It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jacob Blake was justifiably shot by police

page: 5
65
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 11:47 AM
link   
This thread has been rather telling about the quality of the people we have here.

Just imagine what an awful excuse for a human being you have to be to find out an innocent black man was NOT unjustly shot by police, and you're not just disappointed at that you're outright mad.

These people are pissed that an innocent black man wasn't shot.

Sick.




posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Trick shot nonsense...that works great for Hollywood.


As well as does shooting the bad guy with an over abundance of bullets and justifiable fulfillment.
But as you say, '' this is the real world'', the real world where LEOs are discovered very week using unneeded force to enforce the law.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Execelant post Mr Face. You make the case clearly. But I wonder why none of the officers couldn’t shoot out the two front tires or put one through the block instead of seven in his back



reply to: face23785



I agree, they should have shot out his tires. They could have shot out the gastank instead and lit the fuel...oh wait, the guy started all this crap when there were kids in the car.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: RKWWWW

Where was the deadly force. He was moving away from them. The ''knife'' that some are calling the thing in his hand could have been glasses or something else. He had no gun, the report that he said he did was a Facebook post that went viral. So where was the deadly force in attempting to flee.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: RKWWWW

Where was the deadly force. He was moving away from them. The ''knife'' that some are calling the thing in his hand could have been glasses or something else. He had no gun, the report that he said he did was a Facebook post that went viral. So where was the deadly force in attempting to flee.



At some point the cops must act on their training. A guy who is impervious to tasers, ignores all orders to comply, and is intent of retrieving something from his vehicle can be reasonably assumed to be retrieving a weapon.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: akiros

I"m so glad that you live in a world that places all authority in the police. Citizens like myself, fat and lazy have no recourse but to shut up and let the pros handle all of this right? So, are you one who espouses complete police authority over us citizens?
Myself, I"m tired of the excuses about ''split second judgement'' and pressure situations that a schlock like myself cannot comprehend. I can and still I question the use of overly indulgent violence on the part of our law enforcement agencies.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: galaga

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: odzeandennz

what "world"? Is this just you being a smug nationalist or something?


What's wrong with being a Nationalist?


Anyone who thinks they are born superior because of geography is not only stupid, but an asshole.


Considering everyone in the United States is an immigrant....yeah.

But I think he's talking about a nation's political and social views more than place of birth.


Pretty much everyone everywhere is an immigrant if you go back far enough, except maybe a few tribes in Africa. That's an absurd standard.

I'm not an immigrant. I was born here.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: CthruU
a reply to: face23785

So i guess shooting him in say the legs to demobilise him so he couldn't drive the car was out of the question to equally provide said protection for kids and public.

Pumping 7 rounds into the torso is an attempt at a kill - no matter how you slice and dice it -

He had his BACK to the cop, he was walking away so he was therefore none threatning at the end of the day.

So sure he was a scumbag who deserved ARRESTED no argument there but he was not a eligible recipient of what he received.

You can pound your chest all you like but the fact remains and always will be that ONLY A COWARD SHOOTS A MAN IN THE BACK.

This pig is just that a coward.

Now for all you advocates for attempting to murder a man by shooting him in the back whilst hes walking away i pitty your mindsets.

No wonder the country is lets say challenged. As for your comments on race in relation to words you listed I COULDN'T AGREE MORE - so you and your chest pounding cronies are at least half way there.

Now lets let the ignorant replies and condemnation of my post begin.


"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
Martin Luther King



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: TheLead

I guess the other 2 officers at the scene need more training, because neither discharged their weapons, one of them also discharged a taser.



Actually 2 of them tased him, including the officer who shot the guy.

Also, neither of the other officers discharged their weapon because the closest officer would be in the line of fire. Again, it's not a video game.

Come at this from a realistic standpoint and you might understand it. Pretending it's Call of Duty isn't gonna help you understand.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: RKWWWW

I agree RK. All of what you point out. My position though is about that ''training''. Why do they have to be trained in that manner without being trained in other forms of restraining other than seven shots to the back that in the atmosphere of today's protests and rioting might not serve us all better.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: face23785


It makes no difference either legally or morally.


Small point. Legally sure, but morally? The legality will likely not be called into question in court as you pointed out earlier. However, pumping seven shot can easily be seen as something more than restraint. It can be seen in a morally unfavorable light suggesting that the officer was expressing something more than just concern for any future victims in the car of out of it.



The bolded part is why you're failing to understand what happened here. He wasn't trying to restrain him. The only reason you can legally justifiably shoot the guy is if you reasonably fear for your own safety or the safety of someone else, such as the kids in the back of the car.

