[Mrprez]

Originally Posted by Veiragirl

We don't know many details of the incident...which I find odd. My question is whatever he "did" wasn't there another way of restraining him? After all there were alot of cops there. You tell me this group couldn't contain ONE person?

Did you watch the video? He was ignoring the commands of the police. He opened his door and was reaching inside. The police had no idea what he was going to do next. If this person had simply listened to the police, things would have gone much better for him.

[TooColdNJ]

Originally Posted by kcrazorbackfan

It’s the culture of the people getting shot. They see the martyrdom that the trash thug felon George Floyd created and with no common sense in their thought process; they pull a gun, fight the Police, run and draw a weapon - over and over and over - anything other than what common sense would tell them to do.

I just posted about this as well. DISGUSTING.
Watch the video, and listen to a witness describe the situation. WHY did they need to send 7 police officers in the first place?

Listen to the police or not, which none of us heard exactly what they said, there’s no excuse for this. It shouldn’t be, “listen to what we say or we’ll shoot you in the back, even though you don’t have a gun or knife.” The guy didn’t go anywhere, and he had THREE KIDS in the back of the car. So now you’re saying that it’s as simple as just listening, and has nothing to do with SOME, not all, trigger happy LEOs.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by TooColdNJ

I just posted about this as well. DISGUSTING.
Watch the video, and listen to a witness describe the situation. WHY did they need to send 7 police officers in the first place?

Listen to the police or not, which none of us heard exactly what they said, there’s no excuse for this. It shouldn’t be, “listen to what we say or we’ll shoot you in the back, even though you don’t have a gun or knife.” The guy didn’t go anywhere, and he had THREE KIDS in the back of the car. So now you’re saying that it’s as simple as just listening, and has nothing to do with SOME, not all, trigger happy LEOs.

I am sure there was a reason send 7 officers.

How did they know what the guy was reaching for? If he would have said the reason would have been a rather different outcome.

Just because there was 3 kids in the back how would they know if he was reaching for a weapon?

[avillager]

You can’t be serious that you think it was ok to shoot a person because they aren’t listening patiently to you.. walking away wasn’t a smart thing to do but shooting someone because of that is never ok..

[Mrprez]

Originally Posted by avillager

You can’t be serious that you think it was ok to shoot a person because they aren’t listening patiently to you.. walking away wasn’t a smart thing to do but shooting someone because of that is never ok..

Deadly serious. What if he grabbed a gun, turned around and shot that policeman? Would you be OK with that?

[Mrprez]

Originally Posted by TooColdNJ

I just posted about this as well. DISGUSTING.
Watch the video, and listen to a witness describe the situation. WHY did they need to send 7 police officers in the first place?

Listen to the police or not, which none of us heard exactly what they said, there’s no excuse for this. It shouldn’t be, “listen to what we say or we’ll shoot you in the back, even though you don’t have a gun or knife.” The guy didn’t go anywhere, and he had THREE KIDS in the back of the car. So now you’re saying that it’s as simple as just listening, and has nothing to do with SOME, not all, trigger happy LEOs.

When the police take you out of your car and are conducting an investigation, you are not to go wandering around and cart it reaching into your car for who knows what?

This will be a just shooting. Don’t sit in your comfy living room and second guess LEO. They are the ones putting their life on the line everyday.

[TooColdNJ]

Originally Posted by John41

In 99% of police shootings once all the facts are out it is clear why they shot and are found not guilty. The police tried to stop him getting into his car by nonviolent means first (grabbing his shirt) then when Blake bent down to grab a weapon the police had to defend themselves and shot. As regards the seven shots, in a tense situation one bullet or even several may not stop a determined criminal.

How do you know that he was reaching for a weapon? Did the officers see the weapon while his back was to them, blocking their view? I’d bet money on the fact that there was no weapon. It’s not as if he ran to the car to grab a knife or gun.

These shootings can’t be compared to police shootings of white criminals who don’t listen either. White people in general haven’t been discriminated against because they’re white. No, those shootings aren’t publicized—maybe they should start doing so to show that SOME cops are just trigger happy in general— they all need to be held accountable for their actions and treated the same way. What you’re saying is that color isn’t the issue; therefore, you’re saying that its police in general, regardless of the offender’s race. If that’s the case, maybe it’s time to address that. Kill two birds with one stone.

