Jacob Blake was justifiably shot by police

I'm tired of watching neighborhoods and businesses get destroyed and countless lives being affected by violent riots and looting over the justified shooting a scumbag like Blake. Yeah, he's a scumbag. That has nothing to do with the color of his skin, it has to do with the content of his character. If you think of black people when you hear the word "scumbag," there's something wrong with YOU, not me. Just like when you hear the word "thug" you think of a black person. That means YOU'RE a racist, not me. So don't even come at me with that fake bull#. We need to stop justifying these bull# riots and destruction of innocent peoples' lives by pretending every black man who is shot by police is a victim. Black men are sometimes unjustifiably shot. This was not one of those times.

I was initially fooled by this incident like a lot of people were. It looked like an unjustified shooting to me. I fell for the media narrative that he was just a bystander at a domestic violence call and cops had drawn their weapons on him for no good reason and shot an unarmed black man unjustifiably as he peacefully tried to leave the scene.

ALL of that is now either definitively known to be or very likely to be FALSE.

We don't know for sure that Blake was a bystander of the incident about which police were called. Officials won't clarify that, so I won't draw any conclusions about that. That's neither here nor there. Whether he was involved or not, we now know that while police were responding to this call, they were alerted that Blake was present and he had outstanding felony and misdemeanor arrest warrants against him. THAT was why they engaged him. They didn't come after him because he was a black man. He wasn't "walking while black." They engaged him to place him under arrest for outstanding warrants for trespassing in his ex-girlfriend's residence, domestic abuse against said ex-girlfriend and rape of said ex-girlfriend.

They didn't pull their guns because he was a black man either. They pulled their guns because he resisted arrest and fought with the cops. They even attempted to tase him and it was ineffective.

He also doesn't appear to have been unarmed.

When I first saw this picture, courtesy of another member here yesterday, I figured it was photoshopped by some right-wing blogger or something. I went and watched the original video, and saw it for myself. It's real. As you can see in the picture, he was carrying what convincingly appears to be a rather nasty-looking knife, similar to this:

DOJ confirmed a knife was found on the floorboard of his vehicle after the shooting, likely dropped there once he was shot. That rather explains why in one video you can hear the cops screaming "Drop the knife!" So this violent felon pulled a knife on police officers. Further justification for having their guns out. If they were just racists looking for an excuse to shoot a black man, he would've been shot as soon as he pulled the knife. He wasn't. That narrative is busted. He wasn't shot until he attempted to get in the car. That changes two things:

1) The cop may have thought he was reaching for a weapon. Now, I've heard people complain "Oh, he was really going to reach for a weapon with cops pointing a gun at him?" Well, yeah, apparently. He already did that. He pulled a knife on cops armed with guns. You're also assuming we're dealing with a rational individual. We're not. A rational person doesn't resist arrest, fight with, and pull a knife on 3 cops armed with guns. So stop trying to assign rational thought to this individual's actions. As soon as he reached into the vehicle he became a threat. It's a justified shooting. Police are justified in shooting if they reasonably think their or anyone else's lives may be in danger. Cops don't need to wait until they see a gun or you turn around and slash them before they pull the trigger. Real life doesn't work like video games or Hollywood movies. Wanna see what happens when cops wait?

If you wait until you see a gun, you're already shot. Cops aren't required to wait until they're shot to shoot a suspect. And if you don't think the cops were in danger, the kids were:

2) There were kids in the car. I've seen this used as some kind of excuse why he shouldn't have been shot. The opposite is true. If he gets in that car and flees the scene, those kids are in danger. The original narrative is false. He was not peacefully fleeing the scene. At this point, he has violent felonies in his past and has committed more violent felonies at the scene. He's armed and dangerous. Letting him flee in a vehicle with kids is not an option. The kids and other civilians would be in danger if the police allow a violent, armed and dangerous felon to flee the scene. There isn't a person here who would, under these circumstances, allow this man to drive off in a car with your kids, would you? Knowing our leftist members, I can imagine one or two of them being brazen enough to lie and say they would, but most of you will just ignore that question, because the answer means the shooting is justified.

So what do we really have here? We have a violent felon who resisted arrest and was tased and then shot while armed and dangerous and attempting to flee the scene with kids in the car. The officers knew he was violent before they engaged him, because they were alerted that he had outstanding warrants for trespassing, domestic abuse and rape (the charge is 3rd degree sexual assault, which in Wisconsin is nonconsensual sexual intercourse—what we civilians call rape.) They further found out he was violent because he resisted arrest and fought with them when they attempted to take him into custody on his outstanding felony and misdemeanor arrest warrants. They're supposed to let an armed and dangerous felony suspect escape with kids? If this was a white man, there's not a one of you that would have a problem with the police shooting him to prevent that.

The cop who shot him will have no problem convincing a jury that he reasonably feared for his own safety and the safety of those kids. He has zero chance of being convicted if the local prosecutor is enough of a coward to charge him simply to placate the rioters--which never works by the way. And you'll have even more severe riots when he's acquitted.

Sorry, I'm not on the side of the violent, woman-beating rapist who was shot justifiably by police instead of letting this armed, violent wacko get into a car with kids and speed off. I'm just not. And this lowlife isn't worth all the mayhem HE has caused.

**I will make my usual prediction: when the left-wingers respond, it will be painfully obvious they haven't even read the OP**

ETA: Also, just learned, they attempted to tase him not once, but twice.

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

Done case closed.

No more threads. We get it.

If some could get any reasons to kill...

And in the instances where officers don’t shoot and the perp is caught?

How do we explain that

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

Well for one, deflated tires still roll, they simply make the vehicle more difficult to control. That would put the children at further risk if he tried to flee in a car with flat tires.

