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

[Turtlesoup]

That could have been avoided if that man had obeyed the police in the first place. They wear a shiny fasces of Power on their uniforms for a reason.

With all of those police present; it does not seem deadly use of force was Necessary.

Yeah, cuz when one or two of them gets shot, or knifed, well, that's ok because they deserve it for being cops in the first place, right?

I agree to disagree. Police still get their personal protection equipment from the State. Peace through superior force before superior firepower. Police should know how to place at least one cuff on a person and try to "lock them down" even while "wrestling with the perpetrator".

Is their safety important?

Yes, it is. That is why being able to cuff someone resisting arrest is important.

Then you should know that prior to that happening it is preferable to have the suspect submit....Or, again, you are not thinking of the officers safety.

Knowing how to cuff someone resisting arrest can be just as important for prevention.

Yes, you shoot them first so they are easier to arrest.

Proof, natural rights mean nothing to the Right Wing outside of abortion threads; and they don't care about Due Process.

Natural rights? You have the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, a right to make a phone call, a right to be heard in court------------BUT you don't have a right to refuse to be arrested or attack cops. OUr founders never intended for criminals to refuse to be arrested...they would be first to kill off thugs like BLM are claiming are victims.

You omitted Due Process.

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws

Hun, You omitted common sense.

When you REFUSE to cooperate with being arrested you are refusing due process of the law therefore eliminating it. Criminals have no one to blame but themselves.....

If you want due process, then I would suggest that you cooperate and aid due process---

 

[Mac-7]

That could have been avoided if that man had obeyed the police in the first place. They wear a shiny fasces of Power on their uniforms for a reason.

With all of those police present; it does not seem deadly use of force was Necessary.

Yeah, cuz when one or two of them gets shot, or knifed, well, that's ok because they deserve it for being cops in the first place, right?

I agree to disagree. Police still get their personal protection equipment from the State. Peace through superior force before superior firepower. Police should know how to place at least one cuff on a person and try to "lock them down" even while "wrestling with the perpetrator".

Is their safety important?

Yes, it is. That is why being able to cuff someone resisting arrest is important.

Then you should know that prior to that happening it is preferable to have the suspect submit....Or, again, you are not thinking of the officers safety.

Knowing how to cuff someone resisting arrest can be just as important for prevention.

Yes, you shoot them first so they are easier to arrest.

The problem liberals have with that scenario is that it results in more black people getting arrested

in their more perfect world its better to let the criminal ignore police demands and get away

 

[JoeMoma]

This incident should be used as a training video for how to not respond to cops. When a man resists arrest like this, the cops have to be prepared for the worst. Had Blake accessed a gun in the car and the cops not fired when they did, there could be a couple of dead cops.

 

[Leo123]

The guy in the video did not appear armed. And, cuffing someone is supposed to happen before it gets to that point. It is a Preventive measure.

You can't cuff someone running away from you. The 'guy in the video' had a rap sheet that included armed assault and sexual predation. Law enforcement told him to stop, he did not and opened the door to his car and was reaching for something. So far the Governor will not divulge if he was reaching for a gun. Law enforcement had every expectation that he had a gun. Funny though, he was shot 7 times and is still alive. He should be dead actually. Wonder why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He should be dead actually. Wonder why?

Not enough range time.

 

[Leo123]

Not enough range time.

7 shots though at close range. Only paralyzed. What was he using? A Pellet Gun?

 

[pknopp]

The man in the Slager case initially resisted arrest also.

You dont even know the name of, Walter Scott. You hardly know the details of that case. Again, you are stereotyping.

You also leave out all the details in making your argument. Details, facts, that is what makes a case. You leave out all the facts, that says all we need to know about you.

Blake fought with the police, then attempted to escape or went for a weapon. That is very clear.

We aren't writing a scholarly report here. Some like yourself aren't even interested in being truthful. I have no desire to continue to respond to those like yourself.

 

[pknopp]

Shooting a man in the back has always been considered cowardly.

Making things up is cowardly also. There was no gun in the car,

Where did you see that?

That's like asking where did I see that there were no horses in the car.

Oh, so you have nothing showing that he wasn't reaching for a weapon....Thought so....Dismissed.

I have nothing that shows he wasn't reaching for a nuclear weapon either.

Its not up to me to prove something that never happened.

We won't know if there was or wasn't a weapon in the car until the investigation is made public....If you want to destroy your credibility with bs narratives, that's on you.

If there had been a gun in the car we would have heard about it by now. Too many witnesses to plant one.

Who said it had to be a gun?

That was the claim that was replied to.

Oh for Christ sake....It is impossible trying to discuss things rationally with you people...

