Another White Cop shoots Black Man

[Bobert1969]

LOL! I'm not conflating anything, you are! The most common civil rights claims has to do with discrimination, in the US, most typically "color of law" claims/issues (according to the FBI). Based on that fact, when you read a civil lawsuit that is claiming a "civil rights" action involving law enforcement, it typically means there is some sort of claim having to do with discrimination (which is a "color of law" concept, generally). And for your information, as it pertains to US Civil Rights Laws - it's not just about RACE. It's about "protected classes" which includes (among other things) race, national origin, age (in certain circumstances), sexual orientation, etc. Race (and skin colour, which you seem to fixate on) is not the only "thing" that determines a "protected class" under US Civil Rights Laws!

I usually don't associate civil rights violations with persons of colour alone as that is the wrong position to take. When a white guy gets arrested and he is not read his rights, his civil rights were violated. If a white woman is pulled over and her car is searched without reasonable cause, her civil rights were violated. You can assume that a civil rights action automatically means someone that's not white, but in many cases you'd be wrong.

 

[appleomac]

I usually don't associate civil rights violations with persons of colour alone as that is the wrong position to take. When a white guy gets arrested and he is not read his rights, his civil rights were violated. If a white woman is pulled over and her car is searched without reasonable cause, her civil rights were violated. You can assume that a civil rights action automatically means someone that's not white, but in many cases you'd be wrong.

LOL! Those aren't civil rights matter, at least as far as the US Civil Rights Act is concerned. Those examples are failure to apply due process and would be a matter of civil liberties NOT civil rights.

 

[Cock Throppled]

Easy. Since the kids are the priority, that is the very first matter the cops should have gotten out of the way, find out where they were (in the car), then go to the car first make sure they are away safe. If the intent was to arrest the guy, the kids planning for where the kids are, or where they should be placed has to be the first priority.

Second, make sure the people milling around the car are safe, back in their houses or cars, and talk to them. That wasn't done. What was the third officer doing that wasn't in the video?

Third, if the guy wants to run, let him. The cops already have his kids. Dad will come back. There will be plenty of opportunities to snag him. If he is running, he is not posing a danger to the public or the police.

If, like you say, the police went in knowing he was dangerous, they would have called for more backup. Apparently 3 police were not enough. He was clearly free at that point to drive and shuttle his kids around.

Since there was no visible weapon there was zero reason to draw their weapons until AFTER he retrieved whatever weapon the police figured he was going for it his car. The officers should have backed off, got people to safety, and called for backup, and kept their distance and tried to deescalate the situation. If they did not posess those skills, then call for a negotiator.

The mistakes the cops made that are evident in that few seconds of video make it clear that:

• The cops were not in fear for their lives and they were not wearing bullet proof vests
• They lost control of the situation, and clearly never were able to get control if their tasers did not work
• If the guy was getting his weapon in the car, the 3 cops "knowing" he was dangerous in advance, they should have first secured the car
• The guy was not running, he was walking to his car
• The close proximity of the public with drawn weapons indicates officers demonstrated no concern for public safety
• The second cop should have ran around to the passenger-side door to see if it was open and would have had visibility on what the guy was reaching for or doing after he opened the door
• Tugging on a shirt, wtf is that all about? Tackle him and engage him physically, since the previous tasering didn't work
• The shooter cop fired 7 bullets at point blank range and the guy is still alive? How?

I've not seen any videos of tactical experts explaining the situation, so that, as a layman, are my first impressions of the situation.

Anyone that is defending an individual officer's "right" to repeat such an atrocity and has zero input to prevent it from happening again is part of the problem.

Wow, why would they need any more than one of you on any police department? You are not only prescient, you have the calming ability of Ambien, the lack of adrenaline most humans possess, infallible eyesight and the deductive reasoning of someone...watching video.

You're dispatched and already know which car in the street the perp owns, already know he has children, and he's put them in a vehicle. Before you even get out of your car and make inquiries, you find all people not involved, ignore the lunatic sex offender violently breaching a court order, and ask politely for everyone to go to their homes, not interfere, be quiet and polite, know that everyone will instantly comply, so you can talk quietly to the offender, and effectively de-escalate.

Then, after you've made sure everyone is safe in their homes, you allow the guy to leave, whereupon you find out he now has a weapon, and two hostages in the car. And of course, this bit of brilliant logic ..."If he is running, he is not posing a danger to the public or the police." Because that has never happened, right?

But wait - if he was not co-operating, the police should have called for a negotiator. Right. He looked like he was very intent on just hanging around waiting for a negotiator to arrive to have a nice chat.

Their guns were drawn, because they thought he had a weapon. Witnesses heard police telling him to drop a knife. The video of him walking around the car shows something in his hand that could be a knife.