Putting one through the block is cool in the movies, but perhaps you could point to the precise spot on the car you would need to shoot to hit something under the hood that would disable the vehicle? Cops don't have x-ray vision. The hood was closed. And every vehicle is different under the hood. As far as I'm aware, cops aren't expertly trained on the under-the-hood layout of the mechanics of every vehicle on the road.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
Done case closed.

No more threads. We get it.

If some could get any reasons to kill...

And in the instances where officers don’t shoot?

How do we explain that

Completely unable to address any of the facts. Predictable.

Imagine you know he has warrants for domestic abuse and rape. You know he just committed additional violent felonies at the scene. He attempts to get into a car and flee with your kids. Are you okay with that? And if you're not okay with your kids being in danger, why are you okay with those black kids being in danger?

Go ahead and lie, I dare you. It's what you're good at. Tell us a whopper about how you'd let this violent felon flee the scene with your kids, that you would have zero concern for their safety. Do it.

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.

a reply to: face23785

If all these privileged people would enshrine messages like "Comply" or "Cooperate" then maybe others would start to get the point. Instead we have "pro" athletes that will paste these criminals names on helmets and jerseys as if that's really gonna do something. Janoris Jenkins, Saints Cornerback, had "JACOB BLAKE" across his helmet to show support for this guy. This, paired with the democrats standing down in every major city, emboldens these people to be stupid.

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.

a reply to: face23785

Actually when I hear the word thug I think thugee. That makes me think of India which makes me think of british colonialism which makes me think of samosa’s then pasties then the Jamaican Callaloo pattie, empanadas then American hand pie. Which gets me thinking about culinary school and why people think cooking or baking is difficult. People need more focus..... ahhh snap Im off topic again.

What you are missing is that cops have a #ty culture and it needs to be addressed. I believe that all police should require a bachelor’s degree. One can enter with an associates but a bachelors degree should be required after the first 4 years or something to that effect. More education, always. For everyone.

The police union can suck it too.

And because you are going to say Im not answering your question. If they had to shoot him seven times they were ill prepared. Granted 7 is a beautiful number but three is also a magnificent number as well. Shall we say “near” over kill.

Oh and seven times and you dont kill him either? Those cops suck on all fronts.

a reply to: face23785

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

Just in case ONE is not enough.

Jesus Christ.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
Done case closed.

No more threads. We get it.

If some could get any reasons to kill...

And in the instances where officers don’t shoot and the perp is caught?

How do we explain that

In the instances where officers don’t shoot and the perp is caught, one could reasonably assume the cops didn't think the perp was a danger to them or any nearby citizens.

a reply to: alldaylong

I recommend 8...

originally posted by: odzeandennz
Done case closed.

No more threads. We get it.

If some could get any reasons to kill...

And in the instances where officers don’t shoot and the perp is caught?

How do we explain that

No, obviously you don't get it.

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.

Also unable to address any of the facts of the case. No one was executed and the fact that he was shot in the back is irrelevant. I've seen a few of you make this false claim about how it's never acceptable to shoot someone in the back, under any circumstances.

A man is holding a gun to your kid's head. He's counting down from 3. At 1 he will shoot your child. You're behind him with a gun. You absolutely cannot shoot him correct? You will let your child die, because it's not acceptable to shoot someone in the back under any circumstances?

Of course not. That's a completely false and dishonest point. There is zero prohibition, either legally or morally, against shooting someone in the back if they pose a threat, which this lowlife did. And yes, I do think someone who raped his ex girlfriend a lowlife. It's rather telling that you will defend a rapist to advance a false political narrative.

The officer had his hand on him trying to restrain him. He lunged into his vehicle towards what he had already told officers was a knife. The only option is the shoot, or wait to be stabbed. To expect any human to allow someone to stab them out of some misguided police altruism is insane.

The people who have come out publicly, such as the governor of Wisconsin and sundry NBA players, to stoke the flames of racial divide in America on the back of this guy being shot are complete garbage humans. Im absolutely not shocked to see CCP bootlicker LeBron James chime in with his useless and ignorant opinion.

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.

You've never been in a life or death situation, have you...

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.

The number of shots fired is also irrelevant. Once deadly force is justified, 1 shot is assumed to be deadly. 7 shots are assumed to be deadly. It makes no difference either legally or morally.

Another nice try to dodge the issue.

Keep defending that rapist.

originally posted by: LSU2018

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.

You've never been in a life or death situation, have you...

The cop was retuning fire then ?

Must have missed that bit.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Because by the time they had shot the car the guy would have been able to get the gun he told them he had in the car, and put a lot more people in danger.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: odzeandennz
Done case closed.

No more threads. We get it.

If some could get any reasons to kill...

And in the instances where officers don’t shoot?

How do we explain that

Completely unable to address any of the facts. Predictable.

Imagine you know he has warrants for domestic abuse and rape. You know he just committed additional violent felonies at the scene. He attempts to get into a car and flee with your kids. Are you okay with that? And if you're not okay with your kids being in danger, why are you okay with those black kids being in danger?

Go ahead and lie, I dare you. It's what you're good at. Tell us a whopper about how you'd let this violent felon flee the scene with your kids, that you would have zero concern for their safety. Do it.

He had a weapon and retreating.

He already had the weapon if he brought his kids, he didn’t kill them then.

There are protocols for shooting someone right?

You mean you just want a remote reason to say it was ok to pop 7 bullets in the back.

You’ll say whatever you need to, and ask adhom questions all you want.

You’re ok with whatever window of opportunity to kill and get your patriot on

No clue how other police force deal with people running away