SoulMonster Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, daile1bm said: In a vacuum when none of the other circumstances of this event are taken into the equation i would agree, but with all the other things Blake did prior to the shooting, it shows intent and willingness to escalate. He also didn't simply "evade arrest" he assaulted officers prior to going back to his car for unknown reasons. So yes, simply brandishing a knife, or simply evading arrest, or simply "touching your door handle" (as downzy mentioned) are typically not cause to believe someone is an imminent threat, if taken on their own. But when you combine all of these factors, along with assaulting arresting officers, recently harassing someone with restraining order for sexual assault against you, and having arrest warrants outstanding, it's not unreasonable to assume this completely noncompliant, violent person will escalate things further by reaching into his vehicle for something, in an effort to avoid further consequences. And if things are escalated further to the point where the police or third parties are in imminent danger, shooting could be justified What happened is that the cops failed at an arrest, got themselves in a tricky situation, and solved it by seven shots. Disgrace. 3 minutes ago, Ace Nova said: @SoulMonster How many unarmed black people do you think get shot in the U.S. on an annual basis? No idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daile1bm Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 1 minute ago, SoulMonster said: What happened is that the cops failed at an arrest, got themselves in a tricky situation, and solved it by seven shots. Disgrace. And why did they fail at their arrest? I'm sure the answer won't be that they were dealing with an individual who was armed, violent, and noncompliant... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 5 minutes ago, daile1bm said: And why did they fail at their arrest? I'm sure the answer won't be that they were dealing with an individual who was armed, violent, and noncompliant... Yes, and God forbid the police must deal with people that are armed, violent and dangerous! That's surely not in their job description is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted August 28, 2020 Author Share Posted August 28, 2020 (edited) 27 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: No idea. The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer. (WSJ) Guess how many black people are shot AND killed by other black people on an annual basis in the U.S.? 2500 What's the more serious problem? Edited August 28, 2020 by Ace Nova 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 1 minute ago, Ace Nova said: What's the more serious problem? I don't know how this is relevant to the ongoing discussion, but if we are now listing worse problems than the US having incompetent police who are badly trained, then I suppose my answer would be "climate change" and if I am allowed a more philosophical answer, "stupid humans". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basic_GnR_Fan Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 20 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Eh, yes, still doesn't mean they should shoot him. Because the probability of that happening is miniscule and the alternative is shooting a guy. But why be so cavalier about it? Why even take a chance a kid could get shot? I can only imagine you don't believe what you're saying, but you expect me to. I think once you get beyond the platitudes and ask people for specifics on what they'd do in a real situation. They start talking crazy and unrealistically. That's what this thread is exposing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 1 minute ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said: But why be so cavalier about it? Why even take a chance a kid could get shot? Because the chance of that happening is miniscule while the alternative is shooting a person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted August 28, 2020 Author Share Posted August 28, 2020 1 minute ago, SoulMonster said: I don't know how this is relevant to the ongoing discussion, but if we are now listing worse problems than the US having incompetent police who are badly trained, then I suppose my answer would be "climate change" and if I am allowed a more philosophical answer, "stupid humans". I was asking because judging by your posts in this thread, one would think an unarmed black person gets shot by the police every day in the US. It’s not your fault to think that. If you were to ask the average BLM protestor the same question they would likely tell you “hundreds”. Or maybe more. The media has painted a vastly unrealistic picture of unarmed black people getting killed by police which is not remotely based in reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 Just now, Ace Nova said: I was asking because judging by your posts in this thread, one would think an unarmed black person gets shot by the police every day in the US. Okay. I have never thought about how many it could be. Completely irrelevant to the ongoing discussion on the murder with seven shots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted August 28, 2020 Author Share Posted August 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Okay. I have never thought about how many it could be. Completely irrelevant to the ongoing discussion on the murder with seven shots. Do you at least agree that the man shot 7 times is likely a statistical "outlier"? And he wasn't killed, btw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 Just now, Ace Nova said: Do you at least agree that the man shot 7 times is likely a statistical "outlier"? I sure hope it isn't a common occurrence, even in the USA, yes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daile1bm Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Yes, and God forbid the police must deal with people that are armed, violent and dangerous! That's surely not in their job description is it? And sometimes when armed, violent, and dangerous people, god forbidding, escalate armed, violent, and dangerous situations that they created, and could have de-escalated themselves, they get shot. Sometimes even 7 times in the back when they're being non-compliant and irrational and armed and violent and dangerous. Is it in the police's job description to get murdered by an armed, violent, and dangerous criminal because they have to wait and see if the armed, violent, and dangerous criminal will turn around with more than a knife after he just got done resisting arrest, assaulting them, and now rooting around in the front seat of their car, with kids in tow? Edited August 28, 2020 by daile1bm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basic_GnR_Fan Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 15 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Because the chance of that happening is miniscule while the alternative is shooting a person. Chance of a stray bullet is not miniscule in a freaking shootout. Hollywood strikes again! 1 minute ago, daile1bm said: And sometimes when armed, violent, and dangerous people, god forbidding, escalate armed, violent, and dangerous situations that they created, and could have de-escalated themselves, get shot. Sometimes even 7 times in the back when they're being non-compliant and irrational and armed and violent and dangerous. Is it in the police's job description to get murdered by an armed, violent, and dangerous criminal because they have to wait and see if the armed, violent, and dangerous criminal will turn around with more than a knife after he just got done resisting arrest, assaulting them, and now rooting around in the front seat of their car, with kids in tow? And they're supposed to play this game of chicken with their lives all on a salary of like $50,000 a year! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basic_GnR_Fan Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 8 minutes ago, Ace Nova said: Do you at least agree that the man shot 7 times is likely a statistical "outlier"? And he wasn't killed, btw. Yeah I don't know why he keeps saying murder. It's like he doesn't even know rudimentary facts of the case other than the day it happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, daile1bm said: And sometimes when armed, violent, and dangerous people, god forbidding, escalate armed, violent, and dangerous situations that they created, and could have de-escalated themselves, they get shot. Are you arguing that it is okay because it happens? My argument is that the police shouldn't shoot people unless they or others are in imminent danger with no other options. 6 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said: Chance of a stray bullet is not miniscule in a freaking shootout. Hollywood strikes again! You don't understand that I was describing the probability of the alternative to shooting the person in the back being a shootout, being miniscule? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said: Yeah I don't know why he keeps saying murder. It's like he doesn't even know rudimentary facts of the case other than the day it happened. Because I consider it murder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daile1bm Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Are you arguing that it is okay because it happens? My argument is that the police shouldn't shoot people unless they or others are in imminent danger with no other options. And my argument is that they were in imminent danger 100% caused by Jacob Blake, for being at the scene of a woman who had a restraining order against him for sexual assault, and resisting arrest, and assaulting police while armed, and returning to his vehicle with the reasonable assumption that he would continue to further escalate with something more deadly than a knife, or at the very least flee the scene with hostages. Edit: And at the point of the shooting there were no other options, aside from letting him drive away. Letting him flee the scene is an unreasonable premise that I won't agree to, and letting him potentially grab a firearm (under the reasonable assumption he had one) in the proximity they were in would have likely led to the death of an officer. Edited August 28, 2020 by daile1bm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 Just now, daile1bm said: And my argument is that they were in imminent danger 100% caused by Jacob Blake We have to disagree on that one I mean, the police could have disengaged and they would only have been in danger if he had a handgun in the car. And "ifs" don't factor into being in imminent danger as far as I am concerned. There were alternatives that would most likely have resulted in peaceful resolution, but instead they shot to kill. Disgraceful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basic_GnR_Fan Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Because I consider it murder? It literally can't be murder if the suspect didn't die. I believe what you're looking for is attempted murder. 3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: We have to disagree on that one I mean, the police could have disengaged and they would only have been in danger if he had a handgun in the car. And "ifs" don't factor into being in imminent danger as far as I am concerned. There were alternatives that would most likely have resulted in peaceful resolution, but instead they shot to kill. Disgraceful. You have no way of guaranteeing that or even giving a reasonable percentage to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 Just now, Basic_GnR_Fan said: It literally can't be murder if the suspect didn't die. I believe what you're looking for is attempted murder. Yes, of course, my fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daile1bm Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 1 minute ago, SoulMonster said: We have to disagree on that one I mean, the police could have disengaged and they would only have been in danger if he had a handgun in the car. And "ifs" don't factor into being in imminent danger as far as I am concerned. There were alternatives that would most likely have resulted in peaceful resolution, but instead they shot to kill. Disgraceful. For better or worse, "ifs" usually do factor into imminent danger, so i believe your concern may be invalid. I see where you're coming from on the point, so I won't contest it further. I think we've gone as far as this will go, so I'll leave it here. Hope you enjoy the upcoming weekend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 3 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said: You have no way of guaranteeing that or even giving a reasonable percentage to that. Correct, I don't think we have statistics for it, but I am EXTREMELY confident that the probability of not shooting that guy seven times in the back would lead to him getting in the car, having a hand gun there, resulting in a shootout with other people being hurt, is EXTREMELY low, despite that youtubw video if yours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, daile1bm said: For better or worse, "ifs" usually do factor into imminent danger, so i believe your concern may be invalid. I see where you're coming from on the point, so I won't contest it further. I think we've gone as far as this will go, so I'll leave it here. Hope you enjoy the upcoming weekend If a guy is brandishing a handgun then I would say people are in imminent danger and police shooting may be justified. But a guy trying to escape into a car is very different from a guy brandishing a handgun, and although we can easily picture how it might turn into an imminently dangerous situation, it wasn't at the time those seven shots were fired and it most likely wouldn't become one, either. We should value human lives higher than this. Enjoy the weekend, you too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, SoulMonster said: If a guy is brandishing a handgun then I would say people are in imminent danger and police shooting may be justified. But a guy trying to escape into a car is very different from a guy brandishing a handgun, and although we can easily picture how it might turn into an imminently dangerous situation, it wasn't at the time those seven shots were fired and it most likely wouldn't become one, either. We should value human lives higher than this. Enjoy the weekend, you too I think that the issue with living in a country with sane gun laws is that we struggle to comprehend how you can believe that every fucker is armed to the teeth. We simply don’t assume that people have guns because we just don’t have guns as a rule. In the US it’s different. I think @Ace Nova has more of a point than he’s been given credit for. I don’t agree with all of it but then that’s the beauty of nuance and I think that we forget that sometimes. Edited August 28, 2020 by Dazey 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 28, 2020 Share Posted August 28, 2020 Just now, Dazey said: I think that the issue with living in a country with sane gun laws is that we struggle to comprehend how you can assume that every fucker is armed to the teeth. We simply don’t assume that people have guns because we just don’t have guns as a rule. In the US it’s different. I think @Ace Nova has more of a point than he’s been given credit for. I don’t agree with all of it but then that’s the beauty of nuance and I think that we forget that sometimes. You don't shoot someone because they might have a gun, or even because they likely have a gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.