You asked a question. I answered it. There is nothing more rational than that. Now if you are asking who specifically said there was a gun, go back and look. It was said more than once.

In each case, I would say we don't know what he was reaching for.

There is nothing to say he was reaching for anything.

 

[Billiejeens]

No gun found in the car. Cop defenders are full of crap. Seven shots in the back while the man was being held. If the cop has kids they will grow up hating him and his parents are living in shame right now. Two for one, coward and murderer.

You are aware that the criminal didn't die?

Thanks, didn't know that. Was he committing a criminal offense when he was shot or just pissing off cops?

Criminal offense.

 

[pknopp]

Not always very well.

Nothing is perfect. Hence the appeal process.

Isn't that the complaint about Kamala Harris?

No, the observation on Kamala is that she's a mattress riding whore who has no scruples.

I do not support her because of her past public actions. I find it really sad that you have a problem with something you would give a make politician a pass for.

 

[Billiejeens]

Possibly violating someone's civil rights are never irrelevant.

SCOTUS upheld Law Enforcement's right to stop and question someone some 50 years ago.

This thugs Civil Rights were not violated.

He fought with police, was tazed, and continue to ignore commands and went to his vehicle to get a weapon.

THAT is what is relevant in this case.

Most of these criminals have had multiple interactions with cops
Arrest after arrest and they now think nothing will happen.
Break the law, get caught - simply comply with lawful orders.

It so simple even a hood rat can get it.

 

[Billiejeens]

With the big question being why were they trying to detain him?

That is irrelevant.

Possibly violating someone's civil rights are never irrelevant.

His civil rights werent violated. Where did you get that weird idea?

We have no idea if that is true yet or not. Unless they can state why they wanted to question and taser him his rights were violated.

Having a warrant for his arrest was not sufficient?

 

[Billiejeens]

The police have to suspect you of a crime for you to have to comply.

Blake was known to police and there was an active warrant out for his arrest at the time he was shot.

One would have to be 100% pro criminal to even be arguing about the stop.
That many shots, though, at that range - seems excessive, without more info.

 

[pknopp]

Possibly violating someone's civil rights are never irrelevant.

SCOTUS upheld Law Enforcement's right to stop and question someone some 50 years ago.

This thugs Civil Rights were not violated.

He fought with police, was tazed, and continue to ignore commands and went to his vehicle to get a weapon.

THAT is what is relevant in this case.

Most of these criminals have had multiple interactions with cops
Arrest after arrest and they now think nothing will happen.
Break the law, get caught - simply comply with lawful orders.

It so simple even a hood rat can get it.

What law did Breonna Taylor or Elijah McClain break?

 

[pknopp]

The police have to suspect you of a crime for you to have to comply.

Blake was known to police and there was an active warrant out for his arrest at the time he was shot.

One would have to be 100% pro criminal to even be arguing about the stop.
That many shots, though, at that range - seems excessive, without more info.

This would not be a story without those seven shots in the back.

 

[Billiejeens]

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?

The guy in Georgia was most certainly shooting a taser at them.
That is not even in dispute.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

Where was that reported?

See, you'll need to 'splain sometin' Lucy:

There are three cops, at least two of them with guns drawn (apparently the female officer had a taser out, but she was still armed). It would take a profound divorce from logic to believe that this guy thought he would get the better of three armed police officers once he got his imaginary firearm. I just don't buy it.

He'd have to be fuckin' Doc Holliday...

i am not about to get into a factual debate over what happened

Gee, that's just a swell idea. Instead of using facts, use your emotions and unfounded suspicions...

What do you believe was his motivation for taking that walk and getting in the vehicle?
(I do agree that the criminal should never have gotten around the car and back into it, he should have been on the ground with a knee in his back and cuffed)

 

[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?

The guy in Georgia was most certainly shooting a taser at them.
That is not even in dispute.

Except it is. The taser was spent. It wouldn't fire.

 

[Billiejeens]

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?

The guy in Georgia was most certainly shooting a taser at them.
That is not even in dispute.

Except it is. The taser was spent. It wouldn't fire.

So misinformed.

 

[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?

The guy in Georgia was most certainly shooting a taser at them.
That is not even in dispute.

Except it is. The taser was spent. It wouldn't fire.

So misinformed.

Howard said that at the time Rolfe aimed and fired at Brooks' back from 18 feet, 3 inches away, "Rolfe was aware that the Taser in Brooks' possession was fired twice and presented no danger to him."

Atlanta police use-of-force policy violated multiple times in fatal shooting of Rayshard Brooks: Prosecutor

It only fires twice. Now you are informed. Not that you won't repeat this at some time later.