Violent riots underway in Kenosha, WI

[Derec]

Which the police would not have known.

What they DID know is that the guy was ignoring their commands and was deliberately moving toward the driver's door and was trying to reach in.
They also know what can happen when a suspect reaches into their vehicle and gets a gun (the video of the Daniel Clary traffic stop was posted here by Trausti I think).
It would have been reckless for police to allow Blake to get into the car under the circumstances.

 

[Derec]

I've told cops to go and get fucked. I've called them cunt-stables. I have pissed on a cop car.

Charming!

Funny how I am still alive. Weird huh? Because obviously I deserve the death penalty.

It's not that you or Blake "deserve the death penalty", it's that certain behaviors, like reaching into the car, make police think you are going for your gun. That can get you shot, and it's not a matter of deserving, it's a matter of almost terminal stupidity.

Of course, this young man will, unfortunately, probably come ahead given the toxic political climate - the city will probably pay him millions and the spineless DA will probably dismiss the charges he has warrants for given that now Jacob Blake is the hero of the #BLM movement. I do not think it is smart that we as a society encourage behavior like his.

 

[Derec]

The most recently updated Washington Post article on the shooting of Jacob Blake has this:

WaPo no longer gives free monthly articles? I could not access the article.

Police have not commented on what led to the shooting. By Monday afternoon, nearly a full day after the shooting, public officials had only released scant details of what had happened, even as video footage from the incident had spread widely and drawn national scrutiny.

Stella London, who lives in the area, and her daughters said Monday they think Blake was breaking up a fight between two women over a scratch on one of their cars and police just “assumed” he was a problem.

“It all came from a scratched vehicle. It’s just so sad,” said Sheila Winters, 65.

Even if this is true, Blake had warrants, including for a felony sexual assault. If police ran his id, they would have found that out. Blake probably did not want to go back to jail.

The women worry that if Blake does not survive, their city will become consumed by violence.

News flash: he did survive, and the city has nevertheless become consumed by violence.

Blake was attending his 3-year-old son’s birthday party on the lawn of his apartment building, according to Marie, a 23-year-old who said she watched what happened and spoke on the condition that her last name not be used.

Why are media so hell-bent of force-feeding us the stories of irrelevant children's birthday parties? They used the same tactic with Rayshard Brooks, yapping incessantly about his reproductive status and deafeningly ignoring his criminal record.

At some point, Marie said, an argument began between two women. When a police officer approached, Blake was standing near the car in the street and one of the women directed police toward him, Marie said.

The officer “didn’t ask questions” and “just grabbed” Blake, Marie said, and tried to use a Taser to stun him, which did not work. Then Blake walked to the front of the car, she said, and was shot by police.

Yeah, that does not pass the smell test. It is not reasonable to believe police would grab and tase him for no reason. More likely police asked him for id [running of which would have revealed his warrants] or recognized him as having an arrest warrant out, and he did not want to go back to jail and was determined to get away.

 

[Arctish]

Which the police would not have known.

What they DID know is that the guy was ignoring their commands and was deliberately moving toward the driver's door and was trying to reach in.
They also know what can happen when a suspect reaches into their vehicle and gets a gun (the video of the Daniel Clary traffic stop was posted here by Trausti I think).
It would have been reckless for police to allow Blake to get into the car under the circumstances.

Even if we all agree that some use of force was justified (and we don't all agree) that doesn't mean it was okay for the cops to shoot him 7 times in the back as he was leaning into his car.

If you think you can make a case that there was an immediate threat to the lives and safety of the police officers, the kids in the car, or the neighbors, then make it. Right now all we have is a police officer resorting to extreme, potentially lethal force to detain an unarmed man who apparently wanted to leave.

 

[Derec]

Fear and racism and rank cowardice. That’s what’s wrong with people.

Just because he happens to be black does not mean it's "racism". Just because there is reasonable fear of suspects retrieving firearms from their vehicles does not make it cowardice.

 

[Derec]

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.

You are being ridiculous. If there was a gun in the car, he would have been an armed man imminently, and police were justified in stopping him. Even if there wasn't a gun in the car, police are not omniscient, and Blake was moving very deliberately toward that car door, which makes "he is going for a gun" a reasonable suspicion. People have been shot for far less suspicious movements when held by police at gunpoint, including white people like Daniel Shaver.

