ADVERTISEMENT

Thank you for asking the question Kornblut....

Status
Not open for further replies.
again i think ppl are missing the bigger picture. theres no doubt that resisting arrest is a crime. this phenomenon (resisting arrest) will continue til the end of time. there needs to be an answer to the bigger Q... what do you do with these ppl without killing them.
They have that. It's called a tazer. They used it and it didn't stop him. He escalated it to the next step. Would you rather they played around longer until he killed one of the cops? Or maybe even his own kids. He could have had a gun and started firing recklessly and harmed them or some other innocent bystanders.
 
I saw a man refusing orders from an officer of the law, reaching into a vehicle for something that the officer feared was a weapon. And an officer did what he had to do given the man was a known violent criminal with a current warrant for a violent crime. A man who had already fought with the police only seconds earlier. It’s a tragedy that could’ve been avoided by the victim simply doing what he was told. 100% on the victim for what happened.


/thread
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Gadfly
Calling a cop Barney Fife isn't sarcasm. Sure, it is a lame joke, but doesn't qualify as sarcasm. I was merely expounding on my knowledge of The Andy Griffith Show, while you defend the honor of a vile thug that would be a greater asset to society dead than alive.

So, in your opinion, even despite the location and proximity of his 3 kids, Jacob Blake deserved to be shot in the back, not once but 7 times, and Barney, the down-to-earth, innocent old fella and policeman did the right thing and deserves a promotion???

Talk about a "bad seed" now will ya!!

Tell me this: what if those 3 kids were your grandchildren or your nephews/nieces?? If such were the case, would you still be of the same opinion???

One more chance to sprout here now!! All BS aside, what say you??
 
So, in your opinion, even despite the location and proximity of his 3 kids, Jacob Blake deserved to be shot in the back, not once but 7 times, and Barney, the down-to-earth, innocent old fella and policeman did the right thing and deserves a promotion???

Talk about a "bad seed" now will ya!!

Tell me this: what if those 3 kids were your grandchildren or your nephews/nieces?? If such were the case, would you still be of the same opinion???

One more chance to sprout here now!! All BS aside, what say you??
Did you ever consider that Blake could have had a gun, (as far as the cop knew) and HE could have started shooting and hit one or more of his kids,(or some other innocent bystander)? This is the type of thing that the policeman has to consider in a situation like this. Blake had already shown a total disregard for his kids safety by taking them to a place where trouble was highly likely to happen, (there was a restraining order in place forbidding him to be near his girlfriend).
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Gadfly
So, in your opinion, even despite the location and proximity of his 3 kids, Jacob Blake deserved to be shot in the back, not once but 7 times, and Barney, the down-to-earth, innocent old fella and policeman did the right thing and deserves a promotion???

Talk about a "bad seed" now will ya!!

Tell me this: what if those 3 kids were your grandchildren or your nephews/nieces?? If such were the case, would you still be of the same opinion???

One more chance to sprout here now!! All BS aside, what say you??

Any danger faced by those children was a direct result of the criminal's behavior. And the criminal got slightly less than he deserved.
 
Did you ever consider that Blake could have had a gun, (as far as the cop knew) and HE could have started shooting and hit one or more of his kids,(or some other innocent bystander)? This is the type of thing that the policeman has to consider in a situation like this. Blake had already shown a total disregard for his kids safety by taking them to a place where trouble was highly likely to happen, (there was a restraining order in place forbidding him to be near his girlfriend).
Uh, yes. He didn't. He had a knife!! Not a pistol, shotgun, machine gun nor a spear or bow and arrow. Just a knife.

In regards to the safety of his kids, well unlike a few of you (lemme guess you're somehow involved in or close to law enforcement), Jacob Blake is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt! IOW's, he at least deserves every effort imaginable in regards to being safely detained, even with a knife in his hand, and even more so, his kids deserve ANY AND EVERY effort imaginable of a peaceful and safe detainment of their father, again even if he does have a knife in his hand and in no way threatening to harm his 3 kids in the slightest, I simply cannot see the justification in shooting Jacob Blake in the back SEVEN times while he's merely a few feet from his kids and the cop's gun pointed invt
 
again i think ppl are missing the bigger picture. theres no doubt that resisting arrest is a crime. this phenomenon (resisting arrest) will continue til the end of time. there needs to be an answer to the bigger Q... what do you do with these ppl without killing them.
What do you do when “these” people are trying to kill you?
 
