For those of you wondering why cops are trained to fire 7+ rounds if necessary...

[Aunt Antifa]

So that is what causes you to post such nonsense.



Thank you for the tacit admission to trolling.

Trolling suggests bad faith. Your initial response to start this dopey exchange-chain was riddled with it.

Starting a convo off with “You’re a lying liar” is not the stuff of honest debate.

Make a point or stop whining about how I choose to make mine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Citizen]

...this is why:



Sometimes 6 is not enough to stop a threat.

Cop are not trained to do that

 

[CaughtInThe]

Comparing an unarmed man being shot in the back 7 times with a guy attacking a cop with a machete is desperate and pathetic. These two situations are not even remotely equivalent.

Deplorable

 

[Noodlegawd]

Cop are not trained to do that

Not trained to do what? Shoot until the guy chasing them with a machete is no longer chasing them with a machete?

What are they trained to do in this situation, in your expert opinion? What would you do if you had a gun and a guy was chasing you with a machete?

 

[Noodlegawd]

Comparing an unarmed man being shot in the back 7 times with a guy attacking a cop with a machete is desperate and pathetic. These two situations are not even remotely equivalent.

That would be a fascinating observation if the point of the thread was to claim that they are equivalent. A brain-damaged 12 year old would understand that wasn't the point.

 

[Citizen]

Not trained to do what? Shoot until the guy chasing them with a machete is no longer chasing them with a machete?

What are they trained to do in this situation, in your expert opinion? What would you do if you had a gun and a guy was chasing you with a machete?

Fire 7 rounds in an unarmed mans back

 

[Noodlegawd]

Fire 7 rounds in an unarmed mans back

He wasn't unarmed, and even if he was, for all the cop knew he could have BECOME armed by reaching into the vehicle.

If that's the crux of your theory, then it's a terrible theory.

But that's totally beside the point.

 

[Excon]

Trolling suggests bad faith. Your initial response to start this dopey exchange-chain was riddled with it.

Starting a convo off with “You’re a lying liar” is not the stuff of honest debate.

Make a point or stop whining about how I choose to make mine.

:lamo
Point #1. Not what I said. iLOL You can't even get that right.
Point #2. Being deliberately dishonest the way your post was ("No one is wondering, we know why: He wanted to murder the Black guy.") Is not the stuff of honest debate or an actual relevant point.
Point #3. Pointing out your commentary was deliberate dishonesty is, was, and still remains a posting of factual information, not an attempt to have a discussion with you and is not trolling.
Point #4. Given your tacit admission, I will be kind enough to call you a whambulance if that is what you would like.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

That would be a fascinating observation if the point of the thread was to claim that they are equivalent. A brain-damaged 12 year old would understand that wasn't the point.

Sure the 7 shots number is just a huge coincidence. :roll:

He wasn't unarmed, and even if he was, for all the cop knew he could have BECOME armed by reaching into the vehicle.

If that's the crux of your theory, then it's a terrible theory.

But that's totally beside the point.

He didn't have a weapon so yes, he was unarmed. You're arguing cops should shoot and kill everyone just in case they might become armed.

 

[Court Jester]

Comparing an unarmed man being shot in the back 7 times with a guy attacking a cop with a machete is desperate and pathetic. These two situations are not even remotely equivalent.

Cops couldn't know he was unarmed, or that he was trying to reach for a weapon. The stupid Darwin award winner decided to fight with the police and threaten them. He got what was coming to him.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Cops couldn't know he was unarmed, or that he was trying to reach for a weapon. The stupid Darwin award winner decided to fight with the police and threaten them. He got what was coming to him.

Ah yes, the psychopathic "cops should just blast everyone in case they might eventually be armed" argument. I guess your attempt to claim all lives mattered was a lie. Seek help.

 

[code1211]

You're trying to group an unarmed jogger being shot by a hill billy civilian and an unarmed black guy being shot in the back 7 times with a violent, machete wielding attacker that's actively attacking a cop. You're dishonest and transparent.

Not sure what's hard to understand about not wanting the cops to blast unarmed civilians that didn't pose a threat. Literally nobody has said cops shouldn't defend themselves when attacked.




