Violent riots underway in Kenosha, WI

[J842P]

Bullshit. Plenty of unarmed white guys shot by police; at best local media does a story.

List the recent ones. Say, every shooting of an unarmed white guy you can find during the past 5 years. Then we'll see if the same police forces shot unarmed black guys during the same time period and do a comparison. Or, if you'd rather not focus on specific cases, then show the studies or statistical analysis that supports your claim.

That article in Nature I quoted has a list of studies indicating unarmed blacks are shot much more frequently than unarmed whites. If that's true then we should expect the media to report the shooting of an unarmed black man much more often than the shooting of an unarmed white man.

Or, to put it another way:

Incident A gets a lot of media coverage because consumers of media have a strong interest in it.

Statistical analysis indicates Incident A happens to blacks twice as often as it does to whites.

Therefore, the infrequency of media reports of Incident A happening to whites compared to the frequency of media reports of Incident A happening to blacks, does not indicate media bias against whites. It only indicates the comparative frequency of Incident A for both groups.

I don't think that follows, because if we assume the media just covers these incidents given their relative frequency, then they would still have to cover police shootings of unarmed white men more often than unarmed black men, since the former happens more frequently than the latter, although, it happens disproportionately, which is not the same as more frequently.

 

[J842P]

I'm moving the goalposts? You started with "he might get a gun from his car and shoot all the police dead". Then it turned into: "he might get in the car and run over all the police officers". Now it has become: "he may be holding a knife close to his body, but it could also be sunglasses. Anyway, he might use this knife/something else to slice the police officers to ribbons". What next: "he might grab a beanie baby from one of his kids and throw it at the police officers, thereby putting them at risk for a fatal concussion"?

I never said he tried to stab the police--I see no indication he did. I said we have a photo with the knife in his hand. It's close to his body, he's not going after anyone with it.

I have seen the same photo, and it doesn't look like a knife to me. So you are making this up.

He's basically playing porcupine here but then he went for his car. To escape, to run over officers with, or because it held a better weapon? The officers have no way to know, they do know they're trying to serve a felony warrant on someone engaged in armed resistance, there's no reason to bet their lives on his plan being to escape. (And allowing him to escape with kids in the car is a bad idea anyway.)

Exactly. The officers have no way to know. They are just guessing. Therefore, shooting him in the back seven times while he is walking away from them, based on the mere presumption that he may turn around and try to hurt them at a future time is premature. There is man's life at stake, and taking that life based on a mere presumption is wrong. That is my point. Allowing a suspect to walk or drive away from a confrontation is a better option than taking his life prematurely. That is my point. The police know who he is, and if they are physically unable to restrain him at the scene, they can always get reinforcements and arrest him later. Yes, that involves more work, but the police should not be in the business of taking human lives just because it makes their job easier. That is the point you don't appear to understand.

It's really not about not doing more work, but about not risking getting shot or killed, which does happen. Pretty often compared to other places.

Here's the thing, current police practices essentially are the result of a time where the US crime rate was very high, and lots of officers died. Less die now, though crime is much lower compared to before, it is higher compared to other developed countries, mostly.

But basically, cops are trained for situations which involve someone resisting arrest and going into their car to grab a gun and shoot the cops. This happens in the US.

 

[Toni]

I'm moving the goalposts? You started with "he might get a gun from his car and shoot all the police dead". Then it turned into: "he might get in the car and run over all the police officers". Now it has become: "he may be holding a knife close to his body, but it could also be sunglasses. Anyway, he might use this knife/something else to slice the police officers to ribbons". What next: "he might grab a beanie baby from one of his kids and throw it at the police officers, thereby putting them at risk for a fatal concussion"?



I have seen the same photo, and it doesn't look like a knife to me. So you are making this up.



Exactly. The officers have no way to know. They are just guessing. Therefore, shooting him in the back seven times while he is walking away from them, based on the mere presumption that he may turn around and try to hurt them at a future time is premature. There is man's life at stake, and taking that life based on a mere presumption is wrong. That is my point. Allowing a suspect to walk or drive away from a confrontation is a better option than taking his life prematurely. That is my point. The police know who he is, and if they are physically unable to restrain him at the scene, they can always get reinforcements and arrest him later. Yes, that involves more work, but the police should not be in the business of taking human lives just because it makes their job easier. That is the point you don't appear to understand.

It's really not about not doing more work, but about not risking getting shot or killed, which does happen. Pretty often compared to other places.

Here's the thing, current police practices essentially are the result of a time where the US crime rate was very high, and lots of officers died. Less die now, though crime is much lower compared to before, it is higher compared to other developed countries, mostly.

But basically, cops are trained for situations which involve someone resisting arrest and going into their car to grab a gun and shoot the cops. This happens in the US.

Apparently they are not trained for situations where someone is resisting arrest or they wouldn't make so many false and perhaps convenient assumptions that someone is 'resisting arrest' when they simply do not know why someone is screaming incoherently at them. Which happens a lot. I've watched enough videos to see that.

