Violent riots underway in Kenosha, WI

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Just for the record, the cops didn't seem to risk anything as their own personal safety seemed to be the priority of their actions.

Certainly when these incidents occur, the outrage is out there immediately and little thinking occurs, it is all reaction at this point. The Police don't help matters with silence for days and then a completely and utterly insufficient response about what happened in the shooting. Okay... we've waited three days to release our report on what happened, let's be as vague as possible so as to not provide critical context that can answer questions that could actually justify the shooting!

Add Covid-19 as a bit of a powder keg as well, as people are tired of being cooped up. And then social media just aggravates, exaggerates, and instigates. There is a legitimate civil rights issue, there are legitimate issues regarding potential officer safety, but more people seem motivated by the desire to feel angry than to address the actual situation, both individually with each case of unarmed shooting victim and the whole.

 

[Toni]

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.

Travin Martin was not killed by a police officer but indeed his death created an outcry.

Blake was not armed when he was shot 7 times in the back. In front of his young children. That, indeed, is a good reason for outrage.

You will get no argument from me that guns are out of control in the US. Unfortunately for your argument, those who seek to protect gun ownership over public safety are also, in general, the same people who have no problems with police killing unarmed black suspects, or children ( see Tamir Rice). It’s almost as if Black lives don’t matter to some people. In fact sometimes it seems that it is open season for killing black people who cannot even take a jog through a neighborhood without being gunned down by vigilante police wannabes.

 

[Worldtraveller]

We have a photo of Blake holding something in his hand as he walks to his car.

Someone said it looks like a knife. Others said it looks like a transponder equipped car key. The cops haven't said what it was. But that random guy on the internet had you at "knife", didn't he? And now you are building your entire argument on a 'fact' not in evidence.

We don't know what he had in his hand. If it was a knife, it's a wonder the second cop didn't try to tase Blake when the first cop's attempt failed. It's an even bigger wonder why they weren't both shouting "Drop the knife!" the entire time Blake was walking to his car. And it's truly remarkable that no one in the entire Kenosha Police department of the State AG's office has mentioned a knife being in Blake's hand when he was shot, especially considering all this outcry and rioting.

You'd think they'd want people to know the shooting may have been justified.

A knife was recovered from the floorboards of the car. That's not where you would normally keep a knife, thus it's likely it got there because he dropped it when he was shot.

The knife was planted by the police.

 

[fromderinside]

woo woo

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

Travin Martin was not killed by a police officer but indeed his death created an outcry.

Blake was not armed when he was shot 7 times in the back. In front of his young children. That, indeed, is a good reason for outrage.

You will get no argument from me that guns are out of control in the US. Unfortunately for your argument, those who seek to protect gun ownership over public safety are also, in general, the same people who have no problems with police killing unarmed black suspects, or children ( see Tamir Rice). It’s almost as if Black lives don’t matter to some people. In fact sometimes it seems that it is open season for killing black people who cannot even take a jog through a neighborhood without being gunned down by vigilante police wannabes.

My mistake. I meant Tamir Rice.
I agree. In most cases, in my mind these shootings are not justified.
But it is true as Jimmy Higgins indicates, we do not have all the facts and the facts are slow to come out and social media certainly does not help.
What we also do not know is the police guidance for how they are suppose to respond and their liability for not responding, for giving the benefit of the doubt and hoping things do not go terribly and unnecessarily wrong. We also do not know how long it should take for all the facts to come out. We’re not police. We do not perform investigations. We are not prosecutors. We have little understanding of their jobs but are quick to judge their performance.

 

[Toni]

Travin Martin was not killed by a police officer but indeed his death created an outcry.

Blake was not armed when he was shot 7 times in the back. In front of his young children. That, indeed, is a good reason for outrage.

You will get no argument from me that guns are out of control in the US. Unfortunately for your argument, those who seek to protect gun ownership over public safety are also, in general, the same people who have no problems with police killing unarmed black suspects, or children ( see Tamir Rice). It’s almost as if Black lives don’t matter to some people. In fact sometimes it seems that it is open season for killing black people who cannot even take a jog through a neighborhood without being gunned down by vigilante police wannabes.

My mistake. I meant Tamir Rice.
I agree. In most cases, in my mind these shootings are not justified.
But it is true as Jimmy Higgins indicates, we do not have all the facts and the facts are slow to come out and social media certainly does not help.
What we also do not know is the police guidance for how they are suppose to respond and their liability for not responding, for giving the benefit of the doubt and hoping things do not go terribly and unnecessarily wrong. We also do not know how long it should take for all the facts to come out. We’re not police. We do not perform investigations. We are not prosecutors. We have little understanding of their jobs but are quick to judge their performance.

Again, I am opposed to the death penalty, particularly without benefit of a trial or representation by an attorney.

We do leap very quickly to conclusions when we see police shoot someone. Because we are human beings and we are hardwired to be outraged when we see someone being hurt. We get to see these things thanks to nearly everyone being armed with a video camera and an internet connection. We all become witnesses.

I'm hoping that these videos do for police shootings what television cameras did for the war in Viet Nam.

 

[laughing dog]

What we also do not know is the police guidance for how they are suppose to respond and their liability for not responding, for giving the benefit of the doubt and hoping things do not go terribly and unnecessarily wrong. We also do not know how long it should take for all the facts to come out. We’re not police. We do not perform investigations. We are not prosecutors. We have little understanding of their jobs but are quick to judge their performance.

The police judge performance and expected outcomes with little understanding. When they shoot someone, it should be up to them to present a cogent and compelling rationale that is more than “ coulda, mighta been dangerous.”

