Another Black Loser Gets Shot By Police - Jacob Blake Deserved What He Got

[Godboy]

Cops for years got away with breaking the law. Turn about is fair play.

So you think just because some cops in the past did wrong things it justifies attacking other innocent cops today? You are the epitome of an idiot.

Absolutely not. That's why it's so important to weed out the cops who can't do the job without killing unarmed people.

You keep ignoring it, but it's a flash second to grab a gun and shoot a cop dead. You keep ignoring that.

Nope. Already answered you. The cops should have never let him open the door to his car. They fucked up. Now their facing attempted murder charges. Which is really, kind of unfair. Clearly their training didn't prepare them for this.

Why shouldn't they have allowed him to open his door?

Kaz is making excuses for shooting him seven times, in the back, at point blank range, in front of his children. He claims the cops thought he was reaching for a gun.

There's nothing at all wrong with him opening his door, unless he was going for a gun. If that's what the cops were worried bout, they should have never let him open the door. Kaz is just dancing. Anything to defend the home team.

When you say things like "in front of his children" you show that you're appealing to emotion, not logic.

Why did he defy cops in front of his children? What a terrible example that was

Again, why was he not allowed to get in his car and leave?

Because the police discovered that there was a warrant for his arrest...

When? How? He had no obligation to tell them anything. He had committed no crime.

Yes, he did. There was an open warrant out for his arrest which had absolutely nothing to do with this incident...

He had committed no crime in breaking up a fight. He is free to leave.

That's what the cops had to sort out. Being in the middle of a fight is clearly probable cause

Breaking up a fight is not illegal. The police are not providing any sort of alternative situation. They do when it tends to exonerate them. They don't when it doesn't.

And if the cops did something wrong, then he should follow up later. Not ignore them and put them in a life threatening situation by going into his car where they can't see what's going on

None of the cops lives were threatened.

Not yet and we know that you prefer the requirement to be the criminal draws and fires first before the police can respond

Not yet and we know that you prefer the requirement to be the criminal draws and fires first before the police can respond

Or just a simple rule of engagement that lethal force only be used as a last resort when an actual threat is present and not a perceived or imagined threat. The three officers did nothing to physically restrain or prevent what happened. The had no control of the scene. But maybe that was by design. Innocence by incompetence.

Watch this video and then tell me if you still believe that. This cop perceived a threat, but waited until a gun was pulled to do anything. Just like in the OP, this man disobeys the orders of the cop to stop and just casually keeps walking. It didnt end well for the cop. This is what happens when you let suspects disobey orders.

 

[iceberg]

There's simply no justification for shooting someone in the back.

Now, given the current social climate in this country, and the absolute disdain blacks have for cops, I can understand the cops being on edge. But there was no weapon. He just as easily could've been trying to get into the car to get a candy bar as a gun...

except he said he was going for a gun and had a knife in hand. you gonna risk he really just wanted a baby Ruth?

There was no gun found, so your assertion that he was going for a gun is factually incorrect, as is the statement about the knife.

Blake was unarmed.

Shooting someone in the back seven times is criminal.

And I don't even like negroes...

i didn't say there was a gun found. i said it was reported he said he was going for a gun.

i am not about to get into a factual debate over what happened when both of us are just reading stories off the internet to back up the views we already have. if i say he had a knife, i'll show you stories to back it up. you say he didn't, you do the same.

our media FUCKING SUCKS because it caters to people and their emotions, not facts.

and i honestly don't care who you like or not.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I disagree. In this particular situation, 2 shots to the ass would have dropped him. 7 shots was overkill, although it didn't kill his sorry self.

Law Enforcement are trained to shoot to kill.

That probably excludes shooting someone in the ass.

Law Enforcement are trained to shoot to kill.

That probably excludes shooting someone in the ass.

Derp...
Hence the need for police reform.

You all bitch anout protests and riots while completely ignoring the cause that everyone is telling you is a problem.

 

[pknopp]

Cops for years got away with breaking the law. Turn about is fair play.

So you think just because some cops in the past did wrong things it justifies attacking other innocent cops today? You are the epitome of an idiot.

