No Charges in Jacob Blake Shooting

[Thermodolia]

As said easier by someone else, apparently they tazed the guy twice and tried getting physical.

That still is no reason to shoot him.

And what let a guy with a knife run around threatening public safety? If they had done that you’d have been screaming about how the cops didn’t do enough to protect the people

[G-Tech Corporation]

Not sure if either of you actually read the witness reports or watched prosecutor’s briefing, but the two officers on scene had already grappled and administered strikes to Blake for a solid four minutes, then he pulled a knife. Once a knife entered the equation the game changed and they backed off, as is standard protocol when confronting someone who is armed. They then tazed him twice, which he tanked while still holding the knife.

Not sure what other less-lethal methods they could have employed at that point, tbqh.

In the video he's literally slowly walking with his back to the officers, one of whom already has a hand on Blake. Like, if you've done even a single day of BJJ or Judo you could take him down easy and be done with it there, and it speaks volumes to just how useless police training actually is that they couldn't. They should count themselves lucky Blake didn't want to kill them because these inept morons would have died to anyone with even a bit of determination for murder.

To correct you - one officer only placed a hand on him at the point where he attempted to get in the vehicle. From an operational standpoint, they shouldn't have been anywhere near that close to him - they were putting their personal safety in jeopardy in order to attempt to restrain him without resorting to lethal force. As you say, anyone interested in killing a police officer, carrying the weapon he was carrying, would have been able to easily close with one of the officers and inflict serious bodily harm, potentially resulting in death.

If they were doing what their departments had trained them to do, they would have shot him when he attempted enter the vehicle from fifteen feet away, not at close range. Allowing a belligerent armed unsecured suspect to enter an unsecured location where they might have additional weapons is a cardinal sin. So is allowing a belligerent armed unsecured suspect access to an even deadlier weapon in the form of a car.

Sure, it would have been great if both officers were capable of incapacitating him by physical force alone. But even a highly trained unarmed combatant is at a serious lethality disadvantage when the other combatant has a knife, and trying to wrestle a knife away from someone is a serious crapshoot - one no law enforcement department is going to force their officers to take, since at that stage the confrontation has already escalated to the level of deadly force.

If those officers were following proper threat containment policy the moment he produced a knife and took a step towards an officer within their threat zone (which, I will note, the entire confrontation took place within) he should have been shot. It was only due to the desire of the officers involved -not- to kill Blake that they allowed him to meander about with a deadly weapon for nearly a minute without a lungful of lead.

[Des-Bal]

That still is no reason to shoot him.

This is a stupid sentence that a lot of people say.

"This guy could kill us or someone else"

That is the reason to shoot him. It is always the reason. It's never "he stole something" or "he was ignoring them" it's just that you're stripping away context to pretend they decided to punish him, not to defend themselves.

Defund the police. Recall the prosecutor.

Why stop there? I think we need to take victims to task, why do victims of crime keep accusing black suspects? We need to look at their implicit biases. If William's was white the woman would have had no issue with him sexually assaulting her and stealing her car.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I haven’t been keeping up on foreign news, so I can’t comment on the details of this particular case, but it’s United States police. They set a prior so hostile to them with their behaviour that it would take evidence bordering on the incontrovertible before I take the opinion that inferring their innocence is reasonable.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Tensions are set to rise the United States of America has another instance where an African-American Man was shot an unreasonable amount of times and the district attorney of said Cop's department announces that they will not face charges. Nationstates, whats your opinion on it? Was their excessive force? Is the District Attorney right to not charge him?

Unreasonable amount of times? I have seen a video of a man shot half a dozen times (center of mass) stand back up and continue trying to murder someone. Guns are not magic "one shot one kill" devices.

[G-Tech Corporation]

I haven’t been keeping up on foreign news, so I can’t comment on the details of this particular case, but it’s United States police. They set a prior so hostile to them with their behaviour that it would take evidence bordering on the incontrovertible before I take the opinion that inferring their innocence is reasonable.