This is the guy that has over 1,000,000 in a GoFundMe. What a time to be alive.

4d76oc.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tmac069
again i think ppl are missing the bigger picture. theres no doubt that resisting arrest is a crime. this phenomenon (resisting arrest) will continue til the end of time. there needs to be an answer to the bigger Q... what do you do with these ppl without killing them.

I would saytaser, but they tried that in this situation too.
 
again i think ppl are missing the bigger picture. theres no doubt that resisting arrest is a crime. this phenomenon (resisting arrest) will continue til the end of time. there needs to be an answer to the bigger Q... what do you do with these ppl without killing them.
He had already been tased 2 times.
 
Why don’t some of you law enforcement experts put on a uniform and show these guys how to do it? Maybe you guys with the “just tackle the guy, shoot him once or twice instead of seven times, give him a hug, just talk to him” advice can revolutionize how law enforcement does their job. Also, remember wait until the suspect goes in the car and finishes what he’s doing before you react. Don’t want to make any snap decisions, right? If he turns around and shoots and kills you it’s ok. I’m sure your family will be fine. Or, the kids in the back seat of the car (just like this incident) he just went into won’t mind getting their brains blown out because you waited on the perp to do his thing. So, many decisions, so little time.
 
It baffles and saddens me that people don’t give police the benefit of the doubt (not that it’s really needed here) when a criminal puts the officer in a split second life and death situation that the the criminal could have so easily avoided. And to top it off, making it a racial issue when if the races were reversed not a single person would see it differently, other than many people simply not caring if the perp was white.

The Jacob Blake incident is such a strange hill for the Democrats to die on. If they lose the election I think this will be one of the things that tips the scale.
 
Muschamp says the cop was wrong. That settles it for me then. Whatever.
Muschamp better focus his efforts towards coaching football and let these issues work out. He's got bigger fish to fry and it does not involve so called social justice issues. I didn't like his comments we don't need a multi million dollar social justice warrior. He and Dawn need to coach, that's what they are paid to do. Disappointed in Muschamp.
 
How come we never, ever hear anyone on the victim`s side - family, lawyers, politicians, etc. - encourage the public to cooperate and do what the police ask you to do? Whether it is stop, get out of the car, put your hands up/down, whatever. Almost every one of these situations would never have happened if they had just cooperated. No one - Biden, Obama, Lebron, whoever - ever says just follow whatever you are asked to do and cooperate with the authorities if they ask you to do or not to do something.
 
That seems like justification for the 7 shots in the back. I’m sure that was the proper response now.
You know, when a known violent guy has just fought with you, told you he's going to his car to get his weapon while youre not only ordering him to stop, youre puliing on him trying to keep him from getting there, and when he gets there anyway and reaches inside the vehicle, the VERY FIRST THING that goes through your mind is to count how many shots you fire so that they remain an acceptable number. Sheesh.

Tell your horsecrap to the widows and widowers of the 35 police officers killed by gunfire so far this year.
 
people are arguing 2 different things and will never find common ground. forget about warrants and number of shots etc etc. everyone agrees that jacob blake was at a fault to some degree.

real question is about excessive force. is there no other way to subdue a man nowadays without Death, i.e. tackling him, shooting him in the forearm, or inventing some sort of device which tranquilizes these individuals in such a way that precludes death. thats the question.
Yes there is. Its called compliance with the officer's commands. There is NO good outcome from not doing so.
 
We need to see the Cops bodycam footage. Three cops on the scene, two shoot tazers and miss. The third cop doesn't ever draw his tazer after the other 2 miss. He goes straight for his gun. We need to know why he didn't go for his tazer like the other cops. Clearly he could've tazeed the Suspect before he passed the driverside headlight at point blank range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gaimcock
Muschamp better focus his efforts towards coaching football and let these issues work out. He's got bigger fish to fry and it does not involve so called social justice issues. I didn't like his comments we don't need a multi million dollar social justice warrior. He and Dawn need to coach, that's what they are paid to do. Disappointed in Muschamp.
Totally agree. Muschamp should stick to coaching-or whatever you call it.
 
How come we never, ever hear anyone on the victim`s side - family, lawyers, politicians, etc. - encourage the public to cooperate and do what the police ask you to do? Whether it is stop, get out of the car, put your hands up/down, whatever. Almost every one of these situations would never have happened if they had just cooperated. No one - Biden, Obama, Lebron, whoever - ever says just follow whatever you are asked to do and cooperate with the authorities if they ask you to do or not to do something.
Because that would negatively affect the million dollar lawsuit they’re already putting into motion.
 
