• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Violent riots underway in Kenosha, WI

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?
I think the main failure here is that with three officers pointing guns, there really are no other options on the table if he continues to not follow orders. You can't restrain someone with a gun in your hand. That he gets to his car door is problematic as he should have been restrained or the officer on the right should have covered the door.
 
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?

When did implying that you might be up to no good become a capital crime in the "land of the free"?
 
Reaching into the car also encompasses a range of possible outcomes. Are you trying to prove my observation true?
I think the main failure here is that with three officers pointing guns, there really are no other options on the table if he continues to not follow orders. You can't restrain someone with a gun in your hand. That he gets to his car door is problematic as he should have been restrained or the officer on the right should have covered the door.

And bearing in mind that unless he has joined the military and they are his superior officers, he is under no obligation to obey their orders immediately and without question.

They're supposed to be police, not death squads. Judge Dredd is meant to be cartoonish hyperbole, not a training manual.
 
People of color continued to get arrested, charged and convicted in an entirely unfair manner. While I understand that basically ANY confrontation has a potential for violence merely by the fact that a cop has a gun in the first place, we need to expect better from our police officers. Many of them are straight up thugs, with very bad training, white nationalist views, spurred on by a completely prejudiced union, propped up by prosecutors and attorney generals, a country awash in firearms, and a code of protection and violence. The problems are numerous. Many shoots are straight up bad, regardless of how "well-behaved" the subject is. Additionally, many of these cops are dealing with mental health issues for which they're not trained or effective in mitigating.

What is a mere arrest to white people (although in many cases white people wouldn't even be arrested in the first place) is a major life hardship for many people pf color. A record, strangled by court fees and fines, an inability to pay cash bail (which should also be abolished) and other factors mean a genuine struggle for many of these people. Many aren't even committing crimes, and are practicing behavior that would involve a chuckle and a warning if these people were white. In this example, breaking up a fight between two women. To most of these cops it's about being subject to their authority, and the smallest bit of resistance easily escalates the situation because these cops have WAY too much EGO. There's a reason so many cops end up as perpetrators of domestic violence themselves.

I'm not like dumb ass Joe "just shoot them in the leg" Biden. In almost all situations this isn't feasible to anyone that has an idea of what it's really like out there. Nevertheless, there were several good options available to those cops at several points throughout that confrontation. Numerous mistakes were made, that almost cost this man his life, and made it, so he'll never walk again.

Someone that is supposedly adept at critical thinking should know better than to look at the entirety of this situation throughout our country and toss out such a simple solution at what is clearly a complex problem. That should be a red flag that there's more to this than "just do what the cop says". It's the equivalent of saying that the cure for child poverty is for people to just not have children before they're financially established and ready to do so. It's a childishly simple attempt at a solution to a very complex problem, one that at its heart involves human nature, and thus has no simple solution. It's a mental shortcut so one doesn't have to deal with the complexities of the situation, and do any self-examination to find some rather unpleasant facts about their own personality, attitudes, and prejudices.
 
Reaching into the car also encompasses a range of possible outcomes. Are you trying to prove my observation true?
I think the main failure here is that with three officers pointing guns, there really are no other options on the table if he continues to not follow orders. You can't restrain someone with a gun in your hand. That he gets to his car door is problematic as he should have been restrained or the officer on the right should have covered the door.

And bearing in mind that unless he has joined the military and they are his superior officers, he is under no obligation to obey their orders immediately and without question.

They're supposed to be police, not death squads. Judge Dredd is meant to be cartoonish hyperbole, not a training manual.

They never should’ve drawn their guns in the first place. Did these officers not have tasers? Why can’t three officers physically restrain him? It’s hard to tell but he doesn’t look that big.
 
Since violent protests seem to follow police shootings(or kneeling on someone's neck until they die), what play would a Wednesday evening quarterback call which might reduce violent protests?
My solution would be to arrest and prosecute the rioters to the full extent of the law, contrary to what fauxgressive prosecutors like Mike Schmidt are doing.

I guess your "solution" would be to give in to violent thugs and stop using lethal force against black people no matter the circumstances even if it leads to more dead cops (an outcome Jarhyn for example has explicitly said he supports). Giving in to terrorists is never a good idea!

