I Call Upon All USMB Liberals To Answer This Question >>>

[Blues Man]

I don't know why the 2 cops didn't just take him to the ground and cuff him they certainly had plenty of time to

Plenty of time ? All within a 1/2 second, huh ?

There are many posts within this thread that answer your question.

It didn’t take 1/2 a second to walk around the car, you forget we can all see the video

and the video only shows a portion of the entire event

Right, but again you're the one claiming that the cops could have taken the woman beater who ignored the court order to stay away from her down. Where is the video showing that?

So you don't think 2 cops could put one guy on the ground?

And FYI I already acknowledged that the guy had warrants and was not obeying lawful orders by the police.

The question is why didn't they take him to the ground and cuff him instead of letting him open the door of his car and reach in?

Because it's DANGEROUS. They had a poor angle and position and would have had to grab him from behind moving away from them. How do you people never put things together. What happened in Atlanta when that happened? Two cops got in a wrestling match. He grabbed a taser and shot it at them.

Also, being shot with a taser and not being affected is correlated with being on drugs, which makes him more dangerous.

This thing that they only needed to tackle him while reaching out from behind is flat our retarded.

WHAT HAPPENED IN ATLANTA? Seriously, you think they just wrestle him for a trophy or something?

Blake would have walked away and so would the cops if he OBEYED them. If he had a gripe, then take it up later

It's not more dangerous than letting a person open his car door and reach inside for a weapon.

He was unarmed outside of the car.

And the cops get paid to do a dangerous job so that is not an excuse

Don't hate the player, hate the game. They did what they were trained to do.

Durr.....

So cops are trained to let a criminal walk away from them, open a car door and reach for a weapon?

 

[Slade3200]

I would have taken him out of the vehicle and detained him.

Awesome question.

YOU'RE DEAD. In hundreds of cases, suspects shot while reaching into a car, were found to have a gun. If cop had not shot, suspect would have shot the cop in 1/2 second.

Someday our education system will be revamped, and these very important things will be taught.

I counted 8 seconds that the guy walked around the car when the cops could have arrested him without lethal force. Not 1/2 a second.

 

[protectionist]

they had plenty of time to put the guy on the ground Before he reached into his car. The cops were practically dancing with him as he walked around the car

Perhaps, but......That is beside the point and topic of the OP. I could have posted the words >>"OFF TOPIC", 100 times in this thread.

 

[Blues Man]

they had plenty of time to put the guy on the ground Before he reached into his car. The cops were practically dancing with him as he walked around the car

Perhaps, but......That is beside the point and topic of the OP. I could have posted the words >>"OFF TOPIC", 100 times in this thread.

Stop whining.

Conversations evolve

 

[Daryl Hunt]

At my age, you are going to have to time me with a Calendar. From watching the clip, the takedown should have happened when he was in front of the vehicle. Waiting until he was at the door was not good nor safe procedure. He didn't run around from the front to the car door. He walked. And it was pretty clear that the cops were giving him "Instructions" all along. He should have been taken down the second it became evident he had no intention of complying. Good procedure is do the takedown in numbers (the cops had the numbers) restrain the person, get him into the back seat of a cruiser as quickly as possible. Then sort things out. Nobody gets hurt, no one dies that day. And oops is much easier to explain than 7 shots to the back.

Sure, but all that is outside of the scenario cited in the OP. We're talking about the suspect's hands disappearing, and the 1/2 of time that a suspect could shoot a cop, if the the cop does not shoot the suspect. That's all.

I watched the Vid. And I commented on the poor and unsafe way the Cops operated. It was a design for disaster. Even if no charges are levied, two cops need to be fired, the cop that fired the 7 rounds and the senior police officer on the scene.

 

[Slade3200]

No they can't. You're ignoring this part:

"and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."​

That's exactly what YOU are ignoring. The idea behind the Fleeing Felon Rule is protect not just the cop, but also the community, from the fleeing felon, by not allowing him to escape into its streets. That's why the quote ends with the words >> "or others."

