Riots/Police/Social Justice Issues

[Ace Nova]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Of course them didn't. Who says they are in favor of shooting blacks in the back or that police is above reproof? 

 

Ah, so the @Gibsonfender2323 argument that there could be some hidden facts that would make shooting a black man seven times in the back justifiable  I honestly don't think the governor should make sure to not antagonize such people when he tweets. He shouldn't caution his words in case he were to offend such people. People who think that police should be okay to shoot someone in the back seven times (an attempt at overkilling, really), who themselves don't hold a gun or is an imminent danger to others, are not someone a politician should care about unless that politician himself holds similar "values". Just like a governor shouldn't be afraid to offend others with horrible views.

Conservatives follow the law.

If the law states a police officer can use deadly force if he thinks a suspect is reaching for a weapon and/or if he fears for his safety or the safety of others, then it could be considered a "justifiable shooting".  That's the law in most states.

I this particular case, the suspect struggled with police.  He told the police he had a knife.  The police tried to tase him but he still resisted arrest.  The police gave him multiple orders to surrender and he still went into his car.  

So far, that could be considered "justified"

Now...the fact that he was shot 7 times in the back at close range could be considered "aggravating circumstances".  

That is in accordance to what we know about the case so far.  When this gets investigated,  (all police shootings do) then we will have all the facts.  If there's enough evidence that the police overreached and broke the law, they will face the consequences. 

 

All the above statements are based on the law; not my personal feelings about the case. 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Conservatives follow the law.

If the law states a police officer can use deadly force if he thinks a suspect is reaching for a weapon and/or if he fears for his safety or the safety of others, then it could be considered a "justifiable shooting".  That's the law in most states.

Of course he feared for the safety of others. The question is, should he have feared for his life (or others) at the exact moment when he shot seven times or was there other things that he could have done instead? Was the shooting justified? I think most people will agree with me that no, shooting at that moment was not justified. It was panicky. It was needless. The victim had his back towards the police. There were numerous officers around with guns drawn and pointing at the black man. They could have backed off and hold their fire to await the situation, instead of just shooting. What they did was out of fear and lack of training, and the result was murder. I think this is obvious to most people who see the video, and those who disagree are either too protective of the police or too indifferent to the lives of black. And neither are groups of people the governor should keep in mind and make him mince his words when expressing justifiably outrage of the killing.

This is all the more poignant when you take into account how police reacted to the white guy, who demonstrably did hold a rifle, and who according to witnesses and people around had just shot three people, who came towards them. Why didn't they open fire at this guy? A murderer coming towards them with a gun? Why didn't they fear for their lives? Why didn't they pepper him with bullets? The crucial difference is color of the skin. He wasn't perceived as a threat despite carrying a gun and despite people around yelling that he had shot people, partly because he wasn't aggressive towards them, but mostly because he was white. 

[SoulMonster]

12 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I this particular case, the suspect struggled with police.  He told the police he had a knife.  The police tried to tase him but he still resisted arrest.  The police gave him multiple orders to surrender and he still went into his car.  

So far, that could be considered "justified"

No, you don't shoot to kill someone because they don't follow orders. You don't shoot to kill someone because you failed to tase them. No, you don't shoot to kill someone simply because they carry a knife. No, you don't shoot to kill someone because they are entering a car. No, you don't shoot to kill someone because they fought you before.

You shoot to incapacity if, and only if, it is the only available option to avoid imminent danger to yourself or other people.

I can't believe how you can excuse that horrible killing and argue that it could have been justified. Do you honestly believe that police should be so trigger-happy? Do you feel safe knowing cops who are supposed to protect you shoot so easily and freely? Maybe because you are not black yourself and that tye are on "your side"? Don't you think you would be better off with better trained police who could manage situations like this without shooting someone seven times in the back? If so, stop defending it, accept the failure, and vote for politicians who will allocate enough money to make your law forces more professional and better trained. And with that I don't mean they should get more shooting training and more powerful weapons, but training in defusing situations and overcoming fear.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

No, you don't shoot to kill someone because they don't follow orders. You don't shoot to kill someone because you failed to tase them. No, you don't shoot to kill someone simply because they carry a knife. No, you don't shoot to kill someone because they are entering a car. No, you don't shoot to kill someone because they fought you before.

