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: 6
65
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: RKWWWW

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.


That case was about a perp running away, this one stated he was going after a weapon from the front of the car to the driver's window. Huge difference.




posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

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.



That was my point.
Being a nationalist doesn't necessarily mean your lineage. It means pride in one's current country's standing in the world.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: RKWWWW

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.


That case was about a perp running away, this one stated he was going after a weapon from the front of the car to the driver's window. Huge difference.


No I agree with you. I was explaining why I wouldn't be outraged if the cops didn't shoot a fleeing suspect. It was in answer to "You should be just as outraged in instances when police don’t kill perps running away...right?"
edit on 28-8-2020 by RKWWWW because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: RKWWWW

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.


That case was about a perp running away, this one stated he was going after a weapon from the front of the car to the driver's window. Huge difference.


No I agree with you. I was explaining why I wouldn't be outraged if the cops didn't shoot a fleeing suspect. It was in answer to "You should be just as outraged in instances when police don’t kill perps running away...right?"





posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Cops respond to the threat. The problem is that people put themselves in positions where the cop has to make a call as to if the suspect is being threatening or not. It is split second decision making that could mean life or death for the cop. If a cop waits to see if a suspect has a gun or not, by then it is too late.

There are plenty of videos showing how this goes down. In fact, there is a video of a cop getting killed by some old codger he pulled over for a traffic violation. The guy goes back to his car while the cop is giving him commands to stop. The guy reaches into car and pulls out a rifle and kills the cop.



Here is BLM activist failing miserably at cop training and had a change of heart after seeing their perspective when dealing with unruly suspects.




posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

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.


So he gets in the car and drives away.... What do you do now? Three kids in the back as he flees... They high speed crash at some point with everyone dead... win win since he he wasn't shot then...


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



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
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.


There is no such thing as an "over abundance of bullets". To draw your weapon and shoot indicates a need to defend your life. There is no "over defending" your life. You either defend your life or you don't.

If a police officer fires, his intent is to kill. That is the way it works. Same with just about anyone else who isn't criminal in nature...a gun drawn and fired is intended to kill. Not maim. Not wound. Kill. If you are doing it for any other reason than to kill, you are doing it wrong and are going to hurt innocent people while risking your own life needlessly. Michael Brown was able to continue running towards the police officer while the officer continued firing into him. I cannot recall if it was a 9mm or a .45. If a .45, that is superhuman level impressive. But the point is, how many bullets should be spent to save your life? Would you trust just 1? If its your life, your gut that is going to be ripped open with a knife...how many bullets do you feel are adequate to ensure you do not die bleeding on the sidewalk?

There is no over abundance of bullets. There can only be too few, and that is when you choose to not shoot to kill, and risk being killed yourself.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Michael Brown was able to continue running towards the police officer while the officer continued firing into him. I cannot recall if it was a 9mm or a .45. If a .45, that is superhuman level impressive.


I remember it being a .45. That's crazy it took that many rounds to stop him.

Again, people are judging this like it's the movies. In the movies, bad guys get shot once and are instantly unconscious and no longer a threat. The real world does not work this way. (not telling you that, I know you understand)

ETA: Looked it up, it was .40 cal.
edit on 28 8 20 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Trayvon could have walked home. Ahmaud Arbery could have jogged home. Michael Brown could have walked away and not attacked a police officer. Breanna could have not been involved with drug dealers.

All of those killings could have been avoided and it had nothing to do with police. Nothing.

Same thing here. If you fight with police you are showing that you do not care for your life or the life of others. No rebuttals.

He fought with police. Was tased and walked away to a vehicle. He is a threat at this point. He is also a violent offender with warrants. Does that mean he deserves to die? No. It does however, again, let the police know this man will not go quietly and he is proving the point.

He is to blame for being shot. Just like Floyd is responsible for his own death. Stop blaming people for simply doing a job you wont.

edit on Augpm31pmf0000002020-08-28T13:14:23-05:000123 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash

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?


A lot of things are wrong with it.
But there are also positives.

One major flaw is that it automatically pits nation vs nation and leads to calamity quite often. It also drives to some unacceptable levels of pride and egotism, making it even more likely fights happen.

On the plus side though, a nation state is autonomous which has many benefits and drawbacks as well.

With autonomy the ppl in that state can chart their own destiny and live as they choose. The drawback of that is that it leads to conflict with other nations who have a problem with that autonomy.


So basically the Olympics.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

Although you make valid points it is overgeneralization.