You are wrong. The perp needs to pose a lethal threat. That’s why there was a whole case on it to point out that specific element. otherwise any cop could justify shooting anybody who takes a step away from them

 

[protectionist]

would you want the police to shoot and kill a white conservative so quickly?
let's say some 17 year old WHITE kid
out after curfew (breaking the law!)
with a gun he LEGALLY can't possess (breaking ANOTHER law)

and instead of the police saying HI! to him and letting him kill people....what if the police SHOT HIM DEAD!....no questions asked....no chance for him to fire at the officers......just shot dead....

would that please you?

That would be murder. But that wasn't the scenario with Jacob Blake or Terrence Crutcher. They were reaching into a vehicle, thereby threatening the officer with deadly harm. Officer has to shoot. Self-defense justifiable homicide.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I don't know why the 2 cops didn't just take him to the ground and cuff him they certainly had plenty of time to

Plenty of time ? All within a 1/2 second, huh ?

There are many posts within this thread that answer your question.

It didn’t take 1/2 a second to walk around the car, you forget we can all see the video

and the video only shows a portion of the entire event

Right, but again you're the one claiming that the cops could have taken the woman beater who ignored the court order to stay away from her down. Where is the video showing that?

So you don't think 2 cops could put one guy on the ground?

And FYI I already acknowledged that the guy had warrants and was not obeying lawful orders by the police.

The question is why didn't they take him to the ground and cuff him instead of letting him open the door of his car and reach in?

Because it's DANGEROUS. They had a poor angle and position and would have had to grab him from behind moving away from them. How do you people never put things together. What happened in Atlanta when that happened? Two cops got in a wrestling match. He grabbed a taser and shot it at them.

Also, being shot with a taser and not being affected is correlated with being on drugs, which makes him more dangerous.

This thing that they only needed to tackle him while reaching out from behind is flat our retarded.

WHAT HAPPENED IN ATLANTA? Seriously, you think they just wrestle him for a trophy or something?

Blake would have walked away and so would the cops if he OBEYED them. If he had a gripe, then take it up later

It's not more dangerous than letting a person open his car door and reach inside for a weapon.

He was unarmed outside of the car.

And the cops get paid to do a dangerous job so that is not an excuse

Don't hate the player, hate the game. They did what they were trained to do.

Durr.....

So cops are trained to let a criminal walk away from them, open a car door and reach for a weapon?

Nonsense question. They had no reason to believe that Blake was reaching for a weapon. Only that he was trying to get into his car. (That's what people usually do when they open their car doors.)

 

[Hum Dinger]

No they can't. You're ignoring this part:

"and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."​

That's exactly what YOU are ignoring. The idea behind the Fleeing Felon Rule is protect not just the cop, but also the community, from the fleeing felon, by not allowing him to escape into its streets. That's why the quote ends with the words >> "or others."

You are wrong. The perp needs to pose a lethal threat. That’s why there was a whole case on it to point out that specific element. otherwise any cop could justify shooting anybody who takes a step away from them

God help us all if we reach into our mailboxes with a cop around!

There COULD be a gun or a knife or a bomb in there!

YOU NEVER KNOW!!!!!

 

[protectionist]

Yes the video does not show what happened at the beginning. But it does show an unarmed man walking around a car being followed by two cops with guns one of which chose to shoot him 7 times in the back instead of arrest him

FALSE! That's not what the CHOICE was. The choice was shoot him 7 times in the back, instead of possibly receiving 7 shots in the chest/face.

 

[Blues Man]

I don't know why the 2 cops didn't just take him to the ground and cuff him they certainly had plenty of time to

Plenty of time ? All within a 1/2 second, huh ?

There are many posts within this thread that answer your question.

It didn’t take 1/2 a second to walk around the car, you forget we can all see the video

and the video only shows a portion of the entire event

Right, but again you're the one claiming that the cops could have taken the woman beater who ignored the court order to stay away from her down. Where is the video showing that?

So you don't think 2 cops could put one guy on the ground?

And FYI I already acknowledged that the guy had warrants and was not obeying lawful orders by the police.

The question is why didn't they take him to the ground and cuff him instead of letting him open the door of his car and reach in?

