Violent riots underway in Kenosha, WI

[Worldtraveller]

Regardless of whether there was a gun in the car, it WAS another shooting of an unarmed black man. In the back. In front of his kids.

In other words, whether it was justified or not doesn't even matter.

No. You are so consistently wrong on this topic it's fucking scary.

The reality is wasn't justified. Period. End of fucking story.

 

[Worldtraveller]

And even if they were placing him under arrest, that doesn't justify shooting him seven times in the back for trying to leave.

It would help if you would address the facts.

He wasn't shot for trying to leave. He was shot for going for a weapon. Quite apart from the hypothetical gun there was the very real car itself.

Interesting that you should say that, because my white "sovereign citizen" relative has driven away from the cops when they refused to say he was under arrest after they stopped him for not having license plates on his car. There was never any threat of him being shot, either.

Because it wasn't a felony stop situation.

But the car itself is a deadly weapon.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It would help if you would address the facts.

He wasn't shot for trying to leave. He was shot for going for a weapon. Quite apart from the hypothetical gun there was the very real car itself.



Because it wasn't a felony stop situation.

But the car itself is a deadly weapon.

Why not shoot him on site? That street was literally lined with deadly weapons along the curb!

 

[Worldtraveller]

You and Derek are quarterbacking to put forth a narrative that justified another police officer shooting an unarmed black man

And you still don't get that "unarmed" does not mean "not a threat".
Regardless, it seems he may have been armed after all.

Was Jacob Blake Holding A Knife? Video Shows Something Many May Not Have Noticed
View attachment 29084

If not a knife, I wonder what it is he is holding in that still.

Car keys? A still can be deceptive.

There are some pretty relevant claims made at that page you link to (see below) If true, it would change matters quite a bit. However, it could just be bollocks. We don't know. It would surprise me if these were known facts and the police had not come out and stated them yet. Consider me slightly sceptical until further clarification, but open to the possibility.

View attachment 29086

Some guy named "Mike the Cop" on twitter, who clearly doesn't have an agenda, and he's 'researched' this? How much bullshit can you pack into one post?

 

[Toni]

Car keys? A still can be deceptive.

There are some pretty relevant claims made at that page you link to (see below) If true, it would change matters quite a bit. However, it could just be bollocks. We don't know. It would surprise me if these were known facts and the police had not come out and stated them yet. Consider me slightly sceptical until further clarification, but open to the possibility.

View attachment 29086

Some guy named "Mike the Cop" on twitter, who clearly doesn't have an agenda, and he's 'researched' this? How much bullshit can you pack into one post?

Other reports say that the police were called because two women were fighting. Blake apparently had tried to break up the fight.

If he had been holding a knife, I'm certain that it would have been collected, bagged and tagged and displayed via the media already. Or at least mentioned by an actual source.

 

[marc]

It would help if you would address the facts.

He wasn't shot for trying to leave. He was shot for going for a weapon. Quite apart from the hypothetical gun there was the very real car itself.



Because it wasn't a felony stop situation.

But the car itself is a deadly weapon.

So if I'm walking down the street, and I see Loren driving up, I should shoot him because he obviously has a deadly weapon in hand and might be about to turn on me with it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some guy named "Mike the Cop" on twitter, who clearly doesn't have an agenda, and he's 'researched' this? How much bullshit can you pack into one post?

How can we trust anyone if we can't trust "Mike the Cop"?

 

[atrib]

You don't know that he was going for a weapon. You're speculating. You are further speculating the cops made the same assumptions you're making, and ignoring the likelihood that the guy seen walking to his car where his kids were waiting was trying to exit the confrontation, not escalate it.

Even if that's what he was trying to do, he escalated the confrontation by reaching into the vehicle. Those police officers did not want a repeat of the Daniel Clary clusterfuck. Neither would they want a suspect gaining control of a 2 ton lethal weapon, even if there was no other weapon inside.

Its a clusterfuck when a police officer gets harmed. But when black people get killed, it doesn't matter, because their lives don't matter. That is really what you are saying. And that is what the protests are all about. Any potential risk to the police, however small or theoretical, has to be eliminated, even if that means killing another human being. If an officer cannot tolerate even the smallest risk without killing somebody, maybe they shouldn't be a police officer. Millions of policemen all over the world continue to do their jobs every day, dealing with drunk and belligerent people, without drawing a gun and killing anyone.