Your description - based entirely on some shaky, after-the fact video, with no context of what happened before, shows you have no concept of street behaviour, and how fast things go down. For all you know, your plan of what you'd do was done when the officers arrived, and it didn't work. Then the neighbourhood got involved.

 

[Beasting]

Easy. Since the kids are the priority, that is the very first matter the cops should have gotten out of the way, find out where they were (in the car), then go to the car first make sure they are away safe. If the intent was to arrest the guy, the kids planning for where the kids are, or where they should be placed has to be the first priority.

Second, make sure the people milling around the car are safe, back in their houses or cars, and talk to them. That wasn't done. What was the third officer doing that wasn't in the video?

Third, if the guy wants to run, let him. The cops already have his kids. Dad will come back. There will be plenty of opportunities to snag him. If he is running, he is not posing a danger to the public or the police.

If, like you say, the police went in knowing he was dangerous, they would have called for more backup. Apparently 3 police were not enough. He was clearly free at that point to drive and shuttle his kids around.

Since there was no visible weapon there was zero reason to draw their weapons until AFTER he retrieved whatever weapon the police figured he was going for it his car. The officers should have backed off, got people to safety, and called for backup, and kept their distance and tried to deescalate the situation. If they did not posess those skills, then call for a negotiator.

The mistakes the cops made that are evident in that few seconds of video make it clear that:

• The cops were not in fear for their lives and they were not wearing bullet proof vests
• They lost control of the situation, and clearly never were able to get control if their tasers did not work
• If the guy was getting his weapon in the car, the 3 cops "knowing" he was dangerous in advance, they should have first secured the car
• The guy was not running, he was walking to his car
• The close proximity of the public with drawn weapons indicates officers demonstrated no concern for public safety
• The second cop should have ran around to the passenger-side door to see if it was open and would have had visibility on what the guy was reaching for or doing after he opened the door
• Tugging on a shirt, wtf is that all about? Tackle him and engage him physically, since the previous tasering didn't work
• The shooter cop fired 7 bullets at point blank range and the guy is still alive? How?

I've not seen any videos of tactical experts explaining the situation, so that, as a layman, are my first impressions of the situation.

Anyone that is defending an individual officer's "right" to repeat such an atrocity and has zero input to prevent it from happening again is part of the problem.

If we're going to stereotype. Remember, he's a black man that's a felon. So most cops that shoots an unarmed black man 7 times in the back is probably thinking Blake's going to abandon his kids anyways. So your argument is wrong there mate.

 

[Cock Throppled]

Anyone who "claims" to know how to operate in tense situations, dealing with violent, unco-operative people, and still wonders why a cop would empty his revolver into someone, should look at this video, and see just how long it takes to completely stop someone in an altered state by psychosis, drugs, intent or adrenaline... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntFanbnGwNk&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3mqA4SCs3UVCbn0SDXr4ipQHbHZsD2MZZu75bChLTdzjWOG9ZUCyq_GEE&bpctr=1599067301

 

[Cock Throppled]

And, for anyone interested in what an upstanding citizen Blake is: https://archive.is/YcYRU

 

[Demon666]

Easy. Since the kids are the priority, that is the very first matter the cops should have gotten out of the way, find out where they were (in the car), then go to the car first make sure they are away safe. If the intent was to arrest the guy, the kids planning for where the kids are, or where they should be placed has to be the first priority.

Second, make sure the people milling around the car are safe, back in their houses or cars, and talk to them. That wasn't done. What was the third officer doing that wasn't in the video?

Third, if the guy wants to run, let him. The cops already have his kids. Dad will come back. There will be plenty of opportunities to snag him. If he is running, he is not posing a danger to the public or the police.

If, like you say, the police went in knowing he was dangerous, they would have called for more backup. Apparently 3 police were not enough. He was clearly free at that point to drive and shuttle his kids around.

Since there was no visible weapon there was zero reason to draw their weapons until AFTER he retrieved whatever weapon the police figured he was going for it his car. The officers should have backed off, got people to safety, and called for backup, and kept their distance and tried to deescalate the situation. If they did not posess those skills, then call for a negotiator.

The mistakes the cops made that are evident in that few seconds of video make it clear that:

• The cops were not in fear for their lives and they were not wearing bullet proof vests
• They lost control of the situation, and clearly never were able to get control if their tasers did not work
• If the guy was getting his weapon in the car, the 3 cops "knowing" he was dangerous in advance, they should have first secured the car
• The guy was not running, he was walking to his car
• The close proximity of the public with drawn weapons indicates officers demonstrated no concern for public safety
• The second cop should have ran around to the passenger-side door to see if it was open and would have had visibility on what the guy was reaching for or doing after he opened the door
• Tugging on a shirt, wtf is that all about? Tackle him and engage him physically, since the previous tasering didn't work
• The shooter cop fired 7 bullets at point blank range and the guy is still alive? How?

