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

[bripat9643]

, 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.

Sure there can be a justification. Only a moron would claim otherwise.

 

[bripat9643]

Lol you and the cop are such pussies. I guess you feel tough with a gun - I don’t know. Either way, the guy didn’t have a gun so your point is stupid.

I didn't make a "point" I asked a QUESTION. And you haven't answered it.

Uh no. I would not shoot him. If there was information that indicated he had a gun, then yes. This is all basic common sense.

Hmmm, wrong. Unless they knew he didn't have a gun, they were justified in believing he did have one.

 

[Billy000]

Lol you and the cop are such pussies. I guess you feel tough with a gun - I don’t know. Either way, the guy didn’t have a gun so your point is stupid.

I didn't make a "point" I asked a QUESTION. And you haven't answered it.

Uh no. I would not shoot him. If there was information that indicated he had a gun, then yes. This is all basic common sense.

Hmmm, wrong. Unless they knew he didn't have a gun, they were justified in believing he did have one.

Lol that is so stupid. Good god.

 

[bripat9643]

Lol you and the cop are such pussies. I guess you feel tough with a gun - I don’t know. Either way, the guy didn’t have a gun so your point is stupid.

I didn't make a "point" I asked a QUESTION. And you haven't answered it.

Uh no. I would not shoot him. If there was information that indicated he had a gun, then yes. This is all basic common sense.

Hmmm, wrong. Unless they knew he didn't have a gun, they were justified in believing he did have one.

Lol that is so stupid. Good god.

How is it stupid? The fact is that he did have a gun in his car.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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 ?

He should never have gotten to his car door. Simple as that. They already had weapons trained on him and they should have done a takedown before it went as far as it did. They had the numbers. And not seeing his hands isn't justification to pump 7 rounds point plank into his back. That had to be the most dangerous and sloppy police procedure (If you can call it that) I have ever seen. It endangered not only the perp but the cops themselves.

It's not a liberal or conservative or even a Party of the Rump, it's a Police Procedure and Safety thing and a cop who just wanted to kill someone in the heat of the moment.

The OP left out a few facts, the dude was there violating a restraining order held by a woman he had sexually assaulted. He had a warrant for his arrest. He had already fought with police getting one in a head lock. He had been tasered twice with no effect, that would indicate he was most likely on drugs. You're right it should have never gotten that far, they should have shot him before he reached the car, non-deadly force had proven ineffective.

.

Lol I love how you’re retarded enough to believe all of this justified him getting shot. It’s not like the argument has anything to do with whether or not he’s a good person.

Having already attacked one officer and shrugged off two tasers he was a known threat. And he went to the car to retrieve a weapon. Justified indeed.

 

[protectionist]

Protectionist-poster has finally managed to disqualify itself from posting! Time and time again Protectionist-poster puts any comment like this below into an ignore--no English--irrelevant category!
________________________
Comparing and Contrasting again: Even the Trumped-Up White House resorts to yelling, screaming, ranting, and foaming at the Mouth! The time-frame likely matters. If the gun was drawn, intent to shoot was established. If the gun was not drawn, non-lethal methods were next to be put into play.
_____________________
"0:15 he bolts away from the cops,.......at 0:20 he reaches into the car. Are you blind ?" Lots of time to create attention--not too audible, and walking away looks like there was some permission given, in the matter.


"Crow, James Crow: Shaken Not Stirred!"
(This here, in fact, is thought rational peace and order, too--Matt 25: 14-30!)

Learn English before posting.

 

[protectionist]

Camp,
I don't normally disagree with you... But the cops in US are pretty poorly trainied by international standards:

Recruitment - City of Kenosha

The City of Kenosha website helps citizens and visitors learn about city services and conduct business, including permit applications and online payments.

www.kenosha.org

Looking there you can go from joe public to Cop in car solo with a gun in 9 months(4.5 month training/4-5 months supervision)...

In Europe becoming a Police Officer in some countries involves getting a Degree, I am looking at Ireland but I know Finland & Norway is definitely longer

• BA in Applied Policing (2 years).... This is
• 13 weeks training to carry a Gun,
• 3 weeks training to break rules of the road (emergency driving)

US cops look like they a very undertrained by international standards...

 

[protectionist]

7 times in the back... There was no weapon and his kids were in the car....

How can the police officer say his or other lives were in danger... You have to see a weapon...

FALSE! You do NOT have to see a weapon. This has been explained repeatedly in the thread, but nobody is bothering to read it before posting, so I'll have to continually repeat >>

When suspect hands disappear, you have zero time to do anything other than shoot the suspect. Anything less, you're gambling, with your life as the stakes. It takes the suspect 1/2 second to show a gun and fire it at you. That's why standard procedure is to shoot the instant the hands disappear (or if something indeterminable is in the hand - could be a cell phone in the dark), you are in mortal danger.