Eh, unfortunately it is pretty cut and dry in this case. Basically no police departments here have training which mandates they approach armed suspects - once an armed suspect (and Jacob Blake and his lawyer both are on record as saying he was holding a 10 in knife at the time) does basically anything except for lay down and surrender their weapon, prosecuting officers who open fire on that suspect is essentially impossible.

US law says that law enforcement can use lethal force if the combatant is armed with lethal force and they have reasonable suspicion that the combatant is threatening their lives or the lives of others imminently. A knife is a lethal weapon. Jacob Blake was within a distance where he could stab either officer with said lethal weapon, or take a hostage, or go into the car for another weapon, or use the car itself as a weapon.

In order to convict the officers, the prosecutor would have to effectively prove that there was no reasonable way those police officers could have viewed Jacob Blake as a threat to their lives or the lives of the public - and that's essentially impossible given he has admitted to holding a lethal weapon and we have video of that weapon.

The prosecutor was right not to waste tax dollars on this. Any defense lawyer with two brain cells could have gotten the case dismissed before it even went to trial.

[Page]

That still is no reason to shoot him.

This is a stupid sentence that a lot of people say.

"This guy could kill us or someone else"

That is the reason to shoot him. It is always the reason. It's never "he stole something" or "he was ignoring them" it's just that you're stripping away context to pretend they decided to punish him, not to defend themselves.

Defund the police. Recall the prosecutor.

Why stop there? I think we need to take victims to task, why do victims of crime keep accusing black suspects? We need to look at their implicit biases. If William's was white the woman would have had no issue with him sexually assaulting her and stealing her car.

Let's start with the victims of Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, and Elijah McClain... oh wait, there weren't any.

[Des-Bal]

Let's start with the victims of Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, and Elijah McClain... oh wait, there weren't any.

It would be just aces if the things you said built towards a point.

[Miternet]

I haven’t been keeping up on foreign news, so I can’t comment on the details of this particular case, but it’s United States police. They set a prior so hostile to them with their behaviour that it would take evidence bordering on the incontrovertible before I take the opinion that inferring their innocence is reasonable.

Eh, unfortunately it is pretty cut and dry in this case. Basically no police departments here have training which mandates they approach armed suspects - once an armed suspect (and Jacob Blake and his lawyer both are on record as saying he was holding a 10 in knife at the time) does basically anything except for lay down and surrender their weapon, prosecuting officers who open fire on that suspect is essentially impossible.

There's no evidence he had a knife.

US law says that law enforcement can use lethal force if the combatant is armed with lethal force and they have reasonable suspicion that the combatant is threatening their lives or the lives of others imminently. A knife is a lethal weapon. Jacob Blake was within a distance where he could stab either officer with said lethal weapon, or take a hostage, or go into the car for another weapon, or use the car itself as a weapon.

Even if he did have a knife, if you can't take out a suspect who doesn't have a gun without killing him, you're a lousy cop.

In order to convict the officers, the prosecutor would have to effectively prove that there was no reasonable way those police officers could have viewed Jacob Blake as a threat to their lives or the lives of the public - and that's essentially impossible given he has admitted to holding a lethal weapon and we have video of that weapon.

Nope.

The prosecutor was right not to waste tax dollars on this. Any defense lawyer with two brain cells could have gotten the case dismissed before it even went to trial.

Because fuck accountability! Police officers should be allowed to shoot every black person they see!

[Des-Bal]

There's no evidence he had a knife.

Even if he did have a knife, if you can't take out a suspect who doesn't have a gun without killing him, you're a lousy cop.

Nope.

Because fuck accountability! Police officers should be allowed to shoot every black person they see!

Jacob Blake admitted he had a knife and they found the knife. What do you think evidence is?

1) Jacob Blake lived 2) that's fucking stupid.

Yep.

Who said that? Quote them please.

[Miternet]

There's no evidence he had a knife.

Even if he did have a knife, if you can't take out a suspect who doesn't have a gun without killing him, you're a lousy cop.

Nope.

Because fuck accountability! Police officers should be allowed to shoot every black person they see!

Jacob Blake admitted he had a knife and they found the knife. What do you think evidence is?

Did he have it on him?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Jacob Blake admitted he had a knife and they found the knife. What do you think evidence is?