I think you'll find they do

[daile1bm]

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

No, you don't shoot to kill someone because they don't follow orders. You don't shoot to kill someone because you failed to tase them. No, you don't shoot to kill someone simply because they carry a knife. No, you don't shoot to kill someone because they are entering a car. No, you don't shoot to kill someone because they fought you before.

You shoot to incapacity if, and only if, it is the only available option to avoid imminent danger to yourself or other people.

I can't believe how you can excuse that horrible killing and argue that it could have been justified. Do you honestly believe that police should be so trigger-happy? Do you feel safe knowing cops who are supposed to protect you shoot so easily and freely? Maybe because you are not black yourself and that tye are on "your side"? Don't you think you would be better off with better trained police who could manage situations like this without shooting someone seven times in the back? If so, stop defending it, accept the failure, and vote for politicians who will allocate enough money to make your law forces more professional and better trained. And with that I don't mean they should get more shooting training and more powerful weapons, but training in defusing situations and overcoming fear.

I think you fail to realize just how fast someone can turn around with a gun or knife in close quarters and start stabbing or shooting, and how little reaction time the police would have to just wait and see if he's going to turn around and start stabbing/shooting. The guy had every opportunity to comply and CHOSE to be combative and disorderly every step of the way. His own actions led to the outcome. That doesn't even factor in that he was at the scene unlawfully violating a restraining order , had stolen the woman's keys, with the kids in the car. The cops can't risk a high speed chase/hostage situation with the children in the car, let alone the risk of being shot/stabbed to death. Blake forced them to react. If Blake complies with orders, he doesn't get shot.

[Ace Nova]

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

No, you don't shoot to kill someone because they don't follow orders. You don't shoot to kill someone because you failed to tase them. No, you don't shoot to kill someone simply because they carry a knife. No, you don't shoot to kill someone because they are entering a car. No, you don't shoot to kill someone because they fought you before.

You shoot to incapacity if, and only if, it is the only available option to avoid imminent danger to yourself or other people.

I can't believe how you can excuse that horrible killing and argue that it could have been justified. Do you honestly believe that police should be so trigger-happy? Do you feel safe knowing cops who are supposed to protect you shoot so easily and freely? Maybe because you are not black yourself and that tye are on "your side"? Don't you think you would be better off with better trained police who could manage situations like this without shooting someone seven times in the back? If so, stop defending it, accept the failure, and vote for politicians who will allocate enough money to make your law forces more professional and better trained. And with that I don't mean they should get more shooting training and more powerful weapons, but training in defusing situations and overcoming fear.

Did you miss the part where I said I was basing it off laws?  Most of the things I post in regards to that type of stuff is based off the law.

Personally, I don't like seeing anyone killed.  I think it's all a bunch of BS.  Most of this insanity shouldn't be happening to begin with.

None of the tweets I post are based off my opinion...some of them I think are crude, especially when in response to someone getting killed.  It's one thing to feel a certain way about something...it's another thing to act like an animal about it.

 

And everyone around here should know (by now) I am a proponent of both police and criminal justice reform.

 

 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Ace Nova

[Ace Nova]

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Of course he feared for the safety of others. The question is, should he have feared for his life (or others) at the exact moment when he shot seven times or was there other things that he could have done instead? Was the shooting justified? I think most people will agree with me that no, shooting at that moment was not justified. It was panicky. It was needless. The victim had his back towards the police. There were numerous officers around with guns drawn and pointing at the black man. They could have backed off and hold their fire to await the situation, instead of just shooting. What they did was out of fear and lack of training, and the result was murder. I think this is obvious to most people who see the video, and those who disagree are either too protective of the police or too indifferent to the lives of black. And neither are groups of people the governor should keep in mind and make him mince his words when expressing justifiably outrage of the killing.

This is all the more poignant when you take into account how police reacted to the white guy, who demonstrably did hold a rifle, and who according to witnesses and people around had just shot three people, who came towards them. Why didn't they open fire at this guy? A murderer coming towards them with a gun? Why didn't they fear for their lives? Why didn't they pepper him with bullets? The crucial difference is color of the skin. He wasn't perceived as a threat despite carrying a gun and despite people around yelling that he had shot people, partly because he wasn't aggressive towards them, but mostly because he was white. 