As to him being a "black man", what difference does that make? Should police treat black suspects differently just because violent mob loses their shit every time a black suspect gets shot?
And "in front of his kids". Why didn't Blake think of his kids when he refused to comply?

 

[Derec]

You mean these police opened fire knowing there were 3 children in the car under the assumption he had a firearm? WTF is wrong with people.

I do not know if the police officers knew about the kids. In any case they fired in a direction that did not endanger the back seat passengers. But do you know who knew there were kids in the car? Jacob Blake. And he still chose not to comply but instead to endanger his kids by trying to gain access to the vehicle, presumably in order to avoid arrest.

 

[Derec]

Or it could be that he hadn't broken any laws,

It may be that he hadn't broken any laws (innocent until proven guilty and all that), but he is definitely suspected to have broken laws, which is why there are warrants out for his arrest:

had already had a long enough conversation with the cops to establish that they had no grounds to arrest him, and was fed up with being harassed and detained.

First of all, it's not up to him to decide when he's had enough, and second, they had grounds to arrest him because of the warrants, including a felony arrest warrant.

Now, there are those who think Constitutional rights are only for white people.

Where in the constitution does it say that you may ignore lawful commands by police or that arrest warrants do not apply to you? Sounds like some "sovereign citizen" bullshit to me!

There are some who believe the proper response to the police is to immediately begin licking their boots and not stop until the cop tells you to crawl away. But there are some who understand that if the cops don't have grounds to arrest you and haven't actually arrested you, you have the right to go about your business unimpeded.

No, police have a right to detain you as part of an investigation. And in this case there certainly were grounds for arrest.

We'll have to wait for more information before we know if the cops had grounds to arrest Mr. Blake.

We already know. Of course, you are unlikely to see that in MSM because they prefer to yap about how great a guy Blake is because he would not wrap his tool, as if that was some kind of an accomplishment!

We'll have to wait for the audio before we'll know if they were in the process of arresting him when he walked away. Because, sad to say, it could very well be he asked them directly if he was under arrest, they hemmed and hawed, he walked away, and they decided after they shot him that he was resisting an arrest they weren't making.

Even without an arrest, police are within their rights to detain people for a time as part of an investigation.

 

[Derec]

The issue is that police keep shooting unarmed people—in the back, in front of their kids, in their own bed, playing in the park, combinations of these...
These shootings do not happen in other countries.

And you keep ignoring the fact that unarmed != harmless. And that "in front of their kids" is irrelevant, "in their own bed" refers to accidental shooting when police were returning fire [the fault lies in the officer who falsified info for the no-knock warrant, not on the officers who were defending their own lives] and "playing in the park" likely refers to the incident where the subject was armed with a realistic replica of a firearm, which was adulterated to make it indistinguishable from a real firearm from a distance of more than a foot or two.

 

[Derec]

Just once, I wish you'd write the same thing about police shooting an unarmed person.

And for a millionth time, unarmed != not a threat.

And do a little investigation into the past deeds of the police.

I did not do any investigation. I merely linked to an article that did the investigating. Real journalism, as opposed to hagiographies that imply that if somebody managed to procreate that automatically makes them a good person. Media did the same with Rayshard Brooks (the Martyr of Peoplestown Wendy's) - it took them weeks to stop just talking about a totally irrelevant children's birthday party and finally report on his criminal record. But I digress. Point being, I did not uncover his criminal history and active warrants myself. If there is dirt on any of the police officers, it will be uncovered.

 

[Arctish]

It may be that he hadn't broken any laws (innocent until proven guilty and all that), but he is definitely suspected to have broken laws, which is why there are warrants out for his arrest:

First of all, it's not up to him to decide when he's had enough, and second, they had grounds to arrest him because of the warrants, including a felony arrest warrant.

But did they?

It makes a difference, you know.

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

Now, there are those who think Constitutional rights are only for white people.

Where in the constitution does it say that you may ignore lawful commands by police or that arrest warrants do not apply to you? Sounds like some "sovereign citizen" bullshit to me!

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.

There are some who believe the proper response to the police is to immediately begin licking their boots and not stop until the cop tells you to crawl away. But there are some who understand that if the cops don't have grounds to arrest you and haven't actually arrested you, you have the right to go about your business unimpeded.