It doesn't matter if his back is to you, or if he is sitting or lying down, once his hands are not visible, you could be shot in the blink of an eye.

The all-important rule never taught by schools is, with cops, always keep you hands VISIBLE & EMPTY.

 

[protectionist]

Oh, a guy with an ar15, who has already shot 3 people is not an immediate threat, but a guy with 3 guns trained on him and an imaginary weapon is?

That's correct. Because Blake allowed his hands to become not visible. We've all seen the full reality show COPS on TV. What's the first thing the cops always say, when encountering a suspect ? >> "Lemme see your hands!"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When the kid ran to the police he had his hand UP and visible. He had not attacked a cop, he had not shrugged off two tasers, he did not hid his hands.

 

[protectionist]

I’d wrap his arms from behind and take him down to the ground. Then have one of my fellow officers cuff him. People should be respectful and obedient to cops and should not run. If they do they can be arrested but they certainly do not deserve 7 bullets in the back, that is inexcusable

YOU'RE DEAD. It takes more than 1/2 second for you to "wrap his arms from behind" In the that 1/2 second that you gave him, he could point a gun at you and shoot. This is why police procedure is to shoot the instant suspect's hands disappear.

Number of bullets fired and shooting in the back is irrelevant. This is not a duel.

 

[dblack]

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 ?

Not a liberal, but....

If he bolted and seemed like a threat, I'd shoot him, for sure. On the other hand, if we was calmly walking away - just not doing as he was told - I'd probably tackle him or something non-deadly. I sure as shit wouldn't just follow him around pointing a gun at him waiting for an excuse to pump him full of lead.

 

[protectionist]

Tased him.
Next stupid question......

See Post # 131. Same answer.

 

[Slade3200]

I’d wrap his arms from behind and take him down to the ground. Then have one of my fellow officers cuff him. People should be respectful and obedient to cops and should not run. If they do they can be arrested but they certainly do not deserve 7 bullets in the back, that is inexcusable

YOU'RE DEAD. It takes more than 1/2 second for you to "wrap his arms from behind" In the that 1/2 second that you gave him, he could point a gun at you and shoot. This is why police procedure is to shoot the instant suspect's hands disappear.

Number of bullets fired and shooting in the back is irrelevant. This is not a duel.

The cop followed him around the car. He had more than 1/2 a second. He had a few seconds. There a video you can see it for yourself

 

[protectionist]

Not a liberal, but....

If he bolted and seemed like a threat, I'd shoot him, for sure. On the other hand, if we was calmly walking away - just not doing as he was told - I'd probably tackle him or something non-deadly. I sure as shit wouldn't just follow him around pointing a gun at him waiting for an excuse to pump him full of lead.

That wasn't the question.

 

[otto105]

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 ?

Well,

First, what major felony did the police on-site claim to be aware of?

Second, police first claimed that Blake was armed, then faced with facts claimed he was reaching for one in the car...

Third, if as police claim if he was armed why did the cop who shot him 7 times reach in car to grab him like he wasn’t “armed”?

Fourth, 7 shots tells me that he was pissed and reacting outside of procedure.

Fifth, it’s clear you don’t know what happened.

 

[mascale]

From illiterate Protectionist poster--Four whole words in English, at last!

Notice is Protectionist Poster--The Four Words Are Not Even On Topic,

NEVER ON TOPIC, PROTECTIONIST-POSTER!
___________________________

mascale said:
Protectionist-poster has finally managed to disqualify itself from posting! Time and time again Protectionist-poster puts any comment like this below into an ignore--no English--irrelevant category!
________________________
Comparing and Contrasting again: Even the Trumped-Up White House resorts to yelling, screaming, ranting, and foaming at the Mouth! The time-frame likely matters. If the gun was drawn, intent to shoot was established. If the gun was not drawn, non-lethal methods were next to be put into play.
_____________________
"0:15 he bolts away from the cops,.......at 0:20 he reaches into the car. Are you blind ?" Lots of time to create attention--not too audible, and walking away looks like there was some permission given, in the matter.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken Not Stirred!"
(This here, in fact, is thought rational peace and order, too--Matt 25: 14-30!)

Learn English before posting
_____________________
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken Not Stirred!"
(This here, in fact, is thought rational peace and order, too--Matt 25: 14-30!)

 

[sakinago]

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 ?

He should never have gotten to his car door. Simple as that. They already had weapons trained on him and they should have done a takedown before it went as far as it did. They had the numbers. And not seeing his hands isn't justification to pump 7 rounds point plank into his back. That had to be the most dangerous and sloppy police procedure (If you can call it that) I have ever seen. It endangered not only the perp but the cops themselves.