Again, I am against it all.  I think it's stupid for people to riot and become violent when they riot.  I think it's really stupid for a 17 year old to attend a riot trying to "defend property" (of another state, out of all things) and then I think it's incredibly tragic and stupid that the kid ended up killing 2 people and injuring another.  

That said, what did people expect was going to happen?  Stuff like this was bound to happen and it will likely happen again unless this stuff gets under control.

 

[SoulMonster]

14 minutes ago, daile1bm said:

I think you fail to realize just how fast someone can turn around with a gun or knife in close quarters and start stabbing or shooting

But as I have said, the police shouldn't be in such close quarter, they should have fallen back to control the situation. 

2 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Again, I am against it all.  I think it's stupid for people to riot and become violent when they riot.  I think it's really stupid for a 17 year old to attend a riot trying to "defend property" (of another state, out of all things) and then I think it's incredibly tragic and stupid that the kid ended up killing 2 people and injuring another.  

That said, what did people expect was going to happen?  Stuff like this was bound to happen and it will likely happen again unless this stuff gets under control.

 

Yes, as long as your police keep shooting black people in the back, people will protest and some of those protests will get ugly, and then you will have far-right nutcases and others coming in to fight the protesters. 

[daile1bm]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But as I have said, the police shouldn't be in such close quarter, they should have fallen back to control the situation. 

At that point, the guy likely gets into his car and now the police have to deal with a pursuit with his 3 children in the car. Is potentially risking 3 additional more lives the better course of action? I don't think so. Should the cops just let him go this time (with arrest warrants no less), to potentially come back and harass the woman again? I don't think so. I think Blake complying from the get go instead of fighting/fleeing was the best course of action. He didn't do that though.

It's coming off to me that you're assuming Blake was thinking rationally throughout the whole encounter, and would have eventually complied for some reason. The guy was fighting tooth and nail to not be apprehended. He put himself in the position he ended up in by acting irrationally and violently.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, daile1bm said:

At that point, the guy likely gets into his car and now the police have to deal with a pursuit with his 3 children in the car. Is potentially risking 3 additional more lives the better course of action? I don't think so. Should the cops just let him go this time (with arrest warrants no less), to potentially come back and harass the woman again? 

Eh, rather than shoot the guy? YES.

[daile1bm]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Eh, rather than shoot the guy? YES.

Well then, you and I won't agree. Blake unfortunately got shot through a string of his own terrible decisions. I don't feel the cops were trigger happy after giving the guy every reasonable opportunity to comply, while also having to factor in the lives and well-being of the other 4 direct people he was threatening (being the woman and potentially the 3 children). I wish the events didn't unfold the way they did, but the root cause was Blake's own actions. He forced the police's hand in this case. He's not a victim.

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, daile1bm said:

Well then, you and I won't agree. 

I find it absolutely perplexing that you think it is okay that police officers can shoot to kill someone simply because they might be getting away. Judge, jury and executioner, after a few months police education. Astounding. 

[Padme]

14 minutes ago, daile1bm said:

It's coming off to me that you're assuming Blake was thinking rationally throughout the whole encounter, and would have eventually complied for some reason. The guy was fighting tooth and nail to not be apprehended. He put himself in the position he ended up in by acting irrationally and violently.

Where is the evidence? All we saw was the guy walking toward the car and two officers walking behind him. As soon as he opened the door of the car he got shot seven times.

So please show us documents and videos to demostrate that the guy was acting irrationally and he was about to kill those officers

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

8 hours ago, Padme said:

Tackle him? Yes. Use force to take the knife away from him? You bet. Seven bullets? No! Btw why the cops let him walk around with the knife in his hand? Aim the gun at him ( in fact they are doing that) All the police has to do is tell the guy "hold it right there and put the knife down"

The cops already tazed him and he apparently didn't feel it (may have been on drugs and not feeling anything). The guy clearly wasn't listening to their commands lol.

I have a hard time telling cops that they must engage in mortal kombat against suspects with knives and they aren't allowed to use their guns in that situation. All for a job that pays like 50k a year? lol, you gotta be kidding.

