I Call Upon All USMB Liberals To Answer This Question >>>

[protectionist]

Okay with that in mind, you want to stop them from reaching into the car in the first place, right? Now, using good police procedure (and common sense) you and your five buddies takes him down IN THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE and restrains him. When someone wants to kill me, I don't wait for them to go to their truck and get their gun to react. Fight or Flight happens long before they start dragging out the old Hogleg.

TRUE, but deflection off topic.

 

[Hum Dinger]

First, your premise is false. Blake was not involved in a serious crime.

Second, until an officer clear sees a weapon he has no authority to shoot anyone. Guessing that someone might have a weapon is not valid reason to shoot them.

Third, in America it has always been considered an act of EXTREME cowardice to shoot a man in the back. Obviously, when a person's back is to you, they are no threat.

Maybe someday you will post when you have a modicum of knowlkedge of the subject matter.

First, I have no "premise" about any "serious crime"

Second, you are absolutely wrong. Officers are trained in their police academies to shoot suspects whose hands disappear from view. They are REQUIRED to do that. There is no guess. Officers must shoot regardless of if a gun is present or not.

Third, Again, you are absolutely wrong. Shooting in the back has nothing to do with this. Shooting a suspect whose HANDS DISAPPEAR, is standard police procedure all over America. It makes no difference what the orientation of the suspect's body is to the officer. Any time suspect's hands disappear they are immediately a lethal threat. Period.

Also this has nothing to do with cowardice. This is police self-defense, not a duel.

First, your question DID assert a "serious crime":

"If YOU were a police officer, and you were questioning somebody about a serious crime, and he suddenly bolts away from you, and then reaches into a car, with his hands now not visible to you, what do you do ? "

Second, no police do not have the authority to shoot someone just because their hands disappear from view. The idea is ludicrous. You're saying that if someone puts their hands in their pockets, the police can shoot them?

Third, shooting someone in the back is an act of cowardice, and if the police are trained to do that then they're trained to be cowards.

The only time police shooting are justified is when the person is a definite threat to the police officer or someone else. Not when the cop guesses that the person might be a threat.

 

[protectionist]

Yeah that really worked well didn't it?

Any idiot knows you can't control a person by grabbing a tee shirt because they rip easily

He wasn't close enough to do anything more than that, and it happened quickly. Blame the schools.

 

[protectionist]

Shoot him in the back 8 times.

Correct answer.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

What weapon?

Doesn't matter if suspect has a weapon or not. Just the fact that the cop becomes unable to defend himself (when the suspect's hands disappear), requires him to shoot the suspect. That's the SOP, and it's correct. Otherwise you're having the cop gamble, with his life as the stakes, Not the way we do things in America.

All that matters is the PERCEPTION of the cop at the time. He was ignoring the cops and reached into his vehicle. The ONLY CONCLUSION is that he was reaching for a weapon

 

[Meister]

First, your premise is false. Blake was not involved in a serious crime.

Second, until an officer clear sees a weapon he has no authority to shoot anyone. Guessing that someone might have a weapon is not valid reason to shoot them.

Third, in America it has always been considered an act of EXTREME cowardice to shoot a man in the back. Obviously, when a person's back is to you, they are no threat.

Maybe someday you will post when you have a modicum of knowlkedge of the subject matter.

First, I have no "premise" about any "serious crime"

Second, you are absolutely wrong. Officers are trained in their police academies to shoot suspects whose hands disappear from view. They are REQUIRED to do that. There is no guess. Officers must shoot regardless of if a gun is present or not.

Third, Again, you are absolutely wrong. Shooting in the back has nothing to do with this. Shooting a suspect whose HANDS DISAPPEAR, is standard police procedure all over America. It makes no difference what the orientation of the suspect's body is to the officer. Any time suspect's hands disappear they are immediately a lethal threat. Period.

Also this has nothing to do with cowardice. This is police self-defense, not a duel.

First, your question DID assert a "serious crime":

"If YOU were a police officer, and you were questioning somebody about a serious crime, and he suddenly bolts away from you, and then reaches into a car, with his hands now not visible to you, what do you do ? "

Second, no police do not have the authority to shoot someone just because their hands disappear from view. The idea is ludicrous. You're saying that if someone puts their hands in their pockets, the police can shoot them?

Third, shooting someone in the back is an act of cowardice, and if the police are trained to do that then they're trained to be cowards.

The only time police shooting are justified is when the person is a definite threat to the police officer or someone else. Not when the cop guesses that the person might be a threat.

Well, you're making your argument using part of the actual facts, and leaving out some pertinent facts.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I would have taken him out of the vehicle and detained him.

Awesome question.

YOU'RE DEAD. In hundreds of cases, suspects shot while reaching into a car, were found to have a gun. If cop had not shot, suspect would have shot the cop in 1/2 second.

