Violent riots underway in Kenosha, WI

[Tigers!]

Looking on from Aust. it seems that the USA cities are on fire.

 

[Tigers!]

I repeat my question - WTF is wrong with people?

You Yanks shoot first and then don't ask questions afterwards.

 

[Gospel]

Looks to me like there was a quick scuffle on the passenger side of the vehicle involving one of the officers. What proceeds after that doesn't make sense to me. Like there are three of you (I presume) carrying tasers but instead of using tasers you pull your fire arm and allow the man to walk all the way around the car with your weapon drawn putting the public in danger as well as any occupants of the vehicle. A taser (or three) would have had that man handcuffed a lot faster and with less deadly force than what they did.

But yeah, dude walking around the car and seemingly reaching in was a bad idea too.

Come on man.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Could be. Hard to tell. We don't know what led up to this. He might look a bit drunk, the way he walked around the car? But on the other hand (in another video taken from the opposite side) he was on the ground just before (on the kerb side of the car) and it looked like someone was attacking him, so he may just have been disoriented. Whatever the reasons, he acted very unwisely indeed.

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

Doesn't mean ignoring cops with guns isn't Darwin Award territory.

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

I have seen conflicting reports as to whether he had a criminal record. I have seen no rebuttal to his having a warrant out for his arrest on sexual assault charges.

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

Unless the vehicle had already been searched for weapons, they are to treat it as if there are. It would endanger the lives of others to do otherwise and be negligent on the part of the police to let him go into the car with a wait and see attitude.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's only two things I can see the police might have done better:

1. They should have provided more physical resistance and commands to stop progress to the drivers front door.
2. Although the shooting was correct, one or two shots could reasonably be enough to stop the suspects progress. I counted 7 shots which IMO is overdone to the point they are just shooting at a dead corpse. Their goal should be to halt progress rather than kill.

I do agree on point #1. I was surprised they didn't try harder to stop him.

I disagree on #2:

1) It's generally not possible to immediately see if a hit was incapacitating.

2) A shot can be fired a lot faster than the decision to stop shooting can be made. The only way you get one or two shots is if the shooter decided in advance that was how many they were going to fire.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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.

The women worry that if Blake does not survive, their city will 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.

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.

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

There is no reason to think that bystanders know the whole story.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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

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.

The women worry that if Blake does not survive, their city will 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.

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.

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

There is no reason to think that bystanders know the whole story.

According to you, it doesn't matter if the police know the whole story either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Ricochets rarely come back in the direction the bullet was fired with dangerous velocity.

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?

No amount of chanting "unarmed" is relevant. The car itself is a deadly weapon.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is no reason to think that bystanders know the whole story.

According to you, it doesn't matter if the police know the whole story either.

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There's only two things I can see the police might have done better:

1. They should have provided more physical resistance and commands to stop progress to the drivers front door.
2. Although the shooting was correct, one or two shots could reasonably be enough to stop the suspects progress. I counted 7 shots which IMO is overdone to the point they are just shooting at a dead corpse. Their goal should be to halt progress rather than kill.

I do agree on point #1. I was surprised they didn't try harder to stop him.

I think you mean, they didn't try at all. Each officer had their gun out and pointed at the guy. No one even tried to subdue him while on the passenger side of the car as he meandered along! They literally let him get himself into a position that could legitimately endanger the lives of the officers... and then they shot him.

Of course, it is hard to apprehend someone... if you are all pointing your guns at that person.

Police Officer 1: Pointing my gun at him isn't making him stop. What should we do?
Police Officer 2: KEEP POINTING!

The guy didn't do himself any favors. Though, being an alleged bystander himself to the reason the cops arrived on the scene and all of sudden being tazed (or them trying to taze you) to begin with potentially clouded his judgment.

 

[Arctish]

There is no reason to think that bystanders know the whole story.

There is no reason to think you know the whole story. In fact, there is reason to think you know less of the story than they do.

For example:

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.

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.

You know less than the witnesses who saw what happened and heard what was said. But having known you for years, I don't expect you to pay the slightest attention to their statements or let them stop you from making sh*t up to "explain" why an unarmed black man was shot in the back.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no reason to think that bystanders know the whole story.

According to you, it doesn't matter if the police know the whole story either.

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.

Yes, you have repeatedly used ignorance as a defense for the indefensible when it comes to the police. However, you expect civilians to act as if they have perfect knowledge.

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

First, the law does not absolve police shootings because some kneejerk apologist says so. Second, wrong is wrong. Really, wtf is wrong with someone who defends shooting an unarmed person in back who poses no immediate thread and endangering children in doing so?

 

[Bronzeage]

There is no reason to think that bystanders know the whole story.

According to you, it doesn't matter if the police know the whole story either.

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.

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?

 

[Derec]

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!

 

[Derec]

There is a new video, from the other side of the car, that apparently shows St. Jacob struggling with officers before breaking free and going for the car door.

However, the video is quite shaky and not very clear.

In other news, violent rioters have damaged 5th precinct building in Atlanta as well.
BREAKING: Police break up crowd of protesters after damage reported near Woodruff Park
I stand by my view that the only way forward is to arrest and prosecute all rioters.

 

[Derec]

Really, wtf is wrong with someone who defends shooting an unarmed person in back who poses no immediate thread and endangering children in doing so?

He already struggled with police officers at the other side of the car. That means he was a thread[sic] per se. Him moving to get something from the car escalated that threat.
And he was the one who put his children in danger by refusing to comply with the officers and instead escalating the situation.

 

[Derec]

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.