[TooColdNJ]

Originally Posted by Suzieque

I agree. I would like to see statistics on how many white people don't listen to police versus black people.

Sure, it would show more or or less of either black or white, but it won’t tell you which shootings were justifiable or not. That’s the issue. It’s not how many, it’s why.

[TooColdNJ]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Some years ago did a workshop with Roanoke police that simulates what officers go thru during training including traffic stops.

Have to be very careful as who knows what the person you are stopping is capable of. Interesting if they first called in license and knew they were dealing with person with violent past.

True, but does that give them the right to shoot anyone based on how “criminal” they are or were? That’s yet another form of discrimination, especially if there are no current warrants out for their arrest.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by TooColdNJ

I just posted about this as well. DISGUSTING.
Watch the video, and listen to a witness describe the situation. WHY did they need to send 7 police officers in the first place?

Listen to the police or not, which none of us heard exactly what they said, there’s no excuse for this. It shouldn’t be, “listen to what we say or we’ll shoot you in the back, even though you don’t have a gun or knife.” The guy didn’t go anywhere, and he had THREE KIDS in the back of the car. So now you’re saying that it’s as simple as just listening, and has nothing to do with SOME, not all, trigger happy LEOs.

BREAKING: Jacob Blake’s Criminal History and Arrest Warrant Finally Revealed After Police Shooting in Kenosha

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

Major news reported a police shooting of a black man yesterday. Showed the black man refusing to listen to the police then reached into his car for something, then police shot him.

Why can't they just listen to the police for the moment. Now it is the policeman's fault. Bad kids.

Well, he was an adult, not a kid. Some say that he went to the car because he worried about his children in the back seat. The Police were there for a domestic disturbance. Police statistics show those to be very dangerous situations. Police do not like to go into those situations. Their presence may make the situation worse. Society is now grappling with the idea of involving more social service type professionals in these situations. Possibly they could wear vests and have radios and a squad car could stay some distance away. The social workers could receive danger pay. Those are some opinions and suggestions.
.......As to the actual shooting, I would suggest that Police carry 2 guns, one with lead bullets and one with rubber bullets. This man had his back to the officers so maybe (?) it would have been a good situation for rubber, not lead bullets?

[TooColdNJ]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

I feel very bad for current day LEO’s. They have an extremely difficult, important, and risky job. Their jobs often put them in situations where they are caught between a rock and a hard place. They act in accordance with their training, in the hope of living another day to go home to their families. The result can put them in an unfortunate predicament where they are wrongfully labeled as racist and their livelihoods are put in jeopardy. If things continue as is pretty soon there will be a serious shortage of good qualified candidates to fill the necessary job openings.

I disagree. If things continue as is, there might be a decrease of those who shoot to kill— SEVEN times in the back—and a decrease in black (AND WHITE) deaths by unjustifiable shootings. It would then keep the well qualified LEO and weed out the others to make room for more well qualified and quality officers.

[TooColdNJ]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Sorry we think that Blue Lives Matter. Show the police your hands so they do not feel threatened and this never would have happened.

So that means that your opinion of those who don’t believe there should be unjustifiable shootings, regardless of race, is that they don’t care, and blue lives don’t matter to them. I,for one, feel that both issues matter.

[TooColdNJ]

Originally Posted by mamamia54

The video I saw on the news doesn’t show him walking away. It shows him reaching in his car. How are the police supposed to know what he is reaching for. It’s a split second decision. Like my dad always said he was told in WWII “it’s kill or be killed”. I don’t really like or condone violence or murder, but we need to put ourselves in the officers shoes. Another saying I like
If you haven’t walked in my shoes, don’t act like they fit you.

Why not shoot to incapacitate and not shoot to kill?

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by TooColdNJ

Why not shoot to incapacitate and not shoot to kill?

don't stop shooting until the threat has ended


can't: shoot once, how did that work. shoot again, how did that work. shoot a third time, how did that work.