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
Advertisement
by Thermodolia » Wed Jan 06, 2021 6:41 am
by G-Tech Corporation » Wed Jan 06, 2021 6:56 am
Washington Resistance Army wrote:G-Tech Corporation wrote:
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.
by Des-Bal » Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:13 am
Esheaun Stroakuss wrote:
That still is no reason to shoot him.
Postauthoritarian America wrote:Defund the police. Recall the prosecutor.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Northern Socialist Council Republics » Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:41 am
by Unstoppable Empire of Doom » Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:16 am
Gothgraff and Lilium wrote:
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?
by G-Tech Corporation » Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:30 am
Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote: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.
by Page » Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:55 pm
Des-Bal wrote:Esheaun Stroakuss wrote:
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.Postauthoritarian America wrote: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.
by Des-Bal » Fri Jan 08, 2021 3:33 pm
Page wrote:Let's start with the victims of Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, and Elijah McClain... oh wait, there weren't any.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Miternet » Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:01 am
G-Tech Corporation wrote:Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote: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.
by Des-Bal » Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:25 am
Miternet wrote:
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!
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Miternet » Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:56 am
Des-Bal wrote:Miternet wrote:
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?
by A-Series-Of-Tubes » Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:21 am
by Northern Socialist Council Republics » Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:23 am
A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote: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.
by A-Series-Of-Tubes » Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:24 am
Des-Bal wrote:Miternet wrote:
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.
by SD_Film Artists » Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:33 am
by A-Series-Of-Tubes » Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:35 am
Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote:A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote: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.
by A-Series-Of-Tubes » Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:39 am
by A-Series-Of-Tubes » Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:42 am
by SD_Film Artists » Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:43 am
A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:Maybe we should balance each jury to the same socio-economic class and education level as the defendant.
by Des-Bal » Mon Jan 18, 2021 6:17 am
Miternet wrote:
Did he have it on him?
A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote: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.
A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:
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 wrote: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?
A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote: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.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Des-Bal » Mon Jan 18, 2021 6:20 am
Esternial wrote:Seven times...a bit excessive, innit?
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by SD_Film Artists » Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:01 am
A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:SD_Film Artists wrote:
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.
by G-Tech Corporation » Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:39 am
Esternial wrote:Seven times...a bit excessive, innit?
by Paddy O Fernature » Mon Jan 18, 2021 11:16 am
Des-Bal wrote:Esternial wrote: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.
G-Tech Corporation wrote:Esternial wrote: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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bienenhalde, Big Eyed Animation, Dogmeat, Duvniask, Fort Viorlia, Gorutimania, Hypron, Ifreann, La Cocina del Bodhi, Neo-Hermitius, Neu California, New Heldervinia, Northern Rabgrema, Originia, Plan Neonie, Simonia, Soviet Socialist Norway, Stratonesia, The Vooperian Union, Umeria, Valyxias
Advertisement