Just remember that the rioters and the protesters have little overlap. We keep seeing evidence that the violent ones are the white nationalist types, not the BLM types.
 
I have repeatedly pointed out that according to the law such situations are to be evaluated based on what was known to the shooter at the time.

Your playing monday morning quarterback doesn't change the law.

You and Derek are quarterbacking to put forth a narrative that justified another police officer shooting an unarmed black man—this time atom the back at point blank range.

If they were actually afraid of him weaponizing his car, they could have shot his tires.

You continue to show your ignorance.

1) Shooting tires basically guarantees ricochets into the environment. There were people about.

2) Shooting tires slows a car, it doesn't immobilize it. It in no way stops him from using it as a weapon.
 
I don’t think anyone is concerned that ricochet from the bullets would fly back and harm the police officer.
Quite the contrary. You people want to see more dead cops!

Disagree--I don't think that's what they are after.

Rather, it's the standard leftist error--assuming that the party with the power is always in the wrong when things go badly, thus a bad outcome is proof that they were either incompetent or evil.
 
I was wondering how long it would take you to elevate Blake to sainthood.
It's been less than 48 hours since this thread was started. I think that's a new record.

It's not me, it's people like Benjamin Crump (who I am sure finds chasing an ambulance a welcome change from his usual chasing of hearses) and his lackeys in the media such as CNN. I watched some CNN coverage of the Jacob Blake shooting earlier today and it was sickening. A lot of focus on all the kids he has, on his other family members, how he moved to Wisonsin to "have a better life" but no mentions of his criminal past of his current warrants, including for a felony. They are engaging in spinning hagiographies, not journalism, hence the sarcastic canonization.

Aha! That's probably why I've seen multiple people "proving" he had no criminal past--they were only showing local records.
 
Yea, we need more non-lethal techniques of bringing someone down rather than resorting to guns.
They already tried the taser. And if he really had a knife, that would explain why they did not try to tackle him.

Instead of finding fault with the police, how about criticizing the behavior of Jacob Blake. Or do you think that because he is black he can do whatever he wants, and police are at fault if they don't let him be? For example, do you think police should have let him escape to avoid rioting?

Yup, that certainly would explain their lack of meaningful efforts to stop him physically as he went for his car. If they knew he had a knife I don't see anything they could have done better.
 
Blake was at his kid's birthday party, in plain view of a lot of people who saw no reason to be alarmed by his presence. The cops who arrived on the scene saw no reason to avoid getting close to the guy. Because you, Mr. Eagle Eye, are the only one who noticed he had a knife?

You're assuming he had it in his hand all the time rather than that he pulled it out. The latter makes a lot more sense anyway.
 
I have repeatedly pointed out that according to the law such situations are to be evaluated based on what was known to the shooter at the time.

Your playing monday morning quarterback doesn't change the law.

You and Derek are quarterbacking to put forth a narrative that justified another police officer shooting an unarmed black man—this time atom the back at point blank range.

If they were actually afraid of him weaponizing his car, they could have shot his tires.

You continue to show your ignorance.

1) Shooting tires basically guarantees ricochets into the environment. There were people about.
Yeah... we don't anyone getting hurt here! Wait... what?!

So the car is so dangerous, why did they allow him to walk slowly around it to get to the driver's side?
 
Yea, we need more non-lethal techniques of bringing someone down rather than resorting to guns.
They already tried the taser. And if he really had a knife, that would explain why they did not try to tackle him.

Instead of finding fault with the police, how about criticizing the behavior of Jacob Blake. Or do you think that because he is black he can do whatever he wants, and police are at fault if they don't let him be? For example, do you think police should have let him escape to avoid rioting?

Yup, that certainly would explain their lack of meaningful efforts to stop him physically as he went for his car. If they knew he had a knife I don't see anything they could have done better.
Did they recover a knife at the crime scene?
 
I have repeatedly pointed out that according to the law such situations are to be evaluated based on what was known to the shooter at the time.

Your playing monday morning quarterback doesn't change the law.

You and Derek are quarterbacking to put forth a narrative that justified another police officer shooting an unarmed black man—this time atom the back at point blank range.

If they were actually afraid of him weaponizing his car, they could have shot his tires.

You continue to show your ignorance.

1) Shooting tires basically guarantees ricochets into the environment. There were people about.