What if I were in Nazi occupied France and I was revolting and shooting at the "police"?

Well you'd write books about me glorifying the French Resistance.

That's cuz the winners write the history. Had Germany won those resisting would be called evil terrorist scum that had no care for humanity. Murderers and anarchists.

That's the reality today anywhere though.

So it is important to recognize the ambiguity in ethics here.

Each attack has to be viewed in larger context. If police are being attacked for the right reasons well All is Fair in War.

If it's just some dumb criminal thug attacking legitimate peace officers than screw em he had no valid stance and I won't cry he's gone.

In the USA today it's like 99% of instances are dumb thugs and less than 1% are politically justified acts of war.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: galaga

originally posted by: muzzleflash

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?


A lot of things are wrong with it.
But there are also positives.

One major flaw is that it automatically pits nation vs nation and leads to calamity quite often. It also drives to some unacceptable levels of pride and egotism, making it even more likely fights happen.

On the plus side though, a nation state is autonomous which has many benefits and drawbacks as well.

With autonomy the ppl in that state can chart their own destiny and live as they choose. The drawback of that is that it leads to conflict with other nations who have a problem with that autonomy.


So basically the Olympics.


The Olympics with Nuclear weaponry.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
Trayvon could have walked home. Ahmaud Arbery could have jogged home. Michael Brown could have walked away and not attacked a police officer. Breanna could have not been involved with drug dealers.

All of those killings could have been avoided and it had nothing to do with police. Nothing.

Same thing here. If you fight with police you are showing that you do not care for your life or the life of others. No rebuttals.

He fought with police. Was tased and walked away to a vehicle. He is a threat at this point. He is also a violent offender with warrants. Does that mean he deserves to die? No. It does however, again, let the police know this man will not go quietly and he is proving the point.

He is to blame for being shot. Just like Floyd is responsible for his own death. Stop blaming people for simply doing a job you wont.


No offense, but this is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Damn.

I carry a .40 on the assumption that it has the greatest stopping power that I can reasonably carry. Not to mention its really easy to find rounds at a decent price.

Mine is only 6 in the mag...imagine an entire magazine of .40cal not being enough to keep you from being injured.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785




And this lowlife isn't worth all the mayhem HE has caused.


And there it is, what this is really all about for you.

For others, it isn't about some lowlife. It's about police conduct. The world is full of lowlifes, we don't go around publicly executing them by shooting them 7 times in the back with their children looking on.





Unless he's a dangerous felon with a knife threatening police? Yes. What kind of criminal do you have to be to do that with your kids watching, or did he think of them as his human shields?



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Seems pretty cold to be emptying your clip into someone's back while watching the bystanders as you fire off the 7th round without even looking at the target.

Reminds me of George Flloyd... the way that cop looked at the bystanders when kneeling on the guys neck...



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: face23785

It's always best to put SEVEN BULLETS into someone.

Just in case ONE is not enough.

Jesus Christ.




Sometimes one isn't enough.

Shoot until the threat stops.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ByteChanger

You mean the part where he looked up for a split second because one of the bystanders was coming up on him and then looked back at Blake?

Damn that lack of tunnel vision and ability to maintain situational awareness



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 02:13 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.


So that cop should have waited for him to reach into his car, grab a gun, turn around and squeeze off a couple shots of his own first? Only then would the cop be justified to shoot? BS!!!

Shooting someone in the back makes you a coward, does it? Maybe in most cases it does. But, you wanna know when it is justified? When you are in fear for your own life. Taking all the fact's into consideration, in that moment, that cop undoubtedly feared for his life.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: RKWWWW
I can only imagine how badly one shot to the back of a knee would hurt. It would blow it to pieces and thoroughly disable any future attempts to flee.



So you want to pay for the skill of trick shooting among the police? They need to be able to strike a moving knee moving in 3 dimensions of space while running, and not hit any other innocent people or property around it?

You do understand that the use of deadly force requires actually using deadly force, right? If a cop is going to pull his gun and fire, it best be because his life is in danger and the risk to the public surrounding him is worth it. Trick shot nonsense...that works great for Hollywood. In the real world, it just results in collateral damage while the suspect gets away.

Cops only manage to hit a body 35% of the time, nevermind a knee.

I think it's tragic this happened in front of his kids..why did he make this happen?, is what I'm left thinking.

Life can be confusing, but some things are pretty simple, today, with tensions high, police on edge..I cant see this ending any other way. He could of surrendered




top topics



 
65
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join