Absolutely not. That's why it's so important to weed out the cops who can't do the job without killing unarmed people.

You keep ignoring it, but it's a flash second to grab a gun and shoot a cop dead. You keep ignoring that.

Nope. Already answered you. The cops should have never let him open the door to his car. They fucked up. Now their facing attempted murder charges. Which is really, kind of unfair. Clearly their training didn't prepare them for this.

Why shouldn't they have allowed him to open his door?

Kaz is making excuses for shooting him seven times, in the back, at point blank range, in front of his children. He claims the cops thought he was reaching for a gun.

There's nothing at all wrong with him opening his door, unless he was going for a gun. If that's what the cops were worried bout, they should have never let him open the door. Kaz is just dancing. Anything to defend the home team.

When you say things like "in front of his children" you show that you're appealing to emotion, not logic.

Why did he defy cops in front of his children? What a terrible example that was

Again, why was he not allowed to get in his car and leave?

Because the police discovered that there was a warrant for his arrest...

When? How? He had no obligation to tell them anything. He had committed no crime.

Yes, he did. There was an open warrant out for his arrest which had absolutely nothing to do with this incident...

He had committed no crime in breaking up a fight. He is free to leave.

That's what the cops had to sort out. Being in the middle of a fight is clearly probable cause

Breaking up a fight is not illegal. The police are not providing any sort of alternative situation. They do when it tends to exonerate them. They don't when it doesn't.

And if the cops did something wrong, then he should follow up later. Not ignore them and put them in a life threatening situation by going into his car where they can't see what's going on

None of the cops lives were threatened.

Not yet and we know that you prefer the requirement to be the criminal draws and fires first before the police can respond

Not yet and we know that you prefer the requirement to be the criminal draws and fires first before the police can respond

Or just a simple rule of engagement that lethal force only be used as a last resort when an actual threat is present and not a perceived or imagined threat. The three officers did nothing to physically restrain or prevent what happened. The had no control of the scene. But maybe that was by design. Innocence by incompetence.

Watch this video and then tell me if you still believe that. This cop perceived a threat, but waited until a gun was pulled to do anything. Just like in the OP, this man disobeys the orders of the cop to stop and just casually keeps walking. It didnt end well for the cop. This is what happens when you let suspects disobey orders.

When one side of the equation has excuses made for them, it's only natural for the other side to do the same. The solution is easy but for some reason far too many want to ignore the easy solution. Everyone gets held accountable when they do wrong.

My position is when some aren't held accountable, no one should.

 

[John T. Ford]

There was no gun found, so your assertion that he was going for a gun is factually incorrect, as is the statement about the knife.

Blake was unarmed.

Shooting someone in the back seven times is criminal.

And I don't even like negroes...

LMAO @ how Delusional you Leftist are ....

 

[Canon Shooter]

Or just a simple rule of engagement that lethal force only be used as a last resort when an actual threat is present and not a perceived or imagined threat. The three officers did nothing to physically restrain or prevent what happened. The had no control of the scene. But maybe that was by design. Innocence by incompetence.

The circumstances of when deadly force is authorized are hardly ambiguous. This is from Cornell Law School (my notes in bold):

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

Blake was carrying neither a gun or a knife. There was no gun in his car, therefore the police on scene should've been able to employ other measures to subdue him...

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).

Again, with no weapon available to Blake, there was no imminent danger to anyone...

(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.

(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.
Note: (These offenses are considered by the Department of Energy to pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm)

I don't think we really need to discuss these two...

(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.

Blake was not fleeing from the commission of a crime, and the warrant for his arrest fails to satisfy this requirement, nor was he using a weapon of any type which may have been a danger to the police officer...

(b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:

(1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired.

(2) Warning shots shall not be fired.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cop who fired the seven shots is fucked. There's simply no way for a reasonable person to reach the conclusion that firing seven bullets into the man from behind was the way to handle this...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He wasn't attempting to get into his SUV. He was clearly reaching for something. That something was an illegal handgun.

Link, please.

One can not provide a link to back when their parents failed in teaching that lying is wrong.