It seemed to me that that he was trying to get to his car, perhaps to reassure his kids, perhaps to disengage from the confrontation. Why should we assume that his intention was to harm anybody? The only people who pose a risk to the safety of people at the scene are the police, with their guns drawn, waving them around. And they follow through by shooting a man seven times in the back. If you don't understand why someone might see this as being fucked up, you are badly broken.

 

[Trausti]

You don't know that he was going for a weapon. You're speculating. You are further speculating the cops made the same assumptions you're making, and ignoring the likelihood that the guy seen walking to his car where his kids were waiting was trying to exit the confrontation, not escalate it.

Even if that's what he was trying to do, he escalated the confrontation by reaching into the vehicle. Those police officers did not want a repeat of the Daniel Clary clusterfuck. Neither would they want a suspect gaining control of a 2 ton lethal weapon, even if there was no other weapon inside.

Its a clusterfuck when a police officer gets harmed. But when black people get killed, it doesn't matter, because their lives don't matter. That is really what you are saying. And that is what the protests are all about. Any potential risk to the police, however small or theoretical, has to be eliminated, even if that means killing another human being. If an officer cannot tolerate even the smallest risk without killing somebody, maybe they shouldn't be a police officer. Millions of policemen all over the world continue to do their jobs every day, dealing with drunk and belligerent people, without drawing a gun and killing anyone.

It seemed to me that that he was trying to get to his car, perhaps to reassure his kids, perhaps to disengage from the confrontation. Why should we assume that his intention was to harm anybody? The only people who pose a risk to the safety of people at the scene are the police, with their guns drawn, waving them around. And they follow through by shooting a man seven times in the back. If you don't understand why someone might see this as being fucked up, you are badly broken.

Yeah. If he didn’t want to be arrested, the cops should have let him go.

 

[Trausti]

So he was apparently trespassing, stole car keys, and the cops knew about his warrants.

https://madison365.com/kenohsa-poli...n-5-minutes-after-being-called-scanner-audio/

 

[SLD]

I’m stunned by the rationalization of the cop’s actions here. There is absolutely no justification for shooting this guy in the back, much less seven times. That he MIGHT have been a threat isn’t enough. Everyone might be a threat. Who gives a fuck?

Even if he had warrants, why did they have to resort to deadly force? Where were their tasers? What about other non deadly force? Couldn’t two or three cops there not handle this guy?

Police in the US need to be far better trained not to use deadly force except in extremis. They need better non lethal weapons. They should have had tasers, they should have never have drawn their weapons as once drawn, they had no other options to use but their pistols. The guy obviously didn’t draw a weapon first.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I’m stunned by the rationalization of the cop’s actions here. There is absolutely no justification for shooting this guy in the back, much less seven times. That he MIGHT have been a threat isn’t enough. Everyone might be a threat. Who gives a fuck?

Even if he had warrants, why did they have to resort to deadly force? Where were their tasers? What about other non deadly force? Couldn’t two or three cops there not handle this guy?

Police in the US need to be far better trained not to use deadly force except in extremis. They need better non lethal weapons. They should have had tasers, they should have never have drawn their weapons as once drawn, they had no other options to use but their pistols. The guy obviously didn’t draw a weapon first.

It depends on the police department’s policy on “use of force”. The cops may have been acting IAW that policy. We don’t know. Had they made a judgement call and the suspect turned firing a weapon, striking a bystander (sweet little four year old girl across the street), then they would have been in the shithouse for sure.

 

[Worldtraveller]

It would help if you would address the facts.

He wasn't shot for trying to leave. He was shot for going for a weapon. Quite apart from the hypothetical gun there was the very real car itself.



Because it wasn't a felony stop situation.

But the car itself is a deadly weapon.

So if I'm walking down the street, and I see Loren driving up, I should shoot him because he obviously has a deadly weapon in hand and might be about to turn on me with it.

Apparently.

Hey, I don't make the rules, but yeah, that's my take away.

 

[laughing dog]

You do realize the defense of "it could happen" justifies any killing of anyone.

No it does not. Of course almost anything could happen.
This is different. We have a guy struggling with police and after breaking free he immediately and deliberately moves toward the driver side door. That is far more than mere "could happen". It is a clear andpresent danger.

Claiming that getting into a vehicle is a clear and present danger is the perfect example of "anything can happen, so open fire".