2) Shooting tires slows a car, it doesn't immobilize it. It in no way stops him from using it as a weapon.

And who was in that car? Three young children. Hell they were boys, I think. I’d think you might at least care about that. Or maybe they were a little too dark for you to care?

I’m not the one who is displaying ignorance. But I understand. The world must look like a terrible blue place when you’re on the ground, licking boots.
 
You absolutely do not know any of that. You’re just creating a narrative to justify a police officer, sworn to serve and protect, shooting an unarmed black man in the back at point bland range.

Which part do you claim I do not know? I stand by all of it. Sure, the police could not know for sure what he was going for in that car, but he has already shown hostility by resisting/struggling with them and allowing him access to the car is too much of a risk for all involved.
Let's say he gets hold of a gun and start shooting. That is not only dangerous for the police officers but also to all the civilians that can be seen out in the neighborhood.

Hypothetical outcomes like these exist for practically any situation involving interaction between police and the public. Every single traffic stop is potentially a situation that leads to the suspect pulling a gun on the officer. There are thousands of videos of sovereign citizens and other assorted misled people on Youtube, where people refuse to follow lawful instructions from officers and resist arrest, often violently, without the officers resorting to peremptory lethal force, and without anyone getting hurt. The use of lethal force should always be the last recourse, used only when there is a clear and immediate danger to human life. In this country, police are often trained to approach every interaction with the assumption that the suspect is armed and intends them harm, which keeps them from exploring options that do NOT involve killing the suspect. Killing somebody who is trying to walk away from an encounter, based simply on the unsupported assumption that this person may intend to cause them harm, is wrong, but many PDs train their officers to act this way.

The life of the suspect is just as valuable as the life of the officer, and the decision to take this life should always be the last recourse, when all other options have failed. You probably agree with the spirit of this premise, even if you choose not to apply it to situations where the life in question is that of a black man.
 
There seems to be an issue with tasers. In the video trausti posted (reposted above by derec I think) the guy was tasered but two cops still couldn't subdue him, and then he got up, grabbed his gun from inside his car, shot both cops and drove off!

I suppose they could make tasers stronger, but then that probably increases the risk that the taser will kill someone.

Making them stronger isn't going to make a difference--taser failures are normally due to a failure to connect adequately, not due to a failure of the shock to take someone down. Both probes must hit and embed, they can be deflected by a narrow-angle hit, by a hit on something substantial in their attire (say, a belt) or simply by too-thick clothing (a big deal in cold climates--normal heavy winter wear is nearly 100% effective against tasers.)

But you'd think someone could come up with something maybe. Something like the web thing Spiderman used to fire from his wrists to incapacitate and subdue without causing harm, as I recall. I even think there are such devices. Perhaps they are not reliable enough yet.

Rubber bullets? Lassoos?

There would be a huge market for an incapacitating weapon for the police. The absence of better options is because we don't know how to do make one. The only web devices I've seen are too unwieldy to be used in such a situation and they aren't very effective against humans anyway, they're for use against things that don't have hands.

Rubber bullets are worse, they're pretty much the equivalent of the nightstick except at a distance.
 
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.

Why are you being skeptical about it? His description of the situation fits the known facts a lot better than the BLM narrative does.

BTW, the source for that screenshot: https://www.facebook.com/realmikethecop/posts/2731196343808008
 

Two of your sources are Faux, they have repeatedly been caught pretending it's BLM doing violence even when the facts say otherwise. The only non-Faux source you give only says "rioters", it doesn't identify them as BLM.
 
As for what I think it might be in that photograph, something durable I suppose. If I just saw that picture with no backstory, I would guess those were his sunglasses.

I have a hard time picturing that curvature in sunglasses.
 
If people don't want riots, they need to choose to either fix the underlying grievances, or accept deliberate police massacres. Because the only way to stop a riot from leading to injury and destruction of property is either to massacre the participants; Or not to have a riot to begin with.

You might start to help with the latter by refraining from using riots as an opportunity to dehumanise those involved. They're not acting like animals, they're acting like humans who are powerless and oppressed have ALWAYS acted.

You're falling for the assumption that the rioters are BLM. While I've seen nothing about this case in particular we have plenty of examples of it being white supremacist agitators trying to tar BLM.
 
Back
Top Bottom