I've been looking around, trying to get the whole story. Maybe he got that one in the alternate universe.

I've been looking around, trying to get the whole story. Maybe he got that one in the alternate universe.

I think if there were exculpatory evidence to support the officers' actions, it would have been released. If for no other reason than to maintain the peace.

 

[John T. Ford]

Derp...
Hence the need for police reform.

You all bitch anout protests and riots while completely ignoring the cause that everyone is telling you is a problem.

You are delusional.

Police will NEVER NOT be trained to shoot to kill and these "Riots" have NOTHING to do with this imaginary police brutality.

 

[kaz]

Cops for years got away with breaking the law. Turn about is fair play.

So you think just because some cops in the past did wrong things it justifies attacking other innocent cops today? You are the epitome of an idiot.

Absolutely not. That's why it's so important to weed out the cops who can't do the job without killing unarmed people.

You keep ignoring it, but it's a flash second to grab a gun and shoot a cop dead. You keep ignoring that.

Nope. Already answered you. The cops should have never let him open the door to his car. They fucked up. Now their facing attempted murder charges. Which is really, kind of unfair. Clearly their training didn't prepare them for this.

Why shouldn't they have allowed him to open his door?

Kaz is making excuses for shooting him seven times, in the back, at point blank range, in front of his children. He claims the cops thought he was reaching for a gun.

There's nothing at all wrong with him opening his door, unless he was going for a gun. If that's what the cops were worried bout, they should have never let him open the door. Kaz is just dancing. Anything to defend the home team.

When you say things like "in front of his children" you show that you're appealing to emotion, not logic.

Why did he defy cops in front of his children? What a terrible example that was

Again, why was he not allowed to get in his car and leave?

Because the police discovered that there was a warrant for his arrest...

When? How? He had no obligation to tell them anything. He had committed no crime.

Yes, he did. There was an open warrant out for his arrest which had absolutely nothing to do with this incident...

He had committed no crime in breaking up a fight. He is free to leave.

That's what the cops had to sort out. Being in the middle of a fight is clearly probable cause

Breaking up a fight is not illegal. The police are not providing any sort of alternative situation. They do when it tends to exonerate them. They don't when it doesn't.

And if the cops did something wrong, then he should follow up later. Not ignore them and put them in a life threatening situation by going into his car where they can't see what's going on

None of the cops lives were threatened.

Not yet and we know that you prefer the requirement to be the criminal draws and fires first before the police can respond

Not yet and we know that you prefer the requirement to be the criminal draws and fires first before the police can respond

Or just a simple rule of engagement that lethal force only be used as a last resort when an actual threat is present and not a perceived or imagined threat. The three officers did nothing to physically restrain or prevent what happened. The had no control of the scene. But maybe that was by design. Innocence by incompetence.

Did you see a longer clip that showed that or did you pull it out of your ass? You can't conclude that from the clip in the OP, insufficient evidence

 

[kaz]

He wasn't attempting to get into his SUV. He was clearly reaching for something. That something was an illegal handgun.

Link, please.

One can not provide a link to back when their parents failed in teaching that lying is wrong.

I've been looking around, trying to get the whole story. Maybe he got that one in the alternate universe.

I've been looking around, trying to get the whole story. Maybe he got that one in the alternate universe.

I think if there were exculpatory evidence to support the officers' actions, it would have been released. If for no other reason than to maintain the peace.

They can't release partial investigations like that. BS

 

[John T. Ford]

The circumstances of when deadly force is authorized are hardly ambiguous. This is from Cornell Law School (my notes in bold):

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

Blake was carrying neither a gun or a knife. There was no gun in his car, therefore the police on scene should've been able to employ other measures to subdue him...

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).

Again, with no weapon available to Blake, there was no imminent danger to anyone...

(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.

(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.
Note: (These offenses are considered by the Department of Energy to pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm)

I don't think we really need to discuss these two...

(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.

Blake was not fleeing from the commission of a crime, and the warrant for his arrest fails to satisfy this requirement, nor was he using a weapon of any type which may have been a danger to the police officer...

(b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:

(1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired.