But perhaps you meant that police are over trained and conditioned to attribute any hesitation or confusion on the part of the person they are screaming at as 'resisting arrest' and that they too often assume that people are going to reach into cars and get a gun and shoot them so they must shoot them in the back to prevent something like that happening, even if the person hey shoot in the back had no intention of shooting anyone and was merely checking on his children.

 

[Derec]

That's disgusting, even for you.

Not at all. Jarhyn for example specifically said that he wants to prohibit police from shooting unless fired upon first, and that he is well aware that that would mean more dead cops.

You must want to see more dead black protesters, and you are projecting your perverted desire on others.

Nope. Peaceful protesters are fine, but I will not shed one tear for rioters, looters and arsonists no matter their skin color.

I want to see fewer people killed with guns by cops, vigilantes and other criminals.

We can agree on that at least. But again, the person responsible for Jacob Blake getting shot is Jacob Blake. Had he allowed himself to be arrested he'd be in jail but he'd still have his colon and the use of his legs.

Gee, THAT never happens! Neither does flying debris. How moronic.

Not usually with bullets, no. If they hit a hard surface head on, they deform too much and you have mostly an inelastic collision with little kinetic energy left over. If it's a glancing blow, you can retain a lot of the kinetic energy, but the momentum stays forward, not backward. Besides, why did Jacob Blake endanger his children through his actions? Why do you give him a pass?

'specially blow jobs. Right, Derec?

Hey, if somebody is paying you for them, then it's a proper job. No sex worker shaming! And no derails either, please.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He already had resisted with force.

Allegedly. But more importantly, when he was shot, he was not. Try again.

It's the same incident, it doesn't matter if he's still using force or not. He had demonstrated a willingness to use force against the police, he was attempting to gain control of a much greater force.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly. The officers have no way to know. They are just guessing. Therefore, shooting him in the back seven times while he is walking away from them, based on the mere presumption that he may turn around and try to hurt them at a future time is premature. There is man's life at stake, and taking that life based on a mere presumption is wrong. That is my point. Allowing a suspect to walk or drive away from a confrontation is a better option than taking his life prematurely. That is my point. The police know who he is, and if they are physically unable to restrain him at the scene, they can always get reinforcements and arrest him later. Yes, that involves more work, but the police should not be in the business of taking human lives just because it makes their job easier. That is the point you don't appear to understand.

You have it wrong here. He was already walking away and was not shot for doing so. He was shot for getting into a deadly weapon.

 

[laughing dog]

He already had resisted with force.

Allegedly. But more importantly, when he was shot, he was not. Try again.

It's the same incident, it doesn't matter if he's still using force or not. He had demonstrated a willingness to use force against the police, he was attempting to gain control of a much greater force.

There is a difference between an actual realized threat and an imagined one. Mr. Blake was no danger to anyone at the time of his shooting. There is no evidence to support your claim he was entering his car in order to use it as a weapon.

 

[Toni]

Exactly. The officers have no way to know. They are just guessing. Therefore, shooting him in the back seven times while he is walking away from them, based on the mere presumption that he may turn around and try to hurt them at a future time is premature. There is man's life at stake, and taking that life based on a mere presumption is wrong. That is my point. Allowing a suspect to walk or drive away from a confrontation is a better option than taking his life prematurely. That is my point. The police know who he is, and if they are physically unable to restrain him at the scene, they can always get reinforcements and arrest him later. Yes, that involves more work, but the police should not be in the business of taking human lives just because it makes their job easier. That is the point you don't appear to understand.

You have it wrong here. He was already walking away and was not shot for doing so. He was shot for getting into a deadly weapon.

He was shot in the back by a police officer who panicked.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's the same incident, it doesn't matter if he's still using force or not. He had demonstrated a willingness to use force against the police, he was attempting to gain control of a much greater force.

There is a difference between an actual realized threat and an imagined one. Mr. Blake was no danger to anyone at the time of his shooting. There is no evidence to support your claim he was entering his car in order to use it as a weapon.

Of course there's no proof--but no proof is needed here. It comes down to what a reasonable man thinks is likely.

 

[laughing dog]

It's the same incident, it doesn't matter if he's still using force or not. He had demonstrated a willingness to use force against the police, he was attempting to gain control of a much greater force.

There is a difference between an actual realized threat and an imagined one. Mr. Blake was no danger to anyone at the time of his shooting. There is no evidence to support your claim he was entering his car in order to use it as a weapon.

Of course there's no proof--but no proof is needed here. It comes down to what a reasonable man thinks is likely.

I asked if there was evidence, not proof. There is no evidence to support your unreasonable claim that he was entering his car in order to use it as a weapon. Without evidence, it is unreasonable to accept your kneejerk apologia as reasonable.

 

[barbos]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...estrian-29-dead-taking-long-cross-street.html
More riots?

 

[Treedbear]

It's the same incident, it doesn't matter if he's still using force or not. He had demonstrated a willingness to use force against the police, he was attempting to gain control of a much greater force.

There is a difference between an actual realized threat and an imagined one. Mr. Blake was no danger to anyone at the time of his shooting. There is no evidence to support your claim he was entering his car in order to use it as a weapon.

Of course there's no proof--but no proof is needed here. It comes down to what a reasonable man thinks is likely.

