Liberals, what would YOU do?

[Peter]

Ok, I am willing to see s difference here, the UK doesn’t face the same kind of environment we do. Cops have next to zero risk there in the same scenario. Not true here, not even remotely.

How manynUK cops are killed by gunmen? Totally apples and oranges.

My point was the police had options other than opening fire but they chose to open fire multiple times.
I believe that this was a criminal act and the officers involved should face prosecution.

 

[Simpletruther]

My point was the police had options other than opening fire but they chose to open fire multiple times.
I believe that this was a criminal act and the officers involved should face prosecution.

Yes, and their “other options” was face a high probability of death. Again, I can see how you would think differently in the Uk. Where other options are not REMOTELY as dangerous.

 

[Integrityrespec]

My point was the police had options other than opening fire but they chose to open fire multiple times.
I believe that this was a criminal act and the officers involved should face prosecution.

Your point ignores the risk to cops, the actions of the suspect and you deliberately leave out a specific alternative.

 

[Peter]

Yes, and their “other options” was face a high probability of death. Again, I can see how you would think differently in the Uk. Where other options are not REMOTELY as dangerous.

So you go straight from someone reaching into a car to that person being an imminent threat?
Are the police really that slow that they can't see a suspect aiming at them and react in time if they see a weapon?
If that's the level that policing has got to in the US then I'm glad I don't live anywhere near it.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

So how many times was OK? 1, 3, how many when did it become excessive? Have you seen the video of the black man attacking a cope with a machete? The cop is forced to shoot 7 times before the perp goes down and that is literally after the guy swings his machete at point blank range at the cop. So give some liberal BS rational for why cops should take unnecessary risks when the suspect fails to comply with police commands and the police know he has a violent past, or is in the act of resisting or fighting the police?

So the guy had a machete and attacked the cop, so the cop shot him 7 times?

How many times would they have shot him if he were unarmed and with his back to them?

Probably walks away clean.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Peter]

Your point ignores the risk to cops, the actions of the suspect and you deliberately leave out a specific alternative.

So the police can now shoot people if they even perceive a threat might emerge some time in the future?
Policing involves risk as do many jobs. You don't get to shoot people just because you think they may possibly be a threat.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

That is horse ****. The cop have every right to shoot.

Blake had every right not to get shot 7 times in his back because yet another terrified loser with a gun can’t do his job properly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[noonereal]

Blake had every right not to get shot 7 times in his back because yet another terrified loser with a gun can’t do his job properly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

no, because he reached for a weapon after being tazed and still resisting.

Stop the ****. This is ridiculous and what you said is one of the sickest things I have ever read on a message board.

 

[CLAX1911]

Because I'm not a psychopath?

so in order to not be a psychopath you have to wait for him to kill you?

Yeah, some people ignore the police that isn't a reason to shoot them in the back.

they didn't shoot him because he was ignoring them they shot him because he was reaching into a car for a weapon.

if it's psychopathic to do anything but let him turn around and shoot you or stab you then I guess human nature is psychopathic.

I think your argument says you think the person shot somehow gains super speed and can somehow outdraw and outshoot police officers who are at the ready to shoot.

real life isn't a western movie. you don't do the standoff at high noon and you don't wait for someone to touch the gun before you draw in fire that's Hollywood.

The officers did indeed have time to make sure a gun was being drawn before opening fire but they didn't they just started blasting.

why should they wait till someone shoots them or stabs them. Again this isn't Hollywood.

 

[CLAX1911]

Blake had every right not to get shot 7 times in his back because yet another terrified loser with a gun can’t do his job properly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah he could have not engaged in criminal activity, he could have followed lawful orders he didn't he chose to reach into a car for a weapon, basically put he played a stupid game and won a stupid prise.

Your right to not get shot ins when you reach for a weapon.

 

[CLAX1911]

So the police can now shoot people if they even perceive a threat might emerge some time in the future?

it wasn't sometime in the future that they shot Blake it was occurring at that moment he was reaching for a weapon.

Policing involves risk as do many jobs. You don't get to shoot people just because you think they may possibly be a threat.