(2) Warning shots shall not be fired.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cop who fired the seven shots is fucked. There's simply no way for a reasonable person to reach the conclusion that firing seven bullets into the man from behind was the way to handle this...

D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L

 

[Canon Shooter]

There was no gun found, so your assertion that he was going for a gun is factually incorrect, as is the statement about the knife.

Blake was unarmed.

Shooting someone in the back seven times is criminal.

And I don't even like negroes...

LMAO @ how Delusional you Leftist are ....

Leftist?

Fucking seriously?

You're the single dumbest motherfucker on this forum if you think I'm a leftist. You should read my postings on USMB and educate yourself so you don't look so fucking stupid.

What's delusional is insisting there was a gun when, in fact, there was no gun.

You're a fucking retard...

 

[pknopp]

He wasn't attempting to get into his SUV. He was clearly reaching for something. That something was an illegal handgun.

Link, please.

One can not provide a link to back when their parents failed in teaching that lying is wrong.

I've been looking around, trying to get the whole story. Maybe he got that one in the alternate universe.

I've been looking around, trying to get the whole story. Maybe he got that one in the alternate universe.

I think if there were exculpatory evidence to support the officers' actions, it would have been released. If for no other reason than to maintain the peace.

They can't release partial investigations like that. BS

The police in Georgia quickly released information when the cops shot a man in the back in the fast food parking lot. The police quickly release info lots of time when they believe it helps their argument.

 

[kaz]

Cops for years got away with breaking the law. Turn about is fair play.

So you think just because some cops in the past did wrong things it justifies attacking other innocent cops today? You are the epitome of an idiot.

Absolutely not. That's why it's so important to weed out the cops who can't do the job without killing unarmed people.

You keep ignoring it, but it's a flash second to grab a gun and shoot a cop dead. You keep ignoring that.

Nope. Already answered you. The cops should have never let him open the door to his car. They fucked up. Now their facing attempted murder charges. Which is really, kind of unfair. Clearly their training didn't prepare them for this.

Why shouldn't they have allowed him to open his door?

Kaz is making excuses for shooting him seven times, in the back, at point blank range, in front of his children. He claims the cops thought he was reaching for a gun.

There's nothing at all wrong with him opening his door, unless he was going for a gun. If that's what the cops were worried bout, they should have never let him open the door. Kaz is just dancing. Anything to defend the home team.

When you say things like "in front of his children" you show that you're appealing to emotion, not logic.

Why did he defy cops in front of his children? What a terrible example that was

Again, why was he not allowed to get in his car and leave?

Because the police discovered that there was a warrant for his arrest...

When? How? He had no obligation to tell them anything. He had committed no crime.

Yes, he did. There was an open warrant out for his arrest which had absolutely nothing to do with this incident...

He had committed no crime in breaking up a fight. He is free to leave.

That's what the cops had to sort out. Being in the middle of a fight is clearly probable cause

Breaking up a fight is not illegal. The police are not providing any sort of alternative situation. They do when it tends to exonerate them. They don't when it doesn't.

And if the cops did something wrong, then he should follow up later. Not ignore them and put them in a life threatening situation by going into his car where they can't see what's going on

None of the cops lives were threatened.

Not yet and we know that you prefer the requirement to be the criminal draws and fires first before the police can respond

Not yet and we know that you prefer the requirement to be the criminal draws and fires first before the police can respond

Or just a simple rule of engagement that lethal force only be used as a last resort when an actual threat is present and not a perceived or imagined threat. The three officers did nothing to physically restrain or prevent what happened. The had no control of the scene. But maybe that was by design. Innocence by incompetence.

Watch this video and then tell me if you still believe that. This cop perceived a threat, but waited until a gun was pulled to do anything. Just like in the OP, this man disobeys the orders of the cop to stop and just casually keeps walking. It didnt end well for the cop. This is what happens when you let suspects disobey orders.

When one side of the equation has excuses made for them, it's only natural for the other side to do the same. The solution is easy but for some reason far too many want to ignore the easy solution. Everyone gets held accountable when they do wrong.

My position is when some aren't held accountable, no one should.