No, police have a right to detain you as part of an investigation. And in this case there certainly were grounds for arrest.

We'll have to wait for more information before we know if the cops had grounds to arrest Mr. Blake.

We already know. Of course, you are unlikely to see that in MSM because they prefer to yap about how great a guy Blake is because he would not wrap his tool, as if that was some kind of an accomplishment!

"[T]hey prefer to yap about how great a guy Blake is because he would not wrap his tool"? Projection, much?

We'll have to wait for the audio before we'll know if they were in the process of arresting him when he walked away. Because, sad to say, it could very well be he asked them directly if he was under arrest, they hemmed and hawed, he walked away, and they decided after they shot him that he was resisting an arrest they weren't making.

Even without an arrest, police are within their rights to detain people for a time as part of an investigation.

Detain while they investigate, yes. But they have to say they're detaining you and tell you why. And they can't simply execute you if you refuse to comply.

 

[Derec]

Did you catch that? Derec acknowledges that we do not "have all of the details yet" but he is already calling the guy who got shot a thug.

Did you catch the fact that he has a violent criminal past? I mentioned it in the OP, but most media is silent on it, preferring to focus on his reproductive status, as if that was relevant.

Police: K9 Dozer Helps Subdue Man Who Pulled Gun at Bar
Who's a good boy?!

He must be using definition 2.

As always, you are wrong.

There you go. I fixed your fix so that it more accurately describes core of #BLM.

Nope. They take the side of a black guy shot by police no matter the circumstances. Even when there is a literal smoking gun because the perp shot two people right before being shot by police (the Partick Kimmons case), the #BLM crowd still thinks the police are a bunch of racist murderers and that the dead guy didn't do nothing.

 

[Derec]

But did they?
It makes a difference, you know.

Well, we do not know what exactly happened.
But I do not think it makes that much difference whether he tried to get away because they knew he had warrants or because he didn't want them to know he had warrants. The latter is very suspicious in itself.

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

They did not shoot him for trying to leave per se, but for reaching into his car. They did not want to end up like the cops who tried to arrest Daniel Clary. Can you blame them?

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.

And most black people don't get shot in encounters with police either. To try to make this a racial issue is pure propaganda designed to divide us on racial grounds.
It is not Trump who is dividing us - he is merely a symptom of a backlash. The real culprit is the black radicalism of the 60s and 70s that has been embraced by white left wing radicals as well and that as nowadays mutated into "Black Lives Matter".
Hell, #BLMers fully support 70s black terrorists like JoAnne Chesimard (nom de guerre "Assata Shakur") who murdered a police officer in 1973 as part of "Black Liberation Army" terrorist activities.
View attachment 29071

"[T]hey prefer to yap about how great a guy Blake is because he would not wrap his tool"? Projection, much?

Hardly a projection, since I always do. Wrap it up, that is.

It is merely an observation I made about media response to these cases.

Detain while they investigate, yes. But they have to say they're detaining you and tell you why.

Why do you assume they didn't tell him? I think he knew full well that the jig was up and that he was going back to jail on those warrants.

And they can't simply execute you if you refuse to comply.

You are assuming he was "executed". No, they shot him because he went into the car, and they feared that he was going for his gun. It was a fucking stupid thing for him to do, of course, but it is something thugs try to do, unfortunately, in order to avoid getting arrested.

 

[Derec]

Then they get the gun. And IFF they decide to use it THEN a violent response is called for.

And by that time one or more officers is dead or wounded. Perfect plan, if you want the thugs to have the upper hand. Which the anti-police left does.

What part of "they haven't committed a crime or created a real threat" do you not understand?

Reaching into a car constitutes a reasonable suspicion of a threat. Because why else would he do it?

And you know what? Maybe a cop gets shot.

Maybe you should change your TF name to Farquad.

Accepting this risk is part of the cost of having power, as I see it.

Accepting a reasonable level of risk is. Accepting an unreasonable level of risk is not.

If you can't accept the risk of having shots fired at you before firing back, get out of the police force.

Yeah, that's bullshit and very far from any reasonable standard.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

Ok. but if there was a gun in the car and he was trying to get it, it would make a difference, imo. If there was a gun, I would be surprised if the news has not yet been released, so I am at the moment inclined to think there wasn't.