The OP is absolutely trying to compare the two. The 7 shots thing is not a coincidence.

The folks on this board attacking the actions of the cop are saying that since they can observe no threat in the snipet of the video showing a fraction of the event, then the cop needs to be lynched.

In the case of the guy with the machete, the threat seems obvious.

In the case of the guy turning his back on the cops and going to his car, the threat is also obvious.

Any cop in America is 20 times more likely to be killed on the job than any Black male in America is to be killed on the street by a cop.

I worked in sales for a few decades and seeing things is a delicate business. A customer does not need to start waving a machete for the salesman to know he has lost the sale.

When a spouse is talking to their spouse, a machete does not need to be produced to prove ill intent or negative reception. Actually, some communication signals are so slight that they are sensed, not seen.

We were not looking the guy in the eye or hearing what he was saying or watching his posture or sensing his attention level.

We were also not in the moment knowing the guy was a repeat offender and knowing that an assault victim was just sent off to the hospital.

Again, the cops didn't just stop, pick a guy from the crowd and shoot him in the back 7 times as the story is meant to indicate.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

The folks on this board attacking the actions of the cop are saying that since they can observe no threat in the snipet of the video showing a fraction of the event, then the cop needs to be lynched.

In the case of the guy with the machete, the threat seems obvious.

In the case of the guy turning his back on the cops and going to his car, the threat is also obvious.

Any cop in America is 20 times more likely to be killed on the job than any Black male in America is to be killed on the street by a cop.

I worked in sales for a few decades and seeing things is a delicate business. A customer does not need to start waving a machete for the salesman to know he has lost the sale.

When a spouse is talking to their spouse, a machete does not need to be produced to prove ill intent or negative reception. Actually, some communication signals are so slight that they are sensed, not seen.

We were not looking the guy in the eye or hearing what he was saying or watching his posture or sensing his attention level.

We were also not in the moment knowing the guy was a repeat offender and knowing that an assault victim was just sent off to the hospital.

Again, the cops didn't just stop, pick a guy from the crowd and shoot him in the back 7 times as the story is meant to indicate.

Your attempt to equate holding police officers legally accountable for their actions as "a lynching" makes me want to ignore your entire post and go about my day but I'll give you another chance to turn down the hyperbole.

First, being a cop is not even in the top 20 most dangerous jobs, so the conservative position that cops should just blast everyone the second they feel slightly uneasy is ridiculous. I had far stricter ROE as a soldier in Afghanistan. If I had blasted an unarmed civilian in my custody I would've gone the **** to prison.

Second, the justification you just used could justify ANY killing. Sure, that officer shot a bunch of little kids in the back of the head, but we have no idea what else he saw, maybe those kids could've had guns in the backpacks!

Thirdly, this is a great example of why we need universal body cams. The only people that oppose them are bad cops who don't want their actions scrutinized.

Lastly, even if this was an unjust shooting, you people would defend him regardless because in your mind the cop is ALWAYS right. If bad cops were held accountible for their actions the good ones would have some credibility when the situation isn't so clear.

 

[Citizen]

He wasn't unarmed, and even if he was, for all the cop knew he could have BECOME armed by reaching into the vehicle.

If that's the crux of your theory, then it's a terrible theory.

But that's totally beside the point.

He was unarmed and you don’t shoot someone in the back based on speculation. That is pathetic policing. Besides, there is no evidence that he is reaching for anything. Just speculation

 

[Court Jester]

Ah yes, the psychopathic "cops should just blast everyone in case they might eventually be armed" argument. I guess your attempt to claim all lives mattered was a lie. Seek help.

Willfully ignoring the facts will not magically change the reality. There may be unicorns in your universe, but they still can't fly.

Police get called out by other citizens for help when YOU are the suspect, and then you ignore police commands, resist arrest, fight with the police, and then go reaching for "something"---- well, then you should get shot.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Where is Rich2018 to solve everything by suggesting that cops simply be trained to not allow themselves to be chopped up by a machete?

 

[Noodlegawd]

Sure the 7 shots number is just a huge coincidence. :roll:



He didn't have a weapon so yes, he was unarmed. You're arguing cops should shoot and kill everyone just in case they might become armed.

