed with a knife. You have no proof Blake was a "felon". The shooting has not been ruled "justified" by the officer's own PD.

Lol we literally have video of all of the above. We see him assault the officers(felony), we see the knife in his hand and we hear the officers ordering him to drop it.

 

[rahl]

Yet you can't describe what on video was the act that constitute your allegation.

Assaulting the officer, armed, and attempting to flee. All of this is on the video.

 

[rahl]

It has not yet been proved there to have been a threat of imminent bodily harm. I don't have to be there. No evidence has been produced. All that is visual does not show the man in any kind of a threatening pose. You describe to me what the man was doing that was a threat of imminent bodily harm.

He already assaulted the officers, was armed with a knife and was attempting to flee with 3 minors in a vehicle.

 

[dcsports]

It has not yet been proved there to have been a threat of imminent bodily harm. I don't have to be there. No evidence has been produced. All that is visual does not show the man in any kind of a threatening pose. You describe to me what the man was doing that was a threat of imminent bodily harm.

He was acting irrationally, shrugged off three officers and repeated taser blasts, and was attempting to enter the drivers seat of a car with three small children in the back. Setting aside the knife in his possession, do you think it was safe for him to drive away? Lock himself in the car with those kids?

 

[Gondwanaland]

You know what it looks like, but you can't describe it. Point it out, you can't.

Are you fookin' blind and deaf? You can hear them shouting at him to drop the knife.

And anyone with remotely working eyes can see the knife.

 

[Gondwanaland]

You have no proof of assault. You have no proof Blake was armed with a knife. You have no proof Blake was a "felon". The shooting has not been ruled "justified" by the officer's own PD.

We have motherfoocking video of him with the knife, as the police were shouting at his dumb self to drop the knife.

He played stupid games, and won stupid prizes.

 

[bluesmoke]

You don't know what the actual threat(s) might have been, do you.

I read a very revealing step by step written by a cop who was in foot pursuit of a suspect.

The thought he wrote went through his mind included not only the immediate threats to life and limb, but the various other stuff and nonsense that might happen as a result of what he was doing.

The melancholy tone of the piece included his children growing up with no father, professional review, media recrimination and immediate danger.

He did not include any plans to quit the job, but the obvious dilemmas that might lead to that decision were all there.

Woulda-Coulda-Shoulda is easy AFTER the fact. With "the fog of war" obscuring the next threat, things are different.

Battle plans, it is said, rarely survive first contact.

Given the nature of the situations we see thrown up by the raving propagandists, there are usually repeat offenders, drugs, civilian complaint and imminent danger all involved.

On 9/11, more than 200 cops died who were running toward the danger when they could have simply backed away.

All this propagandistic crap being put forth by our media and the enemies of our country is getting to be just a little tiresome to me.

LEO in Euro countries face similar situation yet for some reason don't run through all possibilities in their mind in a second to conjure-up a reason to shoot somebody in the back 7x. They just don't get why we kill each other so often here. You've got the propaganda backwards.

 

[bluesmoke]

We have motherfoocking video of him with the knife, as the police were shouting at his dumb self to drop the knife.

He played stupid games, and won stupid prizes.

There is nothing clear about that video, at all. It has not been confirmed that what you think is a knife was a knife. You can't provide any such confirmed evidence of fact. None.

 

[bluesmoke]

so then maybe the cop felt threatened because the guy had a restraining order, fought off tasers and ran for a knife?

The cop could have "felt" threatened seeing someone reach in their jacket pocket and thus, by your judgement, shot them to death justifiably. The man was not facing nor moving towards the officer with any weapon.

 

[noonereal]

The cop could have "felt" threatened seeing someone reach in their jacket pocket and thus, by your judgement, shot them to death justifiably. The man was not facing nor moving towards the officer with any weapon.

yeah, I know, the cop is always in the wrong



****in insane

 

[bluesmoke]

According to the evidence, the cops believed they were in danger. Nothing has been presented proving them wrong.

And nothing has been presented proving them right that they had a reasonable belief they were in danger. Of course, the cop is going to say they believed they were in danger. But that belief must be a reasonable one, and it is not the cop who is not the judge of that. If it ever goes to trial, which is rare that a DA would let it get past a grand jury, the defense will simply put to the jury if they could imagine themselves possibly doing the same as the officer, thinking what the officer did. It is all the more rare that the jury convicts, though we should expect more of our LEO than that jurors putting their selves in the same situation.

 

[apdst]

And nothing has been presented proving them right that they had a reasonable belief they were in danger. Of course, the cop is going to say they believed they were in danger. But that belief must be a reasonable one, and it is not the cop who is not the judge of that. If it ever goes to trial, which is rare that a DA would let it get past a grand jury, the defense will simply put to the jury if they could imagine themselves possibly doing the same as the officer, thinking what the officer did. It is all the more rare that the jury convicts, though we should expect more of our LEO than that jurors putting their selves in the same situation.

It's absolutely the cop who decides what is a reasonable danger, not someone who wasn't even there.

 

[bluesmoke]

yeah, I know, the cop is always in the wrong



****in insane

No. LEO is rarely found in the wrong, legally. It's the legal system that's wrong, not the cop. LEO is just operating within the system, even though the action may be wrong. Slavery was wrong at the time it was practiced. An owner could legally torture and kill a slave. Then, one day, it was made illegal. So, was it right to own and kill your slave at will one day but wrong the next?

 

[noonereal]

No. LEO is rarely found in the wrong, legally. It's the legal system that's wrong, not the cop. LEO is just operating within the system, even though the action may be wrong. Slavery was wrong at the time it was practiced. An owner could legally torture and kill a slave. Then, one day, it was made illegal. So, was it right to own and kill your slave at will one day but wrong the next?

WTF is LEO?

Yeah, cops should always take a bullet before they dare defend themselves. I smell what you are stepping in.

 

[Metric Mouse]

And nothing has been presented proving them right that they had a reasonable belief they were in danger. Of course, the cop is going to say they believed they were in danger. But that belief must be a reasonable one, and it is not the cop who is not the judge of that. If it ever goes to trial, which is rare that a DA would let it get past a grand jury, the defense will simply put to the jury if they could imagine themselves possibly doing the same as the officer, thinking what the officer did. It is all the more rare that the jury convicts, though we should expect more of our LEO than that jurors putting their selves in the same situation.

Lawyer says cop shot Jacob Blake after hearing a mother's desperate plea: 'He's got my kid. He's got my keys'

From the defense, for what it's worth. Another piece of the puzzle if nothing else.

 

[buck]

Lawyer says cop shot Jacob Blake after hearing a mother's desperate plea: 'He's got my kid. He's got my keys'

From the defense, for what it's worth. Another piece of the puzzle if nothing else.

Even more reason for the left to lionize the guy. Fights cops, has a knife, kidnaps kids. Let's all talk about what a hero the guy is.

 

[buck]

Even more reason for the left to lionize the guy. Fights cops, has a knife, kidnaps kids. Let's all talk about what a hero the guy is.

Damnit.. Forgot the (allegedly) rapes women.

 

[bluesmoke]

It's absolutely the cop who decides what is a reasonable danger, not someone who wasn't even there.

No. It's the court. LEO can decide what is reasonable to them, at the time, by their judgement. The case is decided by what is reasonable according to the jury and, to some extent, the judge. It isn't impossible for LEO to be wrong in judgement of what is reasonable. They are human, you know.