It's not a liberal or conservative or even a Party of the Rump, it's a Police Procedure and Safety thing and a cop who just wanted to kill someone in the heat of the moment.

This post just shows you how powerful the mainstream media, combined with social media, really is even though no one is really watching/reading mainstream media anymore. MM gives you an excerpt of a clip that fits a narrative they want to push. That narrative gets exponentially amplified by social media. No one actually takes the simple little step to dig just a little bit deeper and find out the facts.

Literally the next day a longer video came out from the other side of the vehicle. There it shows the cops trying to tase Blake, and a struggle with him on the ground. The taser doesn’t work, he throws the cops off, and then he walks to the other side of the car. What he was reaching for we now know was a knife. The cops report that Blake himself said he had a knife. The girl who shot the original viral video, on the very same day, said that she heard the cops telling him to drop the knife. BTW cops were there because Blake’s ex, who had a restraining order against him because of sexual assault, called the cops on him because he broke into her house and took by force her keys and debit card, and was gonna drive away with her kids. She called the cops and told them about the situation as well as his outstanding arrest warrant. Oh yeah and the kids were in that very same car. Cops also must shot until the person who is endangering the lives of them or other stops. Most bullets don’t stop people dead in their tracks unless it’s in the head. Even if it’s a lethal shot to the chest, people can usually still make a couple of moves before they actually go down. All hunters know this. It’s incredibly naive to think that you can just shoot someone once, and wait a couple seconds to see if they’re going to shoot or stab you. It’s fucking retarded to think that cops can just shoot people in the knee or shoulder.

This isn’t even close to a case heavy handed policing let alone a case of racist cops just waking up deciding they’re gonna smoke a black dude. To me, this sounds like suicide by cop. He didn’t want to go to jail, decided to go out in a blaze of glory, and told the cops he had a knife. We’re the cops just supposed to put their guns away and let Blake drive away with the kids?

 

[protectionist]

The cop followed him around the car. He had more than 1/2 a second. He had a few seconds. There a video you can see it for yourself

I'm talking about a hypothetical scenario in the OP, in which I created a situation. Please respond to THAT.

And the one I created, does correlate with the Jason Bake shooting. Various things can be said about the seconds before Blake reached into his car. That's not the question. My question only pertains to once he DID reach into that car, and his hands disappeared from the cops' view.

This is the same as the Betty Shelby - Terrence Crutcher shooting case. Crutcher ignored directions. He reached into his vehicle. Hands disappeared. Shelby instantly fired, killing Crutcher. Shelby was cleared in Oklahoma court.. Case was "justifiable homicide", based on correct adherence to police procedure.

Tulsa officer acquitted in fatal shooting of Terence Crutcher

Betty Shelby, the Tulsa police officer who fatally shot an unarmed black man last year, was found not guilty of first-degree manslaughter.

www.cnn.com

The words of Betty Shelby told the story clear to the jury (including 3 black people) >>

Crutcher did not comply with her commands to "show me your hands," she testified. She also said he was sweating heavily and smelled of PCP chemicals.
Crutcher ignored orders from Shelby and another officer on the scene, Tyler Turnbough, according to Shelby's testimony. She testified that Crutcher put his hands on the SUV and moved to reach into the vehicle.
Her police training taught her that "if a suspect reaches their hands inside of a car, don't let them pull them out," she testified.
"We're not trained to see what comes out of a car," Shelby said. "We're trained to stop a threat, and by all indications, he was a threat."
At that point, Shelby fired her weapon and Turnbough fired his Taser, she testified.

The critical point in this video is at 1:05, when Crutcher's body shifts, as he reached into the window of his SUV.

 

[protectionist]

Well, First, what major felony did the police on-site claim to be aware of?
Second, police first claimed that Blake was armed, then faced with facts claimed he was reaching for one in the car...
Third, if as police claim if he was armed why did the cop who shot him 7 times reach in car to grab him like he wasn’t “armed”?
Fourth, 7 shots tells me that he was pissed and reacting outside of procedure.
Fifth, it’s clear you don’t know what happened.

What is clear is that you are either the biggest idiot in this forum, or you're a baldfaced liar (and not a very good one).

First, what felony the police were aware of, has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Read the OP again......maybe this time, slower.

Second, Blake being armed or not is irrelevant to the police action, and even more irrelevant to the question of this thread, which you have cowardly DODGED.

Third, no cop in the video reached into the car. One cop grabbed Blake's shirt to pull him back from the car. Probably, so he wouldn't be forced to shoot Blake. You're welcome.

Fourth, if 7 shots tells you the cop was pissed, then that simply shows you know nothing about policing. Firing multiple shots, is commonly done to insure the stoppage of the suspect. Has nothing to do with an emotional status of the officer.

Fifth, if you had read the thread before posting, you would not have come in and made a fool out of yourself. Hope you earned your lesson.