News conference on Thurman Blevins shooting taken over by protesters

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: FraggleRock

So it appears Blevins actually got a shot off at the pursuing officers.
Maybe that will help quell the anti-police crowd.
But I have my doubts.
"He didn't actually hit anyone". etc.
smh

He was simply firing rounds to make the gun lighter to carry while he was running. That’s not illegal. /s

originally posted by: MisterSpock
My favorite response to this incident I heard was from a local activist.

I believe he criticized the police for responding to a call about a man with a gun, shooting said gun, by saying they didn't need to shoot him by saying they could have "head him off at the pass", as the armed suspect ran from police, while failing to comply, while holding a firearm.......some people really are just that damn stupid.

Head him off at the pass.....what the hell is this? Some stupid direct to cable movie?

And these people know north Minneapolis is a #hole with several shootings a week.

F'in morons.

a reply to: Kharron

That is not how they are trained and here is why.. A wounded bear is more dangerous than just a bear heard that saying before well basically if someone is wounded like being shot in leg or arm they can still be a threat which is why when they shoot they shoot to kill. When I was a kid me and my idiot friends used a burned out house for begun war . My neighbor brought his brothers marlin 22 rifle and fired on my location hitting me in the forehead dead center right above my eyes from around 00 foot away . I threw my gun down stomped down the steps and I could feel bobs flying by me but I was going to kick his arse and all of them came out from where they were hiding and said Joe you've killed t.j. .I asked them what they were going off about they showed me in a broken mirror that I had blood running down my face and I had a headache like none I ever had before and I grabbed Joe and beat his arse and busted gun against a tree. But that's why cops shoot to kill because if you nearly wounded you can still be dangerous.

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: TheLead
They dont they are trained to to shoot center mass and eliminate the threat, this is for their safety and the general public.

Yet, somehow no one feels safer, do they?

DON'T SPEAK FOR ME

I feel safe ..

a reply to: jtrenthacker

It looks like he squeezed trigger after he got shot and was falling to the ground. I was on the cops side when I read the OP, but after watching the video it is clear the cop was going to kill this guy the moment he started chasing him it was not self defense. Although if I were on a Jury I would side with the cop because the perp did stupidly reached for the weapon, it's just that the cop made too many mistakes to escalate the situation. First off they didn't need to bum rush him while he was talking to that lady, it was a fight or flight situation and he ran possibly saving the women, child, and dog. Secondly why was he chasing him like that if he was so scared of the pistol, he should have kept his distance like the other officer did. Thirdly it must be hard following orders when the officer is yelling "I'M GOING TO SHOOT YOU MOTHER F*****".

a reply to: Jdubious

He shot at the cop before he was taken down, before the cop shot.

Honestly, the cop should have shot him as soon as Thurman pulled his gun.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I finally watched the video. It's obvious that he had a gun, obvious that he was fleeing from officers, and obvious that he was lying about not having a gun, and obvious that he didn't comply with the order to put the weapon down.

What isn't obvious is if the firearm was in his hand at the time of the shooting, but it certainly appears that, by the angle of his right arm right before the officers fire, that he may have been in the process of pulling it out or, at the very least, reaching for it. Judging by the fact that it was on the ground when he fell, I would assume that it was removed from his pocket or the holster.

I'll now go through the thread to see if anyone has any clearer images than just the video below:

Six-time felon with a record of assault against LE and conviction of possession of stolen weapon BEFORE this incident went down! Instead of busting LE chops about proper procedure, perhaps we'd all like to know why he's sitting on the curb with a bottle of gin and again in illegal possession of a firearm? And discharging the firearm in public??

This guy was given MULTIPLE chances to comply. Tell me when should an office shoot if not now? This guy is dead due to his own stupidity and bad choices.

Some people have to live in a whacked up alternate reality when something so cut and dry is shown and the criminal is still defended.

Im waiting for the day someone says the sky is blue and some people scream no its purple. Alternate realities people they gotta be real. Up is down, down is up, wrong is right, right is wrong etc etc

originally posted by: Kharron
When was the last time any of us read something like this -- The police office shot a suspect in the arm/leg, in order to disable them.

When was the last time that you researched in-depth analyses of encounters with armed individuals and the best way to handle them for your own safety and for the safety of others?

I'm guessing never...and judging by the following claims, I must assume that the idea has never crossed your mind.

Or stop them from running. How about a shot in the arse?

I don't remember the last time I read that.

How about the guy not shoot his pistol in the air while drunk, get the cops called on him, choose to run with a weapon on his person, and choose to ignore the commands of officers pursuing him? Howboudat?


You don't read about such a tactic because that's not the appropriate use of a firearm in such a scenario. If you would do a little research and maybe even take some training, you might begin to understand the "why" behind being unable to target to injure in any sort of an accurate way.

We shoot to kill, no questions asked. It seems the side effect of civilization is dehumanization.

Well, that can hold true on multiple facets, can it not? Civilians shoot other civilians all the time with intent to kill. Civilians also shoot at police officers with intent to kill before a police officer ever shows any sign of aggression (if they're not just ambushed). Are you pretending that shooting to kill is a one-way street only originating from LEOs to civilians?