But you don't have to stand there and let someone kill aurender you don't have to let them get a weapon that makes that easier.

If you don't want to get shot by the police don't make it look like you're reaching for a weapon.

It's a simple idea.

 

[dairyair]

You are a cop responding to a violent perp breaking a restraining in order. You know he has violent history and outstanding warrants.

He had physically attacked you, you apply a taser which and he still resists. You and partner draw your weapons and he continues to ignore you and walks to his car.

You are quite aware and have seen in training of dash cam films of fellow cops being killed by perps after “reaching in Their car”.


the perp reaches into the car.

What do you do? It takes about half a second for him to turn and fire. Do you wait and “take your chances” ?

What would you do?

You are also aware of the loss of small motor skills under extreme pressure that nearly everyone suffers (google if you doubt that).

Do you know his name? Address? If they know he has a restraining order, they certainly know several things about the perp.

So, you let the perp go, and wait at his address to show up. Why does a restraining order or warrant mean a death sentence without a trial?
I assume, that's how a white persons situation is typically handled.

 

[Moot]

They tazed him twice. He went for a weapon. WTF, let's get serious.

I am so sick of the tribe mentality.

Think for yourself. **** the tribe, worry about the country.

Maybe the cops should've assessed the situation first and de-escalated before immediately trying to arrest Blake.

Resisting arrest is a misdemeanor...and shouldn't be a death sentence no matter how you slice it.

The difference between the way the Kenosha police treated Blake who violated a restraining order....and Rittenhouse who killed two people and wounded another is like night and day.

Why weren't the cops wearing body cams?

 

[Simpletruther]

Democrats refuse to use common sense, because it's about political agenda. Start with the problem. The suspect has prior offenses and refuses to comply with police commands. Now the situation is dangerous. It's the suspect who caused this, not the police, the police are forced to make snap decisions based on prior information and the second by second develolpment of the incident. It's not the cops fault and anyone who says it is is lying, stupid, or playing pure politics.

Maybe the cops should've assessed the situation and de-escalated before immediately trying to arrest Blake. Resisting arrest is a misdemeanor...and shouldn't be a death sentence no matter how you slice it.

The difference between the way the Kenosha police treated Blake who stepped on private property and Rittenour who killed two people and wounded another is like night and day.

Why weren't the cops wearing body cams?

who says they didn’t try to de Escalate?

They didn’t shoot him for resisting, do you realize that?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Yeah he could have not engaged in criminal activity, he could have followed lawful orders he didn't he chose to reach into a car for a weapon, basically put he played a stupid game and won a stupid prise.

Your right to not get shot ins when you reach for a weapon.

Or maybe the cops can be less racist and decide that there is middle ground between attempted murder and restraint.

If they’re too stupid or scared to do that job, it was negligence. If they wanted to hurt another Black man, it was attempted murder.

I hope their records are being gone over with a fine toothed comb. Every last inch of their lives should be investigated.

Every. Last. Inch.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[CLAX1911]

Or maybe the cops can be less racist and decide that there is middle ground between attempted murder and restraint.

If they’re too stupid or scared to do that job, it was negligence. If they wanted to hurt another Black man, it was attempted murder.

Yeah they tried restraint it didn't work. It's not attempted murder if it's in self defense.

I hope their records are being gone over with a fine toothed comb. Every last inch of their lives should be investigated.

Every. Last. Inch.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

:shrug:

 

[Aunt Antifa]

no, because he reached for a weapon after being tazed and still resisting.

Stop the ****. This is ridiculous and what you said is one of the sickest things I have ever read on a message board.

You have decided for a fact that Blake was reaching for a weapon and deserved to be shot in the back 7 times yet you need a fainting couch because I don’t give a single **** about cops?

It is what it is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Yeah they tried restraint it didn't work. It's not attempted murder if it's in self defense.
:shrug:

Self defense is not occurring when someone is walking *away* from you.

That’s usually attempted murder.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[CLAX1911]

who says they didn’t try to de Escalate?

The news media, for ratings.

 

[CLAX1911]

Self defense is not occurring when someone is walking *away* from you.

yeah it does if they are walking away to get a weapon.

 

[Simpletruther]

You have decided for a fact that Blake was reaching for a weapon and deserved to be shot in the back 7 times yet you need a fainting couch because I don’t give a single **** about cops?

It is what it is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It does not have to be a fact that he was reaching for a weapon, only a reasonable possibility.

But then you knew that. He got exactly what was coming to him, the cereal rapist was put out of his misery.

 

[Integrityrespec]

It was a 2 on 1 situation where I assume both officers had guns.

I'd have most likely shouted "Stop or we'll open fire!" as both officers can draw.

The chances of the person being able to reach into the car and bring out a weapon and fire it accurately to hit anything before the officers who are presumably trained with guns is tiny unless the officers for some unknown reason had reaction times measured in hours.

No, I wouldn't open fire just because he reached into his car and I feel the training of the police should be good enough that 2 people should be able to handle an unruly suspect unless he's Mike Tyson.

You ever had a gun stuck in your face? I have and it's a bit alarming. I have a close friend who is only alive today because the gun a black man stuck in his face and pulled the trigger on happened to misfire. But you think people should wait to make sure the perp is not going to pull and fire a weapon. This in spite of his fighting officers, resisting both to comply with commands and attempting to flee or seek a weapon in his car.

 

[Moot]

who says they didn’t try to de Escalate?

They didn’t shoot him for resisting, do you realize that?

If they did, it wasn't captured on video and the dispatch audio shows the entire encounter from the time the cops arrived to the time they shot Blake in the back was less than three minutes. So that didn't leave much time for assessing or de-escalating the situation before jumping in to make an arrest, did it?


If you're referring to the knife: Fact check: Jacob Blake didn't 'brandish' knife in Kenosha shooting

There's no evidence that the cops lives were in danger or threatened...so they would be hard pressed to claim self defense...especially after following him and then shooting him the back in front of his kids and finding no weapons in the car other than a knife on the passenger side floor. What kind of knife, the police didn't say...nor could they say if the knife was on him during the encounter or whether he was reaching for it when he was shot.

By all accounts it looks like the cops escalated the situation and then shot him in the back after he didn't comply to their demands to stop.

 

[Integrityrespec]

If they did, it wasn't captured on video and the dispatch audio shows the entire encounter from the time the cops arrived to the time they shot Blake in the back was less than three minutes. So that didn't leave much time for assessing or de-escalating the situation before jumping in to make an arrest, did it?


If you're referring to the knife: Fact check: Jacob Blake didn't 'brandish' knife in Kenosha shooting

There's no evidence that the cops lives were in danger or threatened...so they would be hard pressed to claim self defense...especially after following him and then shooting him the back in front of his kids and finding no weapons in the car other than a knife on the passenger side floor. What kind of knife, the police didn't say...nor could they say if the knife was on him during the encounter or whether he was reaching for it when he was shot.

By all accounts it looks like the cops escalated the situation and then shot him in the back after he didn't comply to their demands to stop.

Blake escalated the situation when he resisted arrest. He fought police even after he was tazed. He evaded officers and went to the other side of the car and entered it, for what purpose? We know he had a knife in the care, at the time the officers had no way of knowing if he had a firearm. You make judgement based on after the fact information.. Blake would be alive today if he had not resisted.

 

[Moot]

Blake escalated the situation when he resisted arrest. He fought police even after he was tazed. He evaded officers and went to the other side of the car and entered it, for what purpose? We know he had a knife in the care, at the time the officers had no way of knowing if he had a firearm. You make judgement based on after the fact information.. Blake would be alive today if he had not resisted.

Police escalated the situation when they tried to physically arrest him before assessing the situation after they got there. Witnesses said that Blake wasn't violent during the entire encounter...in fact, they said he was trying to deescalate an argument between two women on the sidewalk before the police got there.

Blake is lucky to still be alive...that's if he isn't paralyzed for life.

There's a huge discrepancy between the way the police treat blacks compared to whites and if that doesn't change then neither will the protests or the civil unrest.