In our criminal justice system, jurors are not expected to have understanding of the suspect’s job or life, so I see no need for state sanctioned officers to be afforded such a courtesy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

He had already fought with the police and he was attempting to flee a felony warrant. Furthermore, criminals often drive at people to get them out of the way--and sometimes hit them in the process.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Handgun rounds aren't immediate stops other than with a CNS hit. Thus you keep firing until your target is down and you can see his hands are empty, or else he's not moving.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

He had already fought with the police and he was attempting to flee a felony warrant.

"Fought"? You don't know he was trying to flee - it may have been checking on his children.

Furthermore, criminals often drive at people to get them out of the way--and sometimes hit them in the process.

Ah, the "mighta coulda" apologia that justifies any shooting. Your defense is truly pathetic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have a photo of Blake holding something in his hand as he walks to his car.

Someone said it looks like a knife. Others said it looks like a transponder equipped car key. The cops haven't said what it was. But that random guy on the internet had you at "knife", didn't he? And now you are building your entire argument on a 'fact' not in evidence.

We don't know what he had in his hand. If it was a knife, it's a wonder the second cop didn't try to tase Blake when the first cop's attempt failed. It's an even bigger wonder why they weren't both shouting "Drop the knife!" the entire time Blake was walking to his car. And it's truly remarkable that no one in the entire Kenosha Police department of the State AG's office has mentioned a knife being in Blake's hand when he was shot, especially considering all this outcry and rioting.

You'd think they'd want people to know the shooting may have been justified.

A knife was recovered from the floorboards of the car. That's not where you would normally keep a knife, thus it's likely it got there because he dropped it when he was shot.

The knife was planted by the police.

Really now? The police planted a knife in his hand while he was walking around? They have some sort of mind control ray??

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

He had already fought with the police...

Fought as how? Last I checked, the PD hadn't filled in those gaps. PD arrives, attempts to tazer the guy... he gets up... walks around car slowly...

...and he was attempting to flee a felony warrant.

Was he informed of this?

Furthermore, criminals often drive at people to get them out of the way--and sometimes hit them in the process.

I thought he was going for a weapon?

 

[Worldtraveller]

The knife was planted by the police.

Really now? The police planted a knife in his hand while he was walking around? They have some sort of mind control ray??

I jut figured if you're allowed to make up stupid shit, sure. There probably wasn't even a knife. All they did was write that on the report.

 

[Trausti]

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.

He had already fought with the police and he was attempting to flee a felony warrant. Furthermore, criminals often drive at people to get them out of the way--and sometimes hit them in the process.

Car as a weapon- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=io5_g3kHnL8

It’s so easy to second guess when few of us have been in a similar situation.

 

[Arctish]

As we learned during George Zimmerman's trial, a sidewalk is a deadly weapon. Anytime someone is on or near a sidewalk they can be considered armed, so it's okay for cops and vigilantes to kill them under those circumstances. Presumption of innocence does not apply unless they're as white as Zimmerman or Rittenhouse, in which case there's no cause for alarm even if you can see they're on a sidewalk and they have a weapon.

 

[Patooka]

The knife was planted by the police.

Really now? The police planted a knife in his hand while he was walking around? They have some sort of mind control ray??

I jut figured if you're allowed to make up stupid shit, sure. There probably wasn't even a knife. All they did was write that on the report.

[tweet]1075057127310405633[/tweet]

And here is some context as to what that phrase means:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmjB7TUroyE[/youtube]

Don't forget, the initial statement cops gave about Martin Gugino was that he "tripped and fell and medical aid was provided immediately". When cop cars drove into protesters in New York, they were "being surrounded". "It's in the report", means jack shit. How many times have police had to "revise" their statements after camera footage from an independent third party proves their assertions were bullshit in the last six months?

 

[laughing dog]

He had already fought with the police and he was attempting to flee a felony warrant. Furthermore, criminals often drive at people to get them out of the way--and sometimes hit them in the process.

Car as a weapon- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=io5_g3kHnL8

It’s so easy to second guess when few of us have been in a similar situation.

“Second guessing” is a straw man. Any item can be used as a weapon - that should justify the assumption it us a weapon that is going to be used in order to justify self defense.

 

[Trausti]

 

[J842P]

As we learned during George Zimmerman's trial, a sidewalk is a deadly weapon. Anytime someone is on or near a sidewalk they can be considered armed, so it's okay for cops and vigilantes to kill them under those circumstances. Presumption of innocence does not apply unless they're as white as Zimmerman or Rittenhouse, in which case there's no cause for alarm even if you can see they're on a sidewalk and they have a weapon.

Zimmerman isn't really white. Sort of. But regardless, that's just a silly take. The police shoot white people all the time, including unarmed white people.

 

[Arctish]

As we learned during George Zimmerman's trial, a sidewalk is a deadly weapon. Anytime someone is on or near a sidewalk they can be considered armed, so it's okay for cops and vigilantes to kill them under those circumstances. Presumption of innocence does not apply unless they're as white as Zimmerman or Rittenhouse, in which case there's no cause for alarm even if you can see they're on a sidewalk and they have a weapon.

Zimmerman isn't really white. Sort of. But regardless, that's just a silly take. The police shoot white people all the time, including unarmed white people.

Did you not see the video of Zimmerman's lawyer dropping a chunk of concrete on the table and claiming Martin "armed himself with a concrete sidewalk" during Zimmerman's trial? It was very dramatic.

Anyway, what's silly is Loren's attempt to justifying the seven shots to Blake's back when he clearly was not presenting a threat, by claiming the car itself was a deadly weapon, or there might have been a weapon in the car, or Blake might have had a weapon in his hand and somehow it was more deadly inside the car than out of it.