 

[ruby sparks]

The officer “didn’t ask questions” and “just grabbed” Blake, Marie said, and tried to use a Taser to stun him, which did not work. Then Blake walked to the front of the car, she said, and was shot by police.

If ^this^ is accurate, then the shooting appears to be another instance of the police escalating a minor matter into a deadly confrontation.

It's obviously not accurate. He did more than walk to the front of the car before being shot. I'm not saying it wasn't the police escalating a minor incident into a deadly confrontation (I think it was that) only that that version is not accurate. It also leaves out the verbal warnings.

 

[ruby sparks]

.... that doesn't justify shooting him seven times in the back for trying to leave.

I don't think they shot him for trying to leave. I think they shot him because they (apparently wrongly) thought he was trying to reach into his car for a gun.

 

[ruby sparks]

Same Jacob Blake, from 5 years ago.

Police: K9 Dozer Helps Subdue Man Who Pulled Gun at Bar

Jacob Blake, 24, of Racine, was charged Monday in Racine County Circuit Court with one felony count of resisting arrest causing a soft tissue injury to a police officer and one misdemeanor count each of carrying a concealed weapon, carrying a firearm while intoxicated, endangering safety-use of a dangerous weapon, and disorderly conduct. If convicted, he will face up to 8-1/2 years in prison and/or up to $50,000 in fines.
According to the criminal complaint, Blake and two women were at the Brass Monkey tavern, 1436 Junction Avenue, Saturday when Blake got into an argument with another patron and pulled a black handgun. Blake pointed the gun at the other man, and the magazine fell to the floor. The bartender told Blake to leave, and he did but then pointed the gun through the window at patrons inside the bar before walking south on Junction Avenue.
[...]
Believing the driver was armed, police conducted a high risk traffic stop, the complaint reads, and ordered Blake to put his hands out the window of the vehicle. Instead, Blake exited the SUV and started walking toward officers and ignored commands to get down on the ground. Officers forced Blake to the ground and ordered him to put his hands behind his back. When Blake refused to comply, K9 Dozer was deployed to force the defendant into compliance.

That report, if correct, does seem to suggest he could act dangerously, and with a loaded gun, a gun in this case which was later recovered from behind the driver's seat of his car.

Why would that incident not be on his current record do you think?

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't get it. Guy has cops pointing guns at him commanding him to stop. He just shakes it off and reaches into his car. This is Darwin Award territory.

I've told cops to go and get fucked. I've called them cunt-stables. I have pissed on a cop car.

Funny how I am still alive. Weird huh? Because obviously I deserve the death penalty.

It does seem to me that racial profiling and stereotyping are going on a fair bit in general, and that black suspects are often treated differently (ie worse) in the USA. But is it also true that they are more likely to be dangerous? Also, could it be the case that examples of black suspects being treated badly get more publicity? My impression, partly based on what evidence I've seen and read, is that it's more than that. That said, I have seen videos of white suspects being treated as badly.

The other factor is how suspects (or simply those citizens the police interact with) respond to the police. I could see why a level of mistrust and frustration on the part of black citizens could have built up over the years. One would think that sensible police approaches should take this level of distrust into account, especially at a time of extremely heightened national tensions, and that police should try very hard not to escalate situations into potentially deadly confrontations unnecessarily.

 

[laughing dog]

You mean these police opened fire knowing there were 3 children in the car under the assumption he had a firearm? WTF is wrong with people.

I do not know if the police officers knew about the kids. In any case they fired in a direction that did not endanger the back seat passengers.

Because the police are expert shots and know there are no ricochets? Do you realize how incredibly pathetic your apologia is?

But do you know who knew there were kids in the car? Jacob Blake. And he still chose not to comply but instead to endanger his kids by trying to gain access to the vehicle, presumably in order to avoid arrest.

Avoiding arrest, in and of itself, is not a capital offense.

The police choose to shoot an unarmed man in the back near a car with children in it. No amount of spin nor smearing of the victim changes that basic fact. Nor does it alter the fact that you showed more concern over a police officer being hit a brick than an unarmed man who was not threatening anyone being shot to death by the police or children near or in the line of fire.

I repeat my question - WTF is wrong with people?