Because it's DANGEROUS. They had a poor angle and position and would have had to grab him from behind moving away from them. How do you people never put things together. What happened in Atlanta when that happened? Two cops got in a wrestling match. He grabbed a taser and shot it at them.

Also, being shot with a taser and not being affected is correlated with being on drugs, which makes him more dangerous.

This thing that they only needed to tackle him while reaching out from behind is flat our retarded.

WHAT HAPPENED IN ATLANTA? Seriously, you think they just wrestle him for a trophy or something?

Blake would have walked away and so would the cops if he OBEYED them. If he had a gripe, then take it up later

It's not more dangerous than letting a person open his car door and reach inside for a weapon.

He was unarmed outside of the car.

And the cops get paid to do a dangerous job so that is not an excuse

Don't hate the player, hate the game. They did what they were trained to do.

Durr.....

So cops are trained to let a criminal walk away from them, open a car door and reach for a weapon?

Nonsense question. They had no reason to believe that Blake was reaching for a weapon. Only that he was trying to get into his car. (That's what people usually do when they open their car doors.)

The question is why let him get into his car at all?

They had ample time and opportunity to put Blake on the ground and cuff him.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I don't know why the 2 cops didn't just take him to the ground and cuff him they certainly had plenty of time to

Plenty of time ? All within a 1/2 second, huh ?

There are many posts within this thread that answer your question.

It didn’t take 1/2 a second to walk around the car, you forget we can all see the video

and the video only shows a portion of the entire event

Right, but again you're the one claiming that the cops could have taken the woman beater who ignored the court order to stay away from her down. Where is the video showing that?

So you don't think 2 cops could put one guy on the ground?

And FYI I already acknowledged that the guy had warrants and was not obeying lawful orders by the police.

The question is why didn't they take him to the ground and cuff him instead of letting him open the door of his car and reach in?

Because it's DANGEROUS. They had a poor angle and position and would have had to grab him from behind moving away from them. How do you people never put things together. What happened in Atlanta when that happened? Two cops got in a wrestling match. He grabbed a taser and shot it at them.

Also, being shot with a taser and not being affected is correlated with being on drugs, which makes him more dangerous.

This thing that they only needed to tackle him while reaching out from behind is flat our retarded.

WHAT HAPPENED IN ATLANTA? Seriously, you think they just wrestle him for a trophy or something?

Blake would have walked away and so would the cops if he OBEYED them. If he had a gripe, then take it up later

It's not more dangerous than letting a person open his car door and reach inside for a weapon.

He was unarmed outside of the car.

And the cops get paid to do a dangerous job so that is not an excuse

Don't hate the player, hate the game. They did what they were trained to do.

Durr.....

So cops are trained to let a criminal walk away from them, open a car door and reach for a weapon?

Nonsense question. They had no reason to believe that Blake was reaching for a weapon. Only that he was trying to get into his car. (That's what people usually do when they open their car doors.)

The question is why let him get into his car at all?

They had ample time and opportunity to put Blake on the ground and cuff him.

Yes, they should never have let him get that far, but once he had they did not have justification for shooting him.

 

[Norman]

, it's a Police Procedure and Safety thing and a cop who just wanted to kill someone in the heat of the moment.

How do you ascertain that this cop "wanted to kill someone" ?

You are trying to justify the shooting. There can be NO way to justify it, ever.

The shooting was just. Guy resisted arrest and reached for a possible gun. Don't do stupid shit if you don't want to get shot.

Leftists can't deal with the fact that actions have consequences, and stupid acts massively bad consequences.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No they can't. You're ignoring this part:

"and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."​

That's exactly what YOU are ignoring. The idea behind the Fleeing Felon Rule is protect not just the cop, but also the community, from the fleeing felon, by not allowing him to escape into its streets. That's why the quote ends with the words >> "or others."

You are wrong. The perp needs to pose a lethal threat. That’s why there was a whole case on it to point out that specific element. otherwise any cop could justify shooting anybody who takes a step away from them

Sorry, I had to disagree on that one. But in this case, if they had done proper police procedure it would have never have gotten to gotten to the point of disaster. Waiting that long was a recipe for disaster.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes the video does not show what happened at the beginning. But it does show an unarmed man walking around a car being followed by two cops with guns one of which chose to shoot him 7 times in the back instead of arrest him

FALSE! That's not what the CHOICE was. The choice was shoot him 7 times in the back, instead of possibly receiving 7 shots in the chest/face.