I've not seen any videos of tactical experts explaining the situation, so that, as a layman, are my first impressions of the situation.

Anyone that is defending an individual officer's "right" to repeat such an atrocity and has zero input to prevent it from happening again is part of the problem.

The police wear bullet resistant vests, not bullet proof LOL. This shows you have no idea what your talking about.
Most police officers wear bullet resistant vest that stop only 9mm or 40s&w rounds. Any round bigger and more powerful than 9mm or 40&w will go though the vest. Not to mention that the vest only protect some part of the body and leave the officer’s head, neck, legs exposed to any gun shot.

Also the same “bullet proof” vest you claim will not stop any sharp weapon like.a knife.

 

[Beasting]

Anyone who "claims" to know how to operate in tense situations, dealing with violent, unco-operative people, and still wonders why a cop would empty his revolver into someone, should look at this video, and see just how long it takes to completely stop someone in an altered state by psychosis, drugs, intent or adrenaline... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntFanbnGwNk&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3mqA4SCs3UVCbn0SDXr4ipQHbHZsD2MZZu75bChLTdzjWOG9ZUCyq_GEE&bpctr=1599067301

Moral of the story, don't bring a knife to a gunfight

Shame the video is pixelated like japanese porn.

 

[Cock Throppled]

The police wear bullet resistant vests, not bullet proof LOL. This shows you have no idea what your talking about.
Most police officers wear bullet resistant vest that stop only 9mm or 40s&w rounds. Any round bigger and more powerful than 9mm or 40&w will go though the vest. Not to mention that the vest only protect some part of the body and leave the officer’s head, neck, legs exposed to any gun shot.

Also the same “bullet proof” vest you claim will not stop any sharp weapon like.a knife.

This time line, and explanation also shows Shanghai has no concept of how to deal with anything:

“During the investigation following the initial incident, Mr. Blake admitted that he had a knife in his possession,” the Wisconsin Department of Justice said in a statement. “DCI agents recovered a knife from the driver’s side floorboard of Mr. Blake’s vehicle. A search of the vehicle located no additional weapons.”

The Kenosha Professional Police Association (KPPA) slammed the media’s narrative on the incident, calling it “wholly inaccurate.”

“The recent officer-involved shooting in Kenosha has produced a variety of feelings and narratives; most of which are wholly inaccurate,” the statement begins. “The purely fictional depiction of events coming from those without direct knowledge of what actually occurred is incredibly harmful, and provides no benefit to anyone whatsoever, other than to perpetuate a misleading narrative.”

KPPA’s statement added the following points in their statement:

• The officers were dispatched to the location due to a complaint that Mr. Blake was attempting to steal the caller’s keys/vehicle.
• Officers were aware of Mr. Blake’s open warrant for felony sexual assault (3rd degree) before they arrived on scene.
• Mr. Blake was not breaking up a fight between two females when officers arrived on scene.
• The silver SUV seen in the widely circulated video was not Mr. Blake’s vehicle.
• Mr. Blake was not unarmed. He was armed with a knife. The officers did not see the knife initially. The officers first saw him holding the knife while they were on the passenger side of the vehicle. The “main” video circulating on the internet shows Mr. Blake with the knife in his left hand when he rounds the front of the car. The officers issued repeated commands for Mr. Blake to drop the knife. He did not comply.
• The officers initially tried to speak with Mr. Blake, but he was uncooperative.
• The officers then began issuing verbal commands to Mr. Blake, but he was non-complaint.
• The officers next went “hands-on” with Mr. Blake, so as to gain compliance and control.
• Mr. Blake actively resisted the officers’ attempt to gain compliance.
• The officers then disengaged and drew their tasers, issuing commands to Mr. Blake that he would be tased if he did not comply.
• Based on his non-compliance, one officer tased Mr. Blake. The taser did not incapacitate Mr. Blake.
• The officers once more went “hands-on” with Mr. Blake; again, trying to gain control of the escalating situation.
• Mr. Blake forcefully fought with the officers, including putting one of the officers in a headlock.
• A second taser (from a different officer than had deployed the initial taser) was then deployed on Mr. Blake. It did not appear to have any impact on him.
• Based on the inability to gain compliance and control after using verbal, physical and lesslethal means, the officers drew their firearms.
• Mr. Blake continued to ignore the officers’ commands, even with the threat of lethal force now present.

 

[80watts]

And to lighten thing up with the number 7.
There was Lucky 7 cigarettes.
7 minutes of kneeling.
7 shots.
And NASA started it up years ago....

 

[poorboyv6]

Easy. Since the kids are the priority, that is the very first matter the cops should have gotten out of the way, find out where they were (in the car), then go to the car first make sure they are away safe. If the intent was to arrest the guy, the kids planning for where the kids are, or where they should be placed has to be the first priority.