How is it being reasonable when he shot him in the back at point blank range seven times? After he shot six times did he figure one more time won't make a difference? One shot took out his colon. One his spinal cord. One almost his kidney. How does reason fit into his decision? Two in the stomach. It seems that reason wasn't part of the equation. Obviously his emotions were in control.

 

[J842P]

Of course there's no proof--but no proof is needed here. It comes down to what a reasonable man thinks is likely.

How is it being reasonable when he shot him in the back at point blank range seven times? After he shot six times did he figure one more time won't make a difference? One shot took out his colon. One his spinal cord. One almost his kidney. How does reason fit into his decision? Two in the stomach. It seems that reason wasn't part of the equation. Obviously his emotions were in control.

This is what cops are trained to do. I'm not saying that as an excuse, but when you see these shooting involving police and everyone is commenting on why they were shot so many times, it's because that's what they are taught.

 

[Patooka]

It's the same incident, it doesn't matter if he's still using force or not. He had demonstrated a willingness to use force against the police, he was attempting to gain control of a much greater force.

There is a difference between an actual realized threat and an imagined one. Mr. Blake was no danger to anyone at the time of his shooting. There is no evidence to support your claim he was entering his car in order to use it as a weapon.

Of course there's no proof--but no proof is needed here. It comes down to what a reasonable man thinks is likely.

Reasonable should not be fucking used in a sentence that describes how an unarmed man was shot 7 fucking times in the fucking back. How in the fuck has this become a contentious issue?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Of course there's no proof--but no proof is needed here. It comes down to what a reasonable man thinks is likely.

Reasonable should not be fucking used in a sentence that describes how an unarmed man was shot 7 fucking times in the fucking back. How in the fuck has this become a contentious issue?

It’s “reasonable cop”. (That’s not meant to be humorous.)
And if this has never happened before, this same scenario (not similar scenario but same) and the cop has previously been found guilty, this cop’s judgement call will likely stand.
It’s the law of the land.

Has the cop been charged yet? Have you read the write up about him in the WP? Even they couldn’t paint a bad picture about him.

 

[Trausti]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...estrian-29-dead-taking-long-cross-street.html
More riots?

Black on black crime. No one cares. Those black lives don’t matter.

 

[KeepTalking]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...estrian-29-dead-taking-long-cross-street.html
More riots?

Black on black crime. No one cares. Those black lives don’t matter.

The shooter was immediately charged with homicide. The police officer has qualified immunity. Now you can connect the dots to what matters.

 

[Toni]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...estrian-29-dead-taking-long-cross-street.html
More riots?

Black on black crime. No one cares. Those black lives don’t matter.

When a police officer shoots or otherwise causes serious harm or death to a citizen, it is a public matter. The police officer is acting on behalf of the state, the people. In the line of police work, some such incidents are perhaps inevitable, although they seem to happen much more in the US than elsewhere in the world. When it happens in front of witnesses pleading for the victim's life or when the victim is unarmed and shot in the back, or while sleeping in their bed, or playing on a playground, then it causes extreme outrage in people who are not racist or boot lickers.

 

[TV and credit cards]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...estrian-29-dead-taking-long-cross-street.html
More riots?

Black on black crime. No one cares. Those black lives don’t matter.

When a police officer shoots or otherwise causes serious harm or death to a citizen, it is a public matter. The police officer is acting on behalf of the state, the people. In the line of police work, some such incidents are perhaps inevitable, although they seem to happen much more in the US than elsewhere in the world. When it happens in front of witnesses pleading for the victim's life or when the victim is unarmed and shot in the back, or while sleeping in their bed, or playing on a playground, then it causes extreme outrage in people who are not racist or boot lickers.

Treyvon Martin and Breonna Taylor were deaths to cry out for. Blake is not. In a country awash in firearms, what were you expecting? And if you think police policy is going to change with regards to armed suspects anytime soon, think again. In a job where one risks one’s life on a daily basis, I don’t think any uncooperative suspect is going to get the benefit of the doubt anytime soon.

 

[atrib]

Exactly. The officers have no way to know. They are just guessing. Therefore, shooting him in the back seven times while he is walking away from them, based on the mere presumption that he may turn around and try to hurt them at a future time is premature. There is man's life at stake, and taking that life based on a mere presumption is wrong. That is my point. Allowing a suspect to walk or drive away from a confrontation is a better option than taking his life prematurely. That is my point. The police know who he is, and if they are physically unable to restrain him at the scene, they can always get reinforcements and arrest him later. Yes, that involves more work, but the police should not be in the business of taking human lives just because it makes their job easier. That is the point you don't appear to understand.

You have it wrong here. He was already walking away and was not shot for doing so. He was shot for getting into a deadly weapon.

You have no evidence that he intended to use the car as a deadly weapon. None. In your zeal to prop up your authoritarian fantasy where cops are gods who can do no wrong, you continue to make up fantastic claims and trot them out as if they are real. Meanwhile, an actual deadly weapon was used to put the suspect in hospital with seven bullets in his back, because the cops didn't know how to do their jobs without resorting to lethal force.