The correct choice was to grab and arrest him as soon as he started walking away from the cops

 

[protectionist]

The question is why didn't they take him to the ground and cuff him instead of letting him open the door of his car and reach in?

They didn't "let him" do anything. In fact, one of the cops tried to pull him back from the car, by grabbing his shirt and pulling back on it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

, it's a Police Procedure and Safety thing and a cop who just wanted to kill someone in the heat of the moment.

How do you ascertain that this cop "wanted to kill someone" ?

You are trying to justify the shooting. There can be NO way to justify it, ever.

The shooting was just. Guy resisted arrest and reached for a possible gun. Don't do stupid shit if you don't want to get shot.

Leftists can't deal with the fact that actions have consequences, and stupid acts massively bad consequences.

It was a case of a bunch of cops allowing it to get to that point through poor training and procedure. No one had to get shot had the cops handled it Like any well trained cop should have. He should have been taken down in front of the vehicle in the first place and restrained.

 

[Blues Man]

I don't know why the 2 cops didn't just take him to the ground and cuff him they certainly had plenty of time to

Plenty of time ? All within a 1/2 second, huh ?

There are many posts within this thread that answer your question.

It didn’t take 1/2 a second to walk around the car, you forget we can all see the video

and the video only shows a portion of the entire event

Right, but again you're the one claiming that the cops could have taken the woman beater who ignored the court order to stay away from her down. Where is the video showing that?

So you don't think 2 cops could put one guy on the ground?

And FYI I already acknowledged that the guy had warrants and was not obeying lawful orders by the police.

The question is why didn't they take him to the ground and cuff him instead of letting him open the door of his car and reach in?

Because it's DANGEROUS. They had a poor angle and position and would have had to grab him from behind moving away from them. How do you people never put things together. What happened in Atlanta when that happened? Two cops got in a wrestling match. He grabbed a taser and shot it at them.

Also, being shot with a taser and not being affected is correlated with being on drugs, which makes him more dangerous.

This thing that they only needed to tackle him while reaching out from behind is flat our retarded.

WHAT HAPPENED IN ATLANTA? Seriously, you think they just wrestle him for a trophy or something?

Blake would have walked away and so would the cops if he OBEYED them. If he had a gripe, then take it up later

It's not more dangerous than letting a person open his car door and reach inside for a weapon.

He was unarmed outside of the car.

And the cops get paid to do a dangerous job so that is not an excuse

Don't hate the player, hate the game. They did what they were trained to do.

Durr.....

So cops are trained to let a criminal walk away from them, open a car door and reach for a weapon?

Nonsense question. They had no reason to believe that Blake was reaching for a weapon. Only that he was trying to get into his car. (That's what people usually do when they open their car doors.)

The question is why let him get into his car at all?

They had ample time and opportunity to put Blake on the ground and cuff him.

Yes, they should never have let him get that far, but once he had they did not have justification for shooting him.

I read there was a knife on the floor of the car.

I assume he was reaching for it

 

[Daryl Hunt]

, it's a Police Procedure and Safety thing and a cop who just wanted to kill someone in the heat of the moment.

How do you ascertain that this cop "wanted to kill someone" ?

You are trying to justify the shooting. There can be NO way to justify it, ever.

The shooting was just. Guy resisted arrest and reached for a possible gun. Don't do stupid shit if you don't want to get shot.

Leftists can't deal with the fact that actions have consequences, and stupid acts massively bad consequences.

The only problem is, there was no gun.

 

[protectionist]

I wait until I can see the weapon. Then blow his face off

YOU'RE DEAD. In this scenario, as I stated previously, you have NO TIME to "wait for anything. if you hesitate to shoot. You can be shot by the suspect in 1/2 second. That's all the time it take for him to point a gun and shoot you.

This is why police procedure is to shoot immediately, as the instant that the suspect's hands disappear.