 

[laughing dog]

Its a clusterfuck when a police officer gets harmed. But when black people get killed, it doesn't matter, because their lives don't matter. That is really what you are saying. And that is what the protests are all about. Any potential risk to the police, however small or theoretical, has to be eliminated, even if that means killing another human being. If an officer cannot tolerate even the smallest risk without killing somebody, maybe they shouldn't be a police officer. Millions of policemen all over the world continue to do their jobs every day, dealing with drunk and belligerent people, without drawing a gun and killing anyone.

It seemed to me that that he was trying to get to his car, perhaps to reassure his kids, perhaps to disengage from the confrontation. Why should we assume that his intention was to harm anybody? The only people who pose a risk to the safety of people at the scene are the police, with their guns drawn, waving them around. And they follow through by shooting a man seven times in the back. If you don't understand why someone might see this as being fucked up, you are badly broken.

Yeah. If he didn’t want to be arrested, the cops should have let him go.

If you really cannot understand that there is a whole range of possible outcomes between "shoot an unarmed man in the back" and "let him go", then even minimally intelligent discussion is impossible.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You do realize the defense of "it could happen" justifies any killing of anyone.

No it does not. Of course almost anything could happen.
This is different. We have a guy struggling with police and after breaking free he immediately and deliberately moves toward the driver side door. That is far more than mere "could happen". It is a clear andpresent danger.

Claiming that getting into a vehicle is a clear and present danger is the perfect example of "anything can happen, so open fire".

Who said anything about getting into the car? The mere presence of that car presents an imminent danger to the officers. Put some brontosaurus ribs on one side of that thing and it'd crush the officers to death!

If that vehicle was is neutral, he could have rolled the car slowly into the officers and killed them as well.

 

[Trausti]

Its a clusterfuck when a police officer gets harmed. But when black people get killed, it doesn't matter, because their lives don't matter. That is really what you are saying. And that is what the protests are all about. Any potential risk to the police, however small or theoretical, has to be eliminated, even if that means killing another human being. If an officer cannot tolerate even the smallest risk without killing somebody, maybe they shouldn't be a police officer. Millions of policemen all over the world continue to do their jobs every day, dealing with drunk and belligerent people, without drawing a gun and killing anyone.

It seemed to me that that he was trying to get to his car, perhaps to reassure his kids, perhaps to disengage from the confrontation. Why should we assume that his intention was to harm anybody? The only people who pose a risk to the safety of people at the scene are the police, with their guns drawn, waving them around. And they follow through by shooting a man seven times in the back. If you don't understand why someone might see this as being fucked up, you are badly broken.

Yeah. If he didn’t want to be arrested, the cops should have let him go.

If you really cannot understand that there is a whole range of possible outcomes between "shoot an unarmed man in the back" and "let him go", then even minimally intelligent discussion is impossible.

Yeah, the cops tried those things. If after the cops try those things you reach into your car ....

 

[laughing dog]

If you really cannot understand that there is a whole range of possible outcomes between "shoot an unarmed man in the back" and "let him go", then even minimally intelligent discussion is impossible.

Yeah, the cops tried those things. If after the cops try those things you reach into your car ....

Reaching into the car also encompasses a range of possible outcomes. Are you trying to prove my observation true?

 

[Trausti]

I’m stunned by the rationalization of the cop’s actions here. There is absolutely no justification for shooting this guy in the back, much less seven times. That he MIGHT have been a threat isn’t enough. Everyone might be a threat. Who gives a fuck?

Even if he had warrants, why did they have to resort to deadly force? Where were their tasers? What about other non deadly force? Couldn’t two or three cops there not handle this guy?

Police in the US need to be far better trained not to use deadly force except in extremis. They need better non lethal weapons. They should have had tasers, they should have never have drawn their weapons as once drawn, they had no other options to use but their pistols. The guy obviously didn’t draw a weapon first.

There are other instances where use of force is certainly excessive. This isn’t it. The guy was clearly non-compliant and, as video shows, had fought with the cops before reaching into the car. The cops don’t have to wait until someone is shot to act. At what point does his personal responsibility for his own actions come into play? Never?

 

[Trausti]

If you really cannot understand that there is a whole range of possible outcomes between "shoot an unarmed man in the back" and "let him go", then even minimally intelligent discussion is impossible.

Yeah, the cops tried those things. If after the cops try those things you reach into your car ....

Reaching into the car also encompasses a range of possible outcomes. Are you trying to prove my observation true?

Reaching into a car after the cops already tried to arrest you and are pointing guns gives the strong inference you’re up to no good. Seriously, when did common sense and personal responsibility die?