Once that threshold is crossed, your intent must be to kill. You've made a decision that deadly force is authorized, a decision you've already admitted was legally correct. Once you intend to kill him, 1 shot or 7 shots make no difference morally. You're trying to kill the guy. And you don't know that 1 shot will do it. As you can see from this case, you don't even know that 7 shots will do it. Multiple shots are routine and justified in these kinds of situations. Maybe you think only 4 were necessary, and he shot 7. In the midst of such a situation, you may not even have complete control over how many shots you fire because of adrenaline and fear. When civil rights activists have been invited to try police simulators, they have had instances where they couldn't remember how many shots they fired. In a simulation. Imagine how scary the real thing is.

You're splitting hairs. You know he was justifiably shot but you're desperate for something, anything to mad about.

Don't be mad at the cop, or me. Be mad at the media that lied to you, AGAIN.
edit on 28 8 20 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: RKWWWW

I agree RK. All of what you point out. My position though is about that ''training''. Why do they have to be trained in that manner without being trained in other forms of restraining other than seven shots to the back that in the atmosphere of today's protests and rioting might not serve us all better.



But they ARE trained in other forms of restraint. Did they not try to tase the subject? You seem unable to accept the fact that a situation can legitimately rise to the level of deadly force. Deadly force is a last resort.
edit on 28-8-2020 by RKWWWW because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:09 PM
link   
The ignorance, lack of intelligence and common sense from some in this thread is stunning. Bad guy disobeys police commands, resists, gets tasered, still disobeys & resists, claims to be going for a weapon, cops shoot him several times and the cops are the bad guys.

Wow.

I am willing to bet that those of you blaming the cops for this have never been an officer and you've probably never been in the military. You typically don't support police to begin with and this is just another platform for you to spew your hate towards them.

The "he was walking away" argument would get laughed out of court because his voiced INTENT was to get a weapon to use against the cops. There was no good reason for him to resist or walk away from them after he had been tasered. Everything he did after that was his choice, his fault.

Good Lord people, get a grip! A criminal threatened officers, he deserved what he got.


edit on 28-8-2020 by HalWesten because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: HalWesten
The ignorance, lack of intelligence and common sense from some in this thread is stunning. Bad guy disobeys police commands, resists, gets tasered, still disobeys & resists, claims to be going for a weapon, cops shoot him several times and the cops are the bad guys.




It's not really lack of intelligence in most cases. They know now it was a justified shooting. They're just pissed their political narrative blew up and they can't it go. Here was more black suffering to exploit, and now it's gone. They'll keep trying to milk it, but it's not gonna help them politically, and that has them very, very upset.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: RKWWWW
I think that FBI Special Agent John Huber explains well why cops shoot multiple times.

Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.

To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.

If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.

To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.

Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.

Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.

"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.

When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.

"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.

Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."

Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.


Quoted for truth. The cop-haters will ignore it though. They hate cops, that is the only information they are using to base their decision. Facts don't matter.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: RKWWWW

Where was the deadly force. He was moving away from them. The ''knife'' that some are calling the thing in his hand could have been glasses or something else. He had no gun, the report that he said he did was a Facebook post that went viral. So where was the deadly force in attempting to flee.


He was holding a knife. The knife was found precisely where he would've dropped it had he been holding it when he was shot.

Letting and armed, violent felon flee the scene of his committing multiple felonies was not an option. They already tased him twice, they wrestled with him and he pulled a knife. The cops are under no obligation to put their lives at risk by trying to wrestle a knife-wielding suspect.

A split second later and you'd have had a knife-armed violent felon locked in a car with innocent kids. If those were your kids, are you okay with that? Of course not. The cop had no choice. It was either shoot the scumbag or put the kids lives in danger. He made the right decision.

You got lied to by the media, again. Accept it and move on.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Police on scene= dead man. Man with weapon, no death.

You should be just as outraged in instances when police don’t kill perps running away...right? How do those protocols differ, maybe killing is up to the cop ultimately.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785
I"m not mad at anyone here Face. I"m just trying to hold a conversation, on my part mostly by asking questions. So thank you for answering me so clearly, your perspective is educational.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: RKWWWW

This is being hammered into me in every reply I get on this thread. I have no questions left to ask.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
Police on scene= dead man. Man with weapon, no death.

You should be just as outraged in instances when police don’t kill perps running away...right? How do those protocols differ, maybe killing is up to the cop ultimately.


TENNESSEE v. GARNER(1985) Supreme Court ruling prohibits cops from shooting at fleeing suspects, even if they are known felons. So no, I wouldn't be outraged.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join