Did he have it on him?

That doesn't even matter, to the guilt or not of the officer. "They might have a knife" or "they might have been going for a knife" were neither of them the reason given for shooting Blake.

That reason seems to be thinking Blake was going to harm his own children. Regardless of race, that's the kind of bullshit a jury would only buy if it came from a cop.

Juries seem to be particularly fucked-up when it comes to cops and robbers. Maybe we should void the right to a jury trial, when the defendant is a police officer? It sounds drastic I know, but this shit is WRONG.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Juries seem to be particularly fucked-up when it comes to cops and robbers. Maybe we should void the right to a jury trial, when the defendant is a police officer? It sounds drastic I know, but this shit is WRONG.

At the very minimum there ought to be an end to the racially biased manipulations of jury rolls that local governments in the US seem quite fond of doing.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

There's no evidence he had a knife.

Even if he did have a knife, if you can't take out a suspect who doesn't have a gun without killing him, you're a lousy cop.

Nope.

Because fuck accountability! Police officers should be allowed to shoot every black person they see!

Jacob Blake admitted he had a knife and they found the knife. What do you think evidence is?

1) Jacob Blake lived 2) that's fucking stupid.

Yep.

Who said that? Quote them please.

Has it ever occurred to you that having a weapon the cop didn't know about, strengthening the cop's case for shooting someone, is actually an infringement of YOUR right to carry concealed?

[SD_Film Artists]

Link to CNN Article

Sheskey, a White officer

News website defining people by skin colour is surprised that racism happens.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Juries seem to be particularly fucked-up when it comes to cops and robbers. Maybe we should void the right to a jury trial, when the defendant is a police officer? It sounds drastic I know, but this shit is WRONG.

At the very minimum there ought to be an end to the racially biased manipulations or jury rolls that local governments in the US seem quite fond of doing.

You're absolutely right. Even the assumption that one's "peers" should include no former criminals points to the concept of a "peer" being grossly distorted. Maybe we should balance each jury to the same socio-economic class and education level as the defendant. And for race and gender, balance to the community the alleged crime was committed in.

Things get a bit funky considering age. Juries of 19 year olds don't sound very trustworthy. But that would hardly ever be a problem since the median age for committing a felony is over 25. Yeah, it surprised me too.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Link to CNN Article

Sheskey, a White officer

News website defining people by skin colour is surprised that racism happens.

And news outlets always being strictly color-neutral ("color blind") is how the actual problem of white cops killing black suspects at twice the rate, would go unnoticed and unaddressed.

I find it hilarious that people from the "nation of free speech" complain about being given information which makes them uncomfortable.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I don't have the figures at hand, but I remember that black cops have about the same record as white cops, for shooting black suspects. Perhaps worse. Why you wouldn't want to know the race of the officer(s) involved, is particularly puzzling in the light of this. Racist outcomes are coming from a police force, not specifically from White people.

[SD_Film Artists]

Maybe we should balance each jury to the same socio-economic class and education level as the defendant.

"He was unable to name 3 operas and pronounced 'H' as 'hhache'. Put him in the riff-raff jury!"

[Esternial]

Seven times...a bit excessive, innit?

[Des-Bal]

Did he have it on him?

Yes, but even if he didn't the act of going into the car was sufficient.

I don't have the figures at hand, but I remember that black cops have about the same record as white cops, for shooting black suspects. Perhaps worse. Why you wouldn't want to know the race of the officer(s) involved, is particularly puzzling in the light of this. Racist outcomes are coming from a police force, not specifically from White people.

When you break it down by race black officers are much more likely to shoot black civillians than white officers just as hispanic officers are more likely to shoot hispanic suspects- you are getting officers from the same communities they're policing. It's just how demographics work.

And news outlets always being strictly color-neutral ("color blind") is how the actual problem of white cops killing black suspects at twice the rate, would go unnoticed and unaddressed.

I find it hilarious that people from the "nation of free speech" complain about being given information which makes them uncomfortable.

Most people shot by the police are not black. Most black people shot by the police are shot by black officers. The only cases where the race is treated as important is where the officer is white and the suspect is black. If someone only ever talked about news stories where illegal immigrants raped white women we would assume that person had ulterior motives.

Has it ever occurred to you that having a weapon the cop didn't know about, strengthening the cop's case for shooting someone, is actually an infringement of YOUR right to carry concealed?

They did know, the officers grappled with him, demanded he drop it, tazed him, and did not fire until he started going into the car. If you watch the video he appears to be holding it.

They scenario your describing didn't happen doesn't further anything when it does. If someone appears to present a threat to your life you WILL defend yourself- there is no penalty the law can levy more severe than being killed so this is the standard people will always use and it's a totally fair standard.

That doesn't even matter, to the guilt or not of the officer. "They might have a knife" or "they might have been going for a knife" were neither of them the reason given for shooting Blake.

That reason seems to be thinking Blake was going to harm his own children. Regardless of race, that's the kind of bullshit a jury would only buy if it came from a cop.

Juries seem to be particularly fucked-up when it comes to cops and robbers. Maybe we should void the right to a jury trial, when the defendant is a police officer? It sounds drastic I know, but this shit is WRONG.

See what you want is called a lynching, it's where you fear that the justice system doesn't exist solely to bow to your whims so in an act of cowardice you attempt to mete out punishment based on how angry you are instead of the evidence.

[Des-Bal]

Seven times...a bit excessive, innit?

No. You shoot until they go down, because you feel they're a deadly threat and you want to stop them before you or someone else could be killed.

If you shoot someone once, see how they're feeling about it, then shoot again it doesn't look like you were deploying the last recourse to stop them it looks like a fucked up torture thing. Same thing with "shooting them in the leg" if you don't feel it's necessary to shoot someone until they go down you shouldn't be fucking shooting them.

[SD_Film Artists]

News website defining people by skin colour is surprised that racism happens.

And news outlets always being strictly color-neutral ("color blind") is how the actual problem of white cops killing black suspects at twice the rate, would go unnoticed and unaddressed.

I just think it's more constructive to see eachother as fellow humans on a rock rather than white tribe vs black tribe. 'us vs them' is so regressive.

I find it hilarious that people from the "nation of free speech" complain about being given information which makes them uncomfortable.

Actually I'm from rural England, so the culture clash makes the skin-labeling even more noticeable.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Seven times...a bit excessive, innit?

Not really - the calculation is really just “am I now using lethal force?”. If the answer is yes, one bullet is not inherently less lethal than seven. A single shot can kill someone instantly. You’ve already passed that barrier of using lethal force. At that point the calculation remaining is not how many times do I shoot this man to keep him alive, but how many times do I shoot this man to have the highest probability of him no longer being a threat.

Most military and law enforcement personnel are trained to perform what we call a magdump on a target within their threat range - you shoot until the magazine runs dry, because that gives the highest probability that that threat is no longer a threat.

The answer to the question of “why was he shot seven times?” isn’t “because the officer thought that six would be too few”, but rather that the officer probably didn’t have more bullets.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Seven times...a bit excessive, innit?

No. You shoot until they go down, because you feel they're a deadly threat and you want to stop them before you or someone else could be killed.

If you shoot someone once, see how they're feeling about it, then shoot again it doesn't look like you were deploying the last recourse to stop them it looks like a fucked up torture thing. Same thing with "shooting them in the leg" if you don't feel it's necessary to shoot someone until they go down you shouldn't be fucking shooting them.

Seven times...a bit excessive, innit?

Not really - the calculation is really just “am I now using lethal force?”. If the answer is yes, one bullet is not inherently less lethal than seven. A single shot can kill someone instantly. You’ve already passed that barrier of using lethal force. At that point the calculation remaining is not how many times do I shoot this man to keep him alive, but how many times do I shoot this man to have the highest probability of him no longer being a threat.

Most military and law enforcement personnel are trained to perform what we call a magdump on a target within their threat range - you shoot until the magazine runs dry, because that gives the highest probability that that threat is no longer a threat.

The answer to the question of “why was he shot seven times?” isn’t “because the officer thought that six would be too few”, but rather that the officer probably didn’t have more bullets.

Well said.