Second, make sure the people milling around the car are safe, back in their houses or cars, and talk to them. That wasn't done. What was the third officer doing that wasn't in the video?

Third, if the guy wants to run, let him. The cops already have his kids. Dad will come back. There will be plenty of opportunities to snag him. If he is running, he is not posing a danger to the public or the police.

If, like you say, the police went in knowing he was dangerous, they would have called for more backup. Apparently 3 police were not enough. He was clearly free at that point to drive and shuttle his kids around.

Since there was no visible weapon there was zero reason to draw their weapons until AFTER he retrieved whatever weapon the police figured he was going for it his car. The officers should have backed off, got people to safety, and called for backup, and kept their distance and tried to deescalate the situation. If they did not posess those skills, then call for a negotiator.

The mistakes the cops made that are evident in that few seconds of video make it clear that:

• The cops were not in fear for their lives and they were not wearing bullet proof vests
• They lost control of the situation, and clearly never were able to get control if their tasers did not work
• If the guy was getting his weapon in the car, the 3 cops "knowing" he was dangerous in advance, they should have first secured the car
• The guy was not running, he was walking to his car
• The close proximity of the public with drawn weapons indicates officers demonstrated no concern for public safety
• The second cop should have ran around to the passenger-side door to see if it was open and would have had visibility on what the guy was reaching for or doing after he opened the door
• Tugging on a shirt, wtf is that all about? Tackle him and engage him physically, since the previous tasering didn't work
• The shooter cop fired 7 bullets at point blank range and the guy is still alive? How?

I've not seen any videos of tactical experts explaining the situation, so that, as a layman, are my first impressions of the situation.

Anyone that is defending an individual officer's "right" to repeat such an atrocity and has zero input to prevent it from happening again is part of the problem.

You didn't stop posting like I said you should after being exposed as a fraud, and yet you continue and provided a completely absurd scenario.

FYI, all cops in the U.S. and Canada have been wearing body armour either underneath their shirt or in an external vest since the late 1980's, but since you really don't know anything, I guess it's not surprising you don't know this.

No one is going to take anything you post seriously now.

You should have cut your losses.

If there was any doubt you're a fraud to even the most left leaning reader, you've now removed all doubt.

Martial Arts instructor my ass. Your writings show you're a coward.

This is what men who have been in dangerous situations know:

No plan survives first contact.
Timing and luck are huge factors.
You are often reacting, not acting first.
The press distorts the truth.

 

[Shanghai]

 

[Shanghai]

Don't bring a bat to a gun fight.
More clarity as to what constitutes fearing for one's safety and shooting to kill as an appropriate response.

 

[Demon666]

Don't bring a bat to a gun fight.
More clarity as to what constitutes fearing for one's safety and shooting to kill as an appropriate response.

Being charged does not mean the police officer is guilty. The DA are gladly throwing cops under the bus when it comes to recent shootings in US.
In that case, there is a very high chance the police officer will be acquitted anyways.
A bat can be used as deadly weapon.

You keep bringing up different police shooting cases.. what’s up with that? What are you trying to prove?

 

[Metaxa]

Being charged does not mean the police officer is guilty. The DA are gladly throwing cops under the bus when it comes to recent shootings in US.
In that case, there is a very high chance the police officer will be acquitted anyways.
A bat can be used as deadly weapon.

You keep bringing up different police shooting cases.. what’s up with that? What are you trying to prove?

Racial injustice is the hot topic at present in any news media and seems to have captivated the attention of the left wing crowd, who always like to slam the police ... until they need them. On the upside, this has diverted their limited attention span from climate change

 

[g eazy]

LOL look at you guys circle jerk yourselves.

Give you head a shake if you don't think the American policing system needs reform. If you have encountered police in the states, you will understand it is a night-and-day difference compared to encountering even the RCMP (who are the 'worst' of Canadian policing). The American policing culture is FUBAR and it will take a loooong time to shift.

 

[Metaxa]

LOL look at you guys circle jerk yourselves.

Give you head a shake if you don't think the American policing system needs reform. If you have encountered police in the states, you will understand it is a night-and-day difference compared to encountering even the RCMP (who are the 'worst' of Canadian policing). The American policing culture is FUBAR and it will take a loooong time to shift.

Please do tell us about your encounters with the police in the US.

 

[zippy45]

my dad is a retired Vancouver cop , I wish he shot half of you assholes, but he didnt. lucky for you, he wanted to just come home everyday. all you fucktards, spend 24 hours in a cops job then come bitch, you wont,

 

[zippy45]

I also do not believe a word Chaelee says about cops saying oh suck it up you are a hooker, unless Susi has been lieing to us all theses years.

 

[zippy45]

that last 1 may get me banned, but do not really care anymore