He had a knife. Keep up.

 

[Noodlegawd]

He was unarmed and you don’t shoot someone in the back based on speculation. That is pathetic policing. Besides, there is no evidence that he is reaching for anything. Just speculation

He was not unarmed. He had a knife. The evidence of that is overwhelming.

And yes, cops shoot people on speculation all the time, specifically if they are not complying with commands, refusing to show their hands, and possibly reaching for a weapon.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

He had a knife. Keep up.

In his car, not in his possession. Many Americans have knives in their car and that isn't permission to have you murdered.

 

[noonereal]

Comparing an unarmed man being shot in the back 7 times with a guy attacking a cop with a machete is desperate and pathetic. These two situations are not even remotely equivalent.

still with this nonsense I see


you folks are as bad as the Trumpets

 

[Citizen]

He was not unarmed. He had a knife. The evidence of that is overwhelming.

And yes, cops shoot people on speculation all the time, specifically if they are not complying with commands, refusing to show their hands, and possibly reaching for a weapon.

There is no overwhelming evidence that he had a knife the report says that allegedly the knife was on the floor of the driver’s seat. Cops shoot people on speculation all of the time. Especially black people. That is why people are protesting

 

[Noodlegawd]

In his car, not in his possession. Many Americans have knives in their car and that isn't permission to have you murdered.

No, he almost certainly had a knife in his hand.

-the cops were yelling "drop the knife" when he was walking around the car.
-a woman was yelling "put it down."
-you can see a knife-shaped object in his hand when he passes around the front of the vehicle.
-investigators found a knife on the floor in front of the driver seat, right where he was leaning when he was shot (i.e., he dropped it there when he was shot...who just keeps a knife on the floor of their car?).

 

[Noodlegawd]

There is no overwhelming evidence that he had a knife the report says that allegedly the knife was on the floor of the driver’s seat. Cops shoot people on speculation all of the time. Especially black people. That is why people are protesting

Yeah, no overwhelming evidence, other than:

-a cop were yelling "drop the knife" when he was walking around the car.
-a woman was yelling "put it down."
-a knife-shaped object seen in his hand in the video when he passes around the front of the vehicle.
-the knife on the floor in front of the driver seat, right where he was leaning when he was shot (i.e., he dropped it there when he was shot...who just keeps a knife on the floor of their car?).

 

[Batcat]

...this is why:



Sometimes 6 is not enough to stop a threat.

I understand that one handgun round is often not powerful enough to stop a threat. The problem is that the media doesn’t mention this and most people have misconceptions based on watching gun fights on TV and in the movies. It almost seems like most people believe the cop should have let Blake drive away. Of course had the cop allowed that and Blake would have had a traffic accident that killed the children or some other innocent person, he would have been criticized for not shooting him.

It’s tough to be a cop today. My grandson was thinking about joining the force and I advised him not to. Instead he joined the Navy.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I understand that one handgun round is often not powerful enough to stop a threat. The problem is that the media doesn’t mention this and most people have misconceptions based on watching gun fights on TV and in the movies. It almost seems like most people believe the cop should have let Blake drive away. Of course had the cop allowed that and Blake would have had a traffic accident that killed the children or some other innocent person, he would have been criticized for not shooting him.

It’s tough to be a cop today. My grandson was thinking about joining the force and I advised him not to. Instead he joined the Navy.

The funny (not funny haha, but funny strange/sad/unfortunate) about all this is that the BLM protests in 2014/15 arguably had the intended effect -- police killings of unarmed black men went down significantly (by about half, or 30-40 incidents per year), arguably as a result of police being less enthusiastic or more careful about arresting suspects, and loss of trust for police in communities.

But the number of murders of black men went UP by about 800 per year, arguably as a result of police being less enthusiastic or more careful about arresting suspects, and loss of trust for police in communities.

So for every killing of an unarmed black man that was arguably prevented by the BLM protests in 2014/15, 20 more black men arguably were just plain murdered.

Probably not the outcome BLM was hoping for, and I'll bet that it will happen again, maybe worse this time.