Here's my issue with cops using deadly force. Police have to be in an immediate threat of danger to use deadly force. If a cop has his gun drawn and a criminal is say five or ten feet more away with a knife in his hand that is not an immediate threat. There is still time to de-escalate the situation. Now if he charges at the officer he becomes an immediate threat and deadly force would be acceptable in my opinion. I think the same thing applies with a gun although the distance of an immediate threat would be different obviously because a gun can be deadly from a longer distance. But say someone has gun in his waistband. At that moment it's not an immediate threat but the second he reaches for it i believe it now becomes an immediate threat. But say cops arrive at a scene with a subject who has a weapon in his hand but its not directly aimed at someone. I still don't consider that an immediate threat. Now the second he moves that gun up like he's getting ready to aim and shoot, deadly force is certainly warranted. Of course the type of weapon matters too. If a suspect 8s holding a pistol by his side but its aimed toward the ground its not an immediate threat but if it's an AR-15 where the muzzle is aimed at an angle between the ground and perpendicular to the ground that's a more complicated determination of immediate threat. Now in the instance with the guy getting into his car, even if he says he's getting a weapon, he's not an immediate threat until the cops see a weapon in his hand and he makes a threatening move such as raising the gun to aim and fire.
 
Last edited:
Here's my issue with cops using deadly force. Police have to be in an immediate threat of danger to use deadly force. If a cop has his gun drawn and a criminal is say five or ten feet more away with a knife in his hand that is not an immediate threat. There is still time to de-escalate the situation. Now if he charges at the officer he becomes an immediate threat and deadly force would be acceptable in my opinion. I think the same thing applies with a gun although the distance of an immediate threat would be different obviously because a gun can be deadly from a longer distance. But say someone has gun in his waistband. At that moment it's not an immediate threat but the second he reaches for it i believe it now becomes an immediate threat. But say cops arrive at a scene with a subject who has a weapon in his hand but its not directly aimed at someone. I still don't consider that an immediate threat. Now the second he moves that gun up like he's getting ready to aim and shoot, deadly force is certainly warranted. Of course the type of weapon matters too. If a suspect 8s holding a pistol by his side but its aimed toward the ground its not an immediate threat but if it's an AR-15 where the muzzle is aimed at an angle between the ground and perpendicular to the ground that's a more complicated determination of immediate threat. Now in the instance with the guy getting into his car, even if he says he's getting a weapon, he's not an immediate threat until the cops see a weapon in his hand and he makes a threatening move such as raising the gun to aim and fire.
The problem is that a subject forcibly resisting arrest on an open felony charge apparently had a lethal weapon (a knife) either in his hand or was reaching for same after repeatedly being told not to. He had already been tased twice, without effect. I don’t know about that department’s lethal force policy, but in most places, the lethal force line would have ben crossed, making this a justified shooting. We have an independent agency (Wisconsin DOJ, roughly the equivalent of SLED) investigating. The sensible thing is not to rush to conclude anything until that investigation is complete, and we have all the relevant facts! Until then, everyone (both sides) is just speculating, based on incomplete information.
 
Yep, you saw that INSPITE OF THERE BEING 3 CHILDREN INSIDE THE SUV, the cop decided it was safer to shoot Jacob Blake 7 TIMES IN THE BACK, despite the fact that his (i.e. Jacob Blake's) 3 KIDS were merely a few feet from the target (i.e. Jacob Blake's spine).

So tell us, should the cop be held "accountable" for deciding to take those 7 shots despite the fact that 3 juveniles were only a few feet from his targets spine, or is it all Jacob's fault??

Further, had Jacob Blake known that the shooter cop was/is so gung-ho INSPITE of the necessary common since required as a responsibility of his position that the safety of the 3 juveniles in question were of no concern to him in the slightest (i.e. Barney Fife), would you opine that Mr. Blake would have even walked towards his 3 kids who were inside his SUV because he's just an old unaccountable hard core criminal??? Hail, no doubt that there's a concern in regards to a common sense issue, however the question is who's a fault for such in this case: Barney "shoot to kill" fife, or his target that he decided to fire his weapon at SEVEN TIMES in his back despite the 3 kids sitting in the car right where his gun was pointed????
The kids play no factor in this! Jacob Blake's dumbass put his children in danger not the cops! Start holding the thugs responsible instead of looking for a reason to hate cops! You people are so obvious!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT