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

[protectionist]

The only problem is, there was no gun.

Irrelevant.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Yeah that really worked well didn't it?

Any idiot knows you can't control a person by grabbing a tee shirt because they rip easily

 

[bdtex]

If YOU were a police officer, and you were questioning somebody about a serious crime, and he suddenly bolts away from you, and then reaches into a car, with his hands now not visible to you, what do you do ?

Shoot him in the back 8 times.

 

[protectionist]

Are you sure about that? You seem very sure? It is as if every person who ever reaches inside a car takes out a gun and
shoots someone in the face. Crazy world we live in.

The point is the possibility is there. So police procedure has long been to eliminate that possibility by shooting the suspect at the moment the hands disappear.

It's not your fault that you (and many others) don't know this. Our MISeducation system is run by liberals, who are clueless about guns and law enforcement. THAT is what needs to be reformed, not the police.

 

[esalla]

Hmmm, no. The cops can't shoot you just because you are running away. They can only shoot you if they feel you are a threat to their lives.

FALSE! Cops can shoot fleeing felons (in the back), to protect the community from them.

Read the Fleeing Felon Rule, ( "and others") >> The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape 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."[3]

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[4]

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."​

Sorry, resisting arrest is not grounds for a shot in the back unless the person is attacking another person. He was

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.

I am not dead. Nor would I be scared of a twit like that. The cop is going to jail because he has no balls

 

[protectionist]

Thank you. Can’t believe I’m actually agreeing with you in something. Glad to see some sense of reason within you. Perhaps there’s hope for you yet

Too bad you agreed with him when he was wrong.

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[protectionist]

Walking away from cops is illegal but it does not make you a lethal threat to the cops and justify 7 bullets in the back. To imply such things is ridiculous

The walking away wasn't the lethal threat. Allowing the hands to disappear from view (when Blake reached into the vehicle) was the lethal threat.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Are you sure about that? You seem very sure? It is as if every person who ever reaches inside a car takes out a gun and
shoots someone in the face. Crazy world we live in.

The point is the possibility is there. So police procedure has long been to eliminate that possibility by shooting the suspect at the moment the hands disappear.

It's not your fault that you (and many others) don't know this. Our MISeducation system is run by liberals, who are clueless about guns and law enforcement. THAT is what needs to be reformed, not the police.

I already told you how I would handle it being the senior police officer on site. And, again, good police procedure would have prevented it from happening as it did. You keep dancing around that fact.

 

[protectionist]

Everyone reaching into a car doesn't have to have a gun for you to be dead. Only one person has to reach into a car having a gun for you to be dead.

See how that works?

 

[protectionist]

I don’t know where you got this wrestling match line from or why you think my buddy’s and I should go play grab ass by a car but cops are trained to arrest and apprehend people. That’s their job and what they are trained to do. The guy was unarmed. Arrest him. If he was carrying a gun or weapon while walking to the car To get away then they would be justified to shoot him.

The scenario of the thread is about reaching into the car, not walking to it.

 

[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.

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

I assume he was reaching for it

You assume wrong. It was under the floor mat and not within his reach.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

You think that the video captured the entire event?

I keep asking people who say what you do that the cops could have taken the woman beater who ignored the court order to stay away from her down from behind while he raced to the car if they saw video that I didn't, but all of you have said no. Did you?

Raced to the car? Can you point out the section of the video where he “raced to the car.“ Let me know the time code where he did anything but walk and I’ll check it out

He walked briskly. If the officers were trained in H2H combat they would not have had to draw their weapons. Also, why send a woman officer there? Makes no sense.

That made me laugh out loud. Thank you.
1. He didn’t walk briskly, he walked, watch the video
2. You really think cops with guns aren’t trained to apprehend and arrest subjects?! Are you serious?
3. Why not send a woman officer? Don’t be a dick

#1) Looked like a faster walk than normal to me.

#2) They aren't. Most cops are below average in H2H combat. I am a part owner in three MMA gyms and part time instructor (hobby not job) most of the police officers cannot handle themselves well. Don't believe Hollywood.

#3) Dick? I am giving my opinion. A 5'4, 130 pound woman is useless against a 6'0., 185 pound man for the most part unless she is using weaponry or is highly trained (see #2).

If multiple cops aren’t adequately trained to arrest an unarmed man walking away from them without using lethal force then there is something seriously wrong. That’s the point

No shit. Duh....therein lies the problem. Solution = more funding not less. You dumbass leftist.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I don’t know where you got this wrestling match line from or why you think my buddy’s and I should go play grab ass by a car but cops are trained to arrest and apprehend people. That’s their job and what they are trained to do. The guy was unarmed. Arrest him. If he was carrying a gun or weapon while walking to the car To get away then they would be justified to shoot him.

The scenario of the thread is about reaching into the car, not walking to it.

It's not a scenario. It's a real life situation that happened. You leave out the part that leads up to the very last part. Stick with the facts not the made up crap. This was avoidable through proper police procedure and training. You want the mess ended? Train the cops better.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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?

They are trained to shoot. They aren't adequately trained in self defense. Is English your second language? What part of what I am typing are you not understanding.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

They tased him 2x, Dick and he kept walking.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

You assume wrong. It was under the floor mat and not within his reach.

Who cannot reach under a floor mat? Dick, your arguments are stupid. Like you.

 

[protectionist]

First, your premise is false. Blake was not involved in a serious crime.

Second, until an officer clear sees a weapon he has no authority to shoot anyone. Guessing that someone might have a weapon is not valid reason to shoot them.

Third, in America it has always been considered an act of EXTREME cowardice to shoot a man in the back. Obviously, when a person's back is to you, they are no threat.

Maybe someday you will post when you have a modicum of knowlkedge of the subject matter.

First, I have no "premise" about any "serious crime"

Second, you are absolutely wrong. Officers are trained in their police academies to shoot suspects whose hands disappear from view. They are REQUIRED to do that. There is no guess. Officers must shoot regardless of if a gun is present or not.

Third, Again, you are absolutely wrong. Shooting in the back has nothing to do with this. Shooting a suspect whose HANDS DISAPPEAR, is standard police procedure all over America. It makes no difference what the orientation of the suspect's body is to the officer. Any time suspect's hands disappear they are immediately a lethal threat. Period.

Also this has nothing to do with cowardice. This is police self-defense, not a duel.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

First, your premise is false. Blake was not involved in a serious crime.

Second, until an officer clear sees a weapon he has no authority to shoot anyone. Guessing that someone might have a weapon is not valid reason to shoot them.

Third, in America it has always been considered an act of EXTREME cowardice to shoot a man in the back. Obviously, when a person's back is to you, they are no threat.

Maybe someday you will post when you have a modicum of knowlkedge of the subject matter.

First, I have no "premise" about any "serious crime"

Second, you are absolutely wrong. Officers are trained in their police academies to shoot suspects whose hands disappear from view. They are REQUIRED to do that. There is no guess. Officers must shoot regardless of if a gun is present or not.

Third, Again, you are absolutely wrong. Shooting in the back has nothing to do with this. Shooting a suspect whose HANDS DISAPPEAR, is standard police procedure all over America. It makes no difference what the orientation of the suspect's body is to the officer. Any time suspect's hands disappear they are immediately a lethal threat. Period.

Also this has nothing to do with cowardice. This is police self-defense, not a duel.

I am sure thankful that you aren't on our Police Forces around here. Does every cop get a 2 tag limit where you are from?

I think I've seen enough of you. It's time to clean up the gene pool. Have a nice day.

 

[protectionist]

Firing 7 shots into their backs is a pretty good indicator. Any other stupid questions?

It wasn't a stupid question, but your answer sure was. Firing 7 shots into their backs is not an "indicator" of anything other than the standard police procedure, long go established to protect police from being shot by suspects whose hands disappear from the vies of the officer(s).

Another "indicator" here is the pitiful ignorance of liberals, regarding guns and law enforcement, and the pathetic failure of our liberal MISeducation system to inform these poor souls of critical information.

Rarely have I seen so much ignorance in a single thread. In 7 years in this forum, I think this thread sets a record.

 

[Meister]

Liberals who claim that Jason Blake was shot unjustly (which probably is all liberals in this forum), please answer this >.

If YOU were a police officer, and you were questioning somebody about a serious crime, and he suddenly bolts away from you, and then reaches into a car, with his hands now not visible to you, what do you do ?

I would rely on my training and experience. Seven shots in the back is recommended in police training? Really?

Any other response is recommended before you discharge your weapon such as in Kenosha.

Police officers are trained to shoot as many rounds as necessary at the threat they are confronted with until the threat is neutralized – that is, they are trained to fire until the suspect is unable to shoot or in some other way injure the officer, other police or bystanders.

Why not “shoot to wound” instead?

For a couple of reasons: First, shooting to wound someone may not stop the threat. If a person is shot in the leg, the threat may still exist as a suspect could still use his or her hands to fire a gun or stab with a knife.

"The average officer pulling the trigger as fast as he can on a Glock, one of the fastest- cycling semi-autos, requires 1/4 second to discharge each round.

Here's why police don't shoot to wound in the case of deadly force

Here's why police don't shoot to wound in the case of deadly force

www.ajc.com

Seems the police don't have time to debate which course of action to use in real time when fraction of seconds do count.
The perp , by his own admission had a knife, and he was not complying with the police demands (once gain).
Non lethal methods did not deter his actions.
And, YES, a knife is considered a lethal weapon.