[daile1bm]

4 minutes ago, Padme said:

So please show us documents and videos to demostrate that the guy was acting irrationally and he was about to kill those officers

It's in the video lol. Do you think rational people go harass someone who has a restraining order for sexual assault on them, steal their keys, then fight with the police that are called to handle the situation? Get fucking real.

[downzy]

8 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

- You can't have it both ways.  You can't say "nothing the governor could say or do would help things"  Then say, If he had not talked about it, it would have been worse.

I'm not trying to have it both ways.  But you're deluded if you think there was anything Evers was going to say that would have prevented or diminished the riots.  Statements of facts and not obfuscating the obvious would not help.

8 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

-If you still have doubts that his comments could have been divisive, (or that these people don't exist) go take a look at the thousands of comments in his twitter feed. 

So a Governor should avoid making factual statements to avoid the wrath of the deluded twitter army.  Got it.

8 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

As far as the video comment....  FOR THE 3RD TIME, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING.  ONCE THEY LOOK AT THE VIDEO THEY WON'T CARE ABOUT HIS OPINION and they will form their own opinion.

So if his comment is saying what everyone else will say once they see the video, what's the harm?  

Or should he have waited until every person had a chance to see the video before he made a claim that any rational person would agree with?

8 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

You choose to dismiss entire demographics of people who don't share your same ideologies or values.

I choose to dismiss anyone who willfully ignores realities.  This isn't, or shouldn't, be a matter decided on ideological or partisan grounds.  How is a man being shot in the back at point blank range a partisan issue?

8 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

I'll try to see their side of it (right or wrong) and I'll try to get them to see my side of it.  That's how the greatest leaders in history united groups of people.

Then you probably approved of Trump's response to the protests in Charlottesville back in December of 2017. 

8 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

They likely didn't do it by calling others "delusional" "ignorant" "deplorable" "enemies of the state" etc. I mean, are we bullies in high school or are we people trying to make things better?

If they are offended by others willingness to make factual comments or calling a spade a spade, so be it.  Again, I thought it was liberals who were suppose to be the snowflakes.

8 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

But hey, like I said earlier, maybe we need to have some more brawls, more riots, more shootings....maybe even a few wars so people realize what's important in life... and maybe then, people will start acting like human beings with each other again. 

Maybe more Americans need to give their heads a shake and take issue with the constant stream of black men being gunned down by cops versus governors making factual statements on twitter.  

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

6 minutes ago, Padme said:

Where is the evidence? All we saw was the guy walking toward the car and two officers walking behind him. As soon as he opened the door of the car he got shot seven times.

So please show us documents and videos to demostrate that the guy was acting irrationally and he was about to kill those officers

Have you done any research on this case?

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/08/27/questions-police-use-force-after-kenosha-shooting-answered/5645186002/

Quote

The man who said he made the widely shared cellphone video from across the street, 22-year-old Raysean White, told the Associated Press he heard officers yell, “Drop the knife! Drop the knife!” as they scuffled with Blake before the shooting.

 

[downzy]

5 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

Conservatives follow the law.

Unless they work in the Trump administration or his campaign.  

[DieselDaisy]

How many shots were there? Seven? Let's assume he needed shooting to guarantee the policeman's safety; was there ever a stage where you would think, ''yip, safe now''? 3rd shot? 4th? 5th? Nope. That wasn't enough: best just to fire three more to make certain. 

[Padme]

1 minute ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Have you done any research on this case?

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/08/27/questions-police-use-force-after-kenosha-shooting-answered/5645186002/

 

There is more than one version of the story with the knife. One version of story is that he had the knife with him. Another version of the story says the knife was inside the car.

At this moment I don't know beyond this. Still is it seven shots really necessary?

[downzy]

10 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

The cops already tazed him and he apparently didn't feel it (may have been on drugs and not feeling anything). The guy clearly wasn't listening to their commands lol.

I've read that it was a botched effort to tase him, not that he didn't feel it.  

[daile1bm]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I find it absolutely perplexing that you think it is okay that police officers can shoot to kill someone simply because they might be getting away. Judge, jury and executioner, after a few months police education. Astounding. 