So stop voting for the Democrats who protect police unions that prevent cops from being held accountable, brainiac

 

[Canon Shooter]

The circumstances of when deadly force is authorized are hardly ambiguous. This is from Cornell Law School (my notes in bold):

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

Blake was carrying neither a gun or a knife. There was no gun in his car, therefore the police on scene should've been able to employ other measures to subdue him...

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).

Again, with no weapon available to Blake, there was no imminent danger to anyone...

(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.

(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.
Note: (These offenses are considered by the Department of Energy to pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm)

I don't think we really need to discuss these two...

(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.

Blake was not fleeing from the commission of a crime, and the warrant for his arrest fails to satisfy this requirement, nor was he using a weapon of any type which may have been a danger to the police officer...

(b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:

(1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired.

(2) Warning shots shall not be fired.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cop who fired the seven shots is fucked. There's simply no way for a reasonable person to reach the conclusion that firing seven bullets into the man from behind was the way to handle this...

D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L

Here's the difference between you and me: I actually provide factual information to support what I'm saying.

You, on the other hand, turn into fuckin' Rain Man and just start spitting up idiocy like "DELUSIONAL" while offering exactly nothing to support your statements.

You're just a retarded little rookie, though, so I'm not surprised...

 

[Mac1958]

He wasn't attempting to get into his SUV. He was clearly reaching for something. That something was an illegal handgun.

Link, please.

One can not provide a link to back when their parents failed in teaching that lying is wrong.

I've been looking around, trying to get the whole story. Maybe he got that one in the alternate universe.

I've been looking around, trying to get the whole story. Maybe he got that one in the alternate universe.

I think if there were exculpatory evidence to support the officers' actions, it would have been released. If for no other reason than to maintain the peace.

Yeah, I think that becomes more likely with every hour that passes.

 

[kaz]

He wasn't attempting to get into his SUV. He was clearly reaching for something. That something was an illegal handgun.

Link, please.

One can not provide a link to back when their parents failed in teaching that lying is wrong.

I've been looking around, trying to get the whole story. Maybe he got that one in the alternate universe.

I've been looking around, trying to get the whole story. Maybe he got that one in the alternate universe.

I think if there were exculpatory evidence to support the officers' actions, it would have been released. If for no other reason than to maintain the peace.

They can't release partial investigations like that. BS

The police in Georgia quickly released information when the cops shot a man in the back in the fast food parking lot. The police quickly release info lots of time when they believe it helps their argument.

A guy who was firing a taser at them. You really just want a race war because you think it helps Democrats. It sure doesn't help blacks. That's just the racism of the Democrat party victimizing benefits for their own benefit

 

[pknopp]

Cops for years got away with breaking the law. Turn about is fair play.

So you think just because some cops in the past did wrong things it justifies attacking other innocent cops today? You are the epitome of an idiot.

Absolutely not. That's why it's so important to weed out the cops who can't do the job without killing unarmed people.

You keep ignoring it, but it's a flash second to grab a gun and shoot a cop dead. You keep ignoring that.

Nope. Already answered you. The cops should have never let him open the door to his car. They fucked up. Now their facing attempted murder charges. Which is really, kind of unfair. Clearly their training didn't prepare them for this.

Why shouldn't they have allowed him to open his door?

Kaz is making excuses for shooting him seven times, in the back, at point blank range, in front of his children. He claims the cops thought he was reaching for a gun.

There's nothing at all wrong with him opening his door, unless he was going for a gun. If that's what the cops were worried bout, they should have never let him open the door. Kaz is just dancing. Anything to defend the home team.

When you say things like "in front of his children" you show that you're appealing to emotion, not logic.

Why did he defy cops in front of his children? What a terrible example that was

Again, why was he not allowed to get in his car and leave?

Because the police discovered that there was a warrant for his arrest...

When? How? He had no obligation to tell them anything. He had committed no crime.

Yes, he did. There was an open warrant out for his arrest which had absolutely nothing to do with this incident...

He had committed no crime in breaking up a fight. He is free to leave.