I only saw one video of this incident, don't want to watch this again, but it did look like he was reaching for a weapon, so this is not as bad as some of the more overt assassination style videos we usually see.

We can agree that this appears to be a justified shooting, but I would sure love for you to give a list of what you consider to be instances of police 'overtly assassinating' civilians for no reason.

Seriously, I really want you to provide that list--if you do, I'll look at the instances and see if I agree or if, at the very least, the officer was protected by the laws of that state in his actions (which may not always be just).

But can't they have shot him in the shoulder? A leg?

No, and again, you'd do yourself well to do some in-depth research into the reasons behind training to shoot center mass.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: Whatthedoctorordered

You watched the body cam video. You say he pulled the gun on the officers, it looked to me like he pulled the gun out of his pocket to carry it better. Did you see him point the gun at the officers or anyone else at any time?

Ohhhhh, so that's it. The Police Officers should have just assumed he pulled his gun out so he could just carry it better and run faster away from them. That must be why the Police pulled THEIR guns out too, to run faster to catch him.

Thanks for explaining that.

I mean no one pulls a gun out to actually USE it.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
[

We can safely assume that Blevins wasn't the one doing the shooting earlier, otherwise the news reports would have specifically mentioned how many rounds had been fired from his gun.

Only people not interested in the truth jump to such conclusions and assume.

There was this one time that I fired my EDC pistol at a shooting range, then reloaded the magazine. Rounds still in a firearm do not dictate if the firearm was just used. The only thing that would answer that question would be GPR analysis of his hands. Do we know if that happened?

And the video I saw didn't show Blevins brandishing a gun. It showed his hand move towards the area of his gun as he was running.

Agreed that it doesn't show the firearm in his hand, but it also doesn't conclusively show it not in his hand, either. The fact that both officers felt the need to open fire simultaneously, and the gun was lying on the ground when the officers approached speaks to the probability that he had removed the firearm and had it in his hand.

Blevins crime was not obeying the orders of the police, which we know is a capitol offense in this country, subject to immediate execution.

Sure, but generally only if the order is to stop fleeing and to drop the firearm that you have, and you decide to keep running while reaching for and possibly removing it from the holster/pocket. He could have just stopped running, put his hands up like he should have, and allowed the officers to remove the pistol.

But, yes, I'm sure that it's just because he didn't obey commands and nothing more.

originally posted by: neo96
Shoot them in the leg,shoulder,arse!

Somebodies watched too many movies.

Maybe the cops should just shoot 'em in the trigger finger - yeah, that's the ticket!

I'm amazed at how many claiming law enforcement were in the right in this case also claim that LaVoy Finicum was wrongfully killed. In both cases you have someone that fled from the police, made moves that looked like they were reaching for a gun, and ignored directions from law enforcement. I wonder what possible difference there could be that makes one killing justified while the other is a tragedy.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

He was shot for 1 and 3. 2 is not illegal.

Prove that brandishing a weapon while in pursuit by police is not illegal, as if that specific point even matters.

See, here's the thing: Blevins had been convicted of 4th-degree assault (against a LEO, no less) before this incident, which means that it is illegal for him to possess a firearm--AT ALL--in the state of Minnesota. Carrying a firearm in public without a permit--a permit you cannot get when you have been convicted of prior violent offenses, like 4th-degree assault--is also a crime.

So, while you can nitpick this or that claim of people, you can also choose to easily research MN law concerning firearms and start gaining a better understanding as to all of the illegalities that Mr. Blevins willfully participated in leading up to the point where he chose to pull a firearm and turn toward police while he was running away from police telling him to stop, put the weapon down, and warned him that he'd shoot if he didn't stop.

You have flimsiest argument that I've ever seen, multiple people have called you on it, yet you're still here arguing.

What gives?

To me this particular video is pretty clear cut and dry what happened. Why on Earth would people protest this? There has to be another agenda at play. I refuse to believe that people are that dumb.

a reply to: Kharron
Then when wounded the suspect gains possession of the gun and now we have a wife without a husband and children without a father after he shoots the cop. I would rather see the piece of trash dead than an officer of the law. When an officer of the law says stop you STOP!!!! Blacks do not get a different interpretation of stop. They are not either above or below the law. The PC police can't spin this one.

He had his hand on his gun. Should they wait until he pulls it out and points at them? Maybe you would feel better if he killed one of them first? How long are they supposed to wait before they decide someone is gonna kill them?

This is another case of a gangster thug getting what he deserves. But nobody would dare tell you about the victims past because thats racist

a reply to: Kharron

Shooting a leg means you miss. You always shoot center mass and if you shoot your life should be in danger and you always shoot to kill. The idea of shooting a leg is from Hollywood not reality.

a reply to: Kharron

I feel safer every time a thug is put 6ft under.

I would not feel safer thinking police are trying to wing people making it likely bullets will miss and hit actual innocent people.

a reply to: Asktheanimals>>> I think the guy was just honestly stupid, probably drunk and stupid. That led to his death. BLM are a bunch of spoiled crybabies throwing tantrums wanting attention.