Originally Posted by Dzurinko (Post 1823431)

It’s funny how the media was saying an hour after the incident, that police shot an “unarmed“ man in the back. Was he unarmed?? No one knows 3 days later except the investigating officer and they refuse to speak about it until the investigation is 100% complete and the city is burned down! So why does the media use terms like “unarmed” when it hasn’t been established.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1823488)

Because at the time he was shot in the back, he had no weapons of any kind in his hands. He might've had a knife in the car - but that would mean the car was armed - not him. He wasn't in the car at the time he was shot. His hands were empty at the time he was shot.

That means - technically, figuratively, legally, practically, sensibly, literally - that he was, in fact, unarmed.

They shot an unarmed black man, who had not murdered anyone, who was at the scene of an incident where no one was killed or injured in a shooting or stabbing, 7 times in the back.

Meanwhile, they arrested an armed white man who crossed state lines with an AR-15, who was known (by his social media pages) to be sympathetic to White Nationalism and Alt-Right terrorist movements, who had just finished actually shooting people and killed at least one of them, without shooting first. He was armed - with a semi-automatic rifle. That right there is the imminent threat. That would be the thing you "shoot until the threat ceases to be a threat." Not an unarmed man reaching into his car.

But they brought the armed murderer who was still carrying his rifle in. They shot the unarmed man who was trying to get into his car, with three kids in it.

NO violence against the armed killer. Permanent disability for the unarmed man wanted for unrelated crimes.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1823488)

Because at the time he was shot in the back, he had no weapons of any kind in his hands. He might've had a knife in the car - but that would mean the car was armed - not him. He wasn't in the car at the time he was shot. His hands were empty at the time he was shot.

That means - technically, figuratively, legally, practically, sensibly, literally - that he was, in fact, unarmed.

They shot an unarmed black man, who had not murdered anyone, who was at the scene of an incident where no one was killed or injured in a shooting or stabbing, 7 times in the back.

Meanwhile, they arrested an armed white man who crossed state lines with an AR-15, who was known (by his social media pages) to be sympathetic to White Nationalism and Alt-Right terrorist movements, who had just finished actually shooting people and killed at least one of them, without shooting first. He was armed - with a semi-automatic rifle. That right there is the imminent threat. That would be the thing you "shoot until the threat ceases to be a threat." Not an unarmed man reaching into his car.

But they brought the armed murderer who was still carrying his rifle in. They shot the unarmed man who was trying to get into his car, with three kids in it.

NO violence against the armed killer. Permanent disability for the unarmed man wanted for unrelated crimes.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1822131)

"The media" is not a singular thing. IT - the singular thing that doesn't exist, doesn't "focus on specific incidents" any more than "The media" - any other singular thing that doesn't exist, focuses on specific incidences.

The category of "the media" includes all media. A spectrum of media that ranges from tweets on the internet to live coverage of disasters to National Geographic investigative 4-part report series on the reproductive cycle of arachnids, and everything inbetween.

Each will have its own perspective of facts, and each will relay those facts in a way that will grab the interest of its paid subscribers most.

Mainstream Media doesn't even mean anything anymore, OTHER than as a dogwhistle for the alt-right and leftist propaganda mills. It basically means "any form of media that is pushing an agenda that OUR agenda-creators disagree with."

White Nationalists will hate Ebony magazine, because Ebony magazine promotes topics of interest to black people. Ebony magazine will hate Stormfront, because Stormfront promotes topics of interest to Nazis.

The networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS, cater to middle America, because middle America are who watch those networks the most.

Once people get their heads out of their leftist, alt-right, nazi, racist, anti-male, anti-female, anti-pro-choice, anti-choice, anti this that and the other thing butt cheeks, they'll have the opportunity to realize that facts really do exist, and facts are not always conspiracies, and conspiracies are often wrong.

Til then, keep enjoying the bubble you've put around your head while living in the bubble. And remember that bubble isn't a mask. Please wear one when you go grocery shopping.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC (Post 1823281)

You should take a police training class to get a better idea of what the life of a police officer is like.

I have and one thing they put us thru is a simulation where you are chasing someone in your cruiser and he gets out and from a distance puts you in a threatening position.

They are trained at that time to take action against that threat

If you order someone to face you showing your hands and instead turn your back and reach for something that cannot be seen by the officers they are entitled to defend themselves.

They are not expected to stand there and wait until the suspect points a gun and shoots at them.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 1823855)

He fought the police, got away from them, he was tased with no effect and was reaching for a knife in his car when he was shot. Yes, there was a knife. The only point of criticism I have against the police is their poor marksmanship(he lives after seven shots). His record shows that he is a leach on society and he was breaking the law even being where he was. There was reports that there was also outstanding warrants for his arrest, but I don't have any reference to it so I can't be sure. I can see right now that every team responding to a complaint regarding a person of color is going to have to have a black police officer assisting, so that if there is a shooting involved there won't be any question about it being legit. Pretty sad state of affairs that today there is going to be violence and destruction every time a dirt bag is taken down.
The violence is being influenced/agitated and perpetrated by outside radical resources. Many of the cretins that are rioting are white anarchists or mercenaries paid to disrupt civil order. In the old days, when there was mass rioting, Marshall law would declared and any looters could be shot in the act. One such declaration and action upon a city would work as a deterrent for the rest of the U.S.

Originally Posted by skip0358 (Post 1823895)

Sorry but NOBODY deserves to be shot in the back at point blank range 7 times as was reported. Just wrong. JMO

Originally Posted by Bikeracer2009 (Post 1823909)

I'll extend an olive branch by saying that I agree that watching the video is very disturbing and 7 shots felt like too much.

Originally Posted by Red White & Blue (Post 1823916)

We don't know the emotional condition of the officer at that moment.
Was the shooting officer the one that had the fighting confrontation with the assailant?
Was the officer angry at the perpetrator, was the officer hurting from the scuffle?
If we were in that officers shoes do we know how we would act at that moment, maybe shoot 8 bullets?

Originally Posted by Bikeracer2009 (Post 1823909)

What if a person is reaching for a gun to shoot you 7 times in the face? Or, stab you in the neck?

Why is 7 times too many when the guy is still alive to shoot or stab you?

Without doing any research I can believe a person could be shot more than 7 times at point blank range and still survive.

I'll extend an olive branch by saying that I agree that watching the video is very disturbing and 7 shots felt like too much.

Originally Posted by skip0358 (Post 1823895)

Sorry but NOBODY deserves to be shot in the back at point blank range 7 times as was reported. Just wrong. JMO

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 1823931)

There are exceptions to EVERY case. If the guy was going to kill someone else, would you shoot him in the back to save them, or ask him to turn around and face you so that you could shoot him? Do you realize how fast someone can turn and put a bullet in you? If seven bullets did not kill him, what makes you think that you might have time to decide to shoot him once he turns on you? "DESERVES" has nothing to do with it. Maybe he did and maybe he did not. Fact is that he is shot and the COP went home to his family. Works for me. Chalk one up for the good guys. Maybe there needs to be more power put into the Taser. If they worked better, maybe COPs would not have to resort to lethal force. Of course, if the taser gave the guy a heart attack and he died, then the world would be wanting to hang the Cop for that too. Until everyone looks past the skin color, part of our country will always be against white Cops. Maybe we should just hire black Cops? After all, no one seems concerned that blacks kill blacks every day.