That's what the cops had to sort out. Being in the middle of a fight is clearly probable cause

Breaking up a fight is not illegal. The police are not providing any sort of alternative situation. They do when it tends to exonerate them. They don't when it doesn't.

And if the cops did something wrong, then he should follow up later. Not ignore them and put them in a life threatening situation by going into his car where they can't see what's going on

None of the cops lives were threatened.

Not yet and we know that you prefer the requirement to be the criminal draws and fires first before the police can respond

Not yet and we know that you prefer the requirement to be the criminal draws and fires first before the police can respond

Or just a simple rule of engagement that lethal force only be used as a last resort when an actual threat is present and not a perceived or imagined threat. The three officers did nothing to physically restrain or prevent what happened. The had no control of the scene. But maybe that was by design. Innocence by incompetence.

Watch this video and then tell me if you still believe that. This cop perceived a threat, but waited until a gun was pulled to do anything. Just like in the OP, this man disobeys the orders of the cop to stop and just casually keeps walking. It didnt end well for the cop. This is what happens when you let suspects disobey orders.

When one side of the equation has excuses made for them, it's only natural for the other side to do the same. The solution is easy but for some reason far too many want to ignore the easy solution. Everyone gets held accountable when they do wrong.

My position is when some aren't held accountable, no one should.

So stop voting for the Democrats who protect police unions that prevent cops from being held accountable, brainiac

I do not live in an area with a police union. I'm all for ending the unions and most importantly I'm NOT defending the politicians in these area's.

I have argued that Kamala Harris was an awful pick because she is the very person people are protesting over. I condemned the mayor of Chicago for singling out only her neighborhood.

Sadly for so many this is all about politics. I find that incredibly sad.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Or just a simple rule of engagement that lethal force only be used as a last resort when an actual threat is present and not a perceived or imagined threat. The three officers did nothing to physically restrain or prevent what happened. The had no control of the scene. But maybe that was by design. Innocence by incompetence.

The circumstances of when deadly force is authorized are hardly ambiguous. This is from Cornell Law School (my notes in bold):

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

Blake was carrying neither a gun or a knife. There was no gun in his car, therefore the police on scene should've been able to employ other measures to subdue him...

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).

Again, with no weapon available to Blake, there was no imminent danger to anyone...

(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.

(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.
Note: (These offenses are considered by the Department of Energy to pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm)

I don't think we really need to discuss these two...

(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.

Blake was not fleeing from the commission of a crime, and the warrant for his arrest fails to satisfy this requirement, nor was he using a weapon of any type which may have been a danger to the police officer...

(b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:

(1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired.

(2) Warning shots shall not be fired.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cop who fired the seven shots is fucked. There's simply no way for a reasonable person to reach the conclusion that firing seven bullets into the man from behind was the way to handle this...

The cop who fired the seven shots is fucked. There's simply no way for a reasonable person to reach the conclusion that firing seven bullets into the man from behind was the way to handle this..

Exactly.
Blake is not a large man. There were three officers. None of them tried to physically restrain him or even step in front of him. They had no control of the scene and allowed it to escalate dangerously.


19 year old PFCs in the army have a better grasp of and competency with operational and situational control under rules of engagement than these veteran officers did. Probably because they know they'll go to prison if they screw it up. The cops don't have to worry about such repercussions.

 

[pknopp]

He wasn't attempting to get into his SUV. He was clearly reaching for something. That something was an illegal handgun.

Link, please.

One can not provide a link to back when their parents failed in teaching that lying is wrong.

I've been looking around, trying to get the whole story. Maybe he got that one in the alternate universe.

I've been looking around, trying to get the whole story. Maybe he got that one in the alternate universe.

I think if there were exculpatory evidence to support the officers' actions, it would have been released. If for no other reason than to maintain the peace.

They can't release partial investigations like that. BS

The police in Georgia quickly released information when the cops shot a man in the back in the fast food parking lot. The police quickly release info lots of time when they believe it helps their argument.

A guy who was firing a taser at them. You really just want a race war because you think it helps Democrats. It sure doesn't help blacks. That's just the racism of the Democrat party victimizing benefits for their own benefit

He wasn't firing a taser at them. Why are you unable to be honest?