You have to think about the entire situation, not just pieces at a time. The guy had already fought with police, was tazed without reaction, was in possession of a knife, went back to the car for an unknown reason (potentially getting another weapon, or take off with hostages). All the while, he had warrants out for his arrest. I don't think a person should be shot and killed for simply getting away. I'm trying to tell you that the culmination of all of the actions led to Blake getting shot. You seem to think he should have impunity from these actions.

What do you think the police should have done, from start to finish, in this case? Granted we don't have video of the start of the encounter (or at least I haven't seen it), but if you were an officer, what would you have done, knowing you have a violent criminal with arrest warrants outstanding?

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

39 minutes ago, Padme said:

There is more than one version of the story with the knife. One version of story is that he had the knife with him. Another version of the story says the knife was inside the car.

At this moment I don't know beyond this. Still is it seven shots really necessary?

The cops were heard yelling 'drop the knife' by the guy who shot the video. It's very plausible that was a knife in his hand and he dropped it into his car when he was shot.

40 minutes ago, downzy said:

I've read that it was a botched effort to tase him, not that he didn't feel it.  

I guess we'll find out more on that during the trial. But either way, they used the taser and it didn't work (for one reason or another).

[Padme]

29 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

The cops were heard yelling 'drop the knife' by the guy who shot the video. It's very plausible that was a knife in his hand and he dropped it into his car when he was shot.

I guess we'll find out more on that during the trial. But either way, they used the taser and it didn't work (for one reason or another).

1 hr 2 min ago

Here's what we know about the officer who shot Jacob Blake

From CNN's Scott Glover and Casey Tolan

Before he was identified as the police officer captured in a viral video in which he shoots a Black man multiple times in the back, Rusten Sheskey pedaled around the lakeside city of Kenosha, Wisconsin, as part of the bike patrol and walked the shopping mall beat during the holidays.

He'd occasionally bring a squad car home from work and turn on the siren for neighborhood kids, one neighbor recalled. An American flag flies outside his home in a middle-class neighborhood.

But five days after Sheskey's shooting of 29-year-old Jacob Blake prompted protests and rioting in the typically quiet streets of Kenosha, much remains unknown about the seven-year veteran officer and what prompted him to open fire.

Authorities have declined to provide information on a number of critical questions in the turbulent days since Blake was shot. Most importantly, they have not offered any detailed explanation for why Sheskey used deadly force on Blake as he leaned into a parked car.

Police and city officials also have not responded to public records requests for Sheskey's history with the department, including any previous uses of force or disciplinary issues. According to a memo from the police chief published on the city's website, Sheskey received a one-day suspension in 2017 for a violation regarding "safe operation of department vehicles."

Meanwhile, Blake remains handcuffed to a hospital bed. He was left paralyzed from the waist down in the aftermath of the shooting, which took place in front of three of his young children who were in the car.

Dispatch records indicate that Sheskey and other officers responded to a complaint from a woman saying that Blake was not supposed to be at her residence and would not leave. She also said he had taken her keys and would not give them back.

At a news conference Wednesday, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul said officers fired a Taser at Blake before the shooting, but that it was "not successful." Kaul said Blake admitted possessing a knife and officers recovered one from the floor of the car he was leaning into when Sheskey opened fire. Kaul did not say if Blake had brandished the weapon or what precise reason Sheskey gave for firing multiple shots.

Blake's family has demanded answers, too, wondering why Sheskey decided to use a gun to resolve the situation. At a news conference on Tuesday, Blake's family attorney Ben Crump called for the officer's arrest.

"We are demanding that the prosecutor arrest the officer who shot Jacob Blake. And we are also asking that these officers who violated the policies and their training be terminated immediately," he said.

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

9 minutes ago, Padme said:

1 hr 2 min ago

At a news conference Wednesday, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul said officers fired a Taser at Blake before the shooting, but that it was "not successful." Kaul said Blake admitted possessing a knife and officers recovered one from the floor of the car he was leaning into when Sheskey opened fire. Kaul did not say if Blake had brandished the weapon or what precise reason Sheskey gave for firing multiple shots.

 

Did you even read your own article? lol

We will have answers to the questions we all have in due time.