Someday our education system will be revamped, and these very important things will be taught.

How many cases do ”suspects” reach into their cars and don't have a gun? Do.you know?

 

[protectionist]

I am not dead. Nor would I be scared of a twit like that. The cop is going to jail because he has no balls

YOU ARE DEAD, because you said you would wait. WRONG. The reason why cops are required to shoot immediately, the instant suspect's hands disappear, is because they can turn and shoot you in 1/2 second, if you don't shoot them first.

This became standard procedure a long time ago, after many cops were shot when they WAITED......and HESITATED. When suspect's hands disappear, you have NO TIME to defend yourself. It is shoot, or be shot.

 

[kaz]

I don't know why the 2 cops didn't just take him to the ground and cuff him they certainly had plenty of time to

Plenty of time ? All within a 1/2 second, huh ?

There are many posts within this thread that answer your question.

You think that the video captured the entire event?

I keep asking people who say what you do that the cops could have taken the woman beater who ignored the court order to stay away from her down from behind while he raced to the car if they saw video that I didn't, but all of you have said no. Did you?

He didn't race anywhere. He purposely walked from the middle of the front of the vehicle to the drivers side door. When I worked as a Correctional Custody Officer, I had to do one takedown on a person attacking one of my Officers during a live training exercise. I was the Training Officer. This guy was FUGE. The problem isn't taking them down, it's keeping them down. One person can take another down quite easily if they know how. But it takes numbers to keep him down and restrain him if he really doesn't want to be restrained without getting anyone really hurt. You do that with numbers. And they had the numbers on the Cops side. Again, good police procedure would have been for them to take him down when he was still in front of the vehicle, get the restraints on him, and either leave him on the ground or, better yet, get him into the back seat of a Cruiser. Then sort things out. It's better to have to apologize for that if a mistake is made than have to be tried for shooting someone 7 times in the back.

You can justify anything but this is a clear cut case of extremely poor police procedure that should not be tolerated.

In a correctional facility, they wouldn't have shot you in the face like the woman beater who ignored the court order to stay away from her you're protecting if they had a gun

When the takedown should have happened, he was unarmed. In fact, he was unarmed when he was shot. Now, he may have been going for that knife or he may have been just trying to flee by driving away. We don't know. But he was unarmed at the time.

Here is the rest of my story. Our Military People were highly trained. The Person being indoctrinated (hopefully a life changing) attacked the person doing the indoctrinating. He was about 6'5" and about 250lbs. The Sgt was about 160lbs and 5'8". When the "Person" started the attack, the Sgt began warding off the blows, backing away (he knew there is safety in numbers) and all the while, he was advising that "Person" of his rights. The Sgt intentionally backed past me. I did the takedown and place the "Person" in a double wrist lock. The Sgt finished advising him of his rights and backed off. Well not before I had to order him to. The Sgt was pretty hot at that point but who can blame him. After I cooled off the "Individual" I stood up, allowed him to stand and placed him at parade rest facing the Building with 4 other Officers (we are all NCOs) also at Parade Rest behind him. It was my responsibility to control the situation as the senior member and I did exactly that. It stayed that way until the Security Police arrived and we turn him over to them. Last I heard, he was in for a Court Marshal and a long visit to an Army Prison even though we were Air Force. I am damned proud of the training that was received and it paid off. No one got hurt. And if you think that anyone that big can't really hurt someone, you have never been hit by a bruiser before.

I'll say it again, safe, good police procedure was NOT followed. And I would say that the Senior Police Officer on scene should be fired as well as the dude that pumped the 7 shots even if no charges are filed. And a complete review and revamping of training of the entire police force should be done.

You know he was unarmed. The cop behind him didn't know that. The cop did know he was a wanted felon, a woman beater and was ignoring a court order as well as there was a warrant out for him. At what point do you master the obvious that he was dangerous?

"Just the Facts, Maam, Just the Facts". And the facts are, if good police procedures had been used, he would have been restrained while he was in front of the vehicle when they knew he didn't have a weapon in his hands. There was already one weapon pointed at him at that point. Instead, the other cops stood there with their thumbs up their asses. I am not defending the "Individual" I am saying that proper training and proper police procedure being followed would have prevented any of this.

So if you saw a video where they were in a position to do that then why aren't you sharing it?

I think you're making it up

 

[Hum Dinger]

Firing 7 shots into their backs is a pretty good indicator. Any other stupid questions?

It wasn't a stupid question, but your answer sure was. Firing 7 shots into their backs is not an "indicator" of anything other than the standard police procedure, long go established to protect police from being shot by suspects whose hands disappear from the vies of the officer(s).

Another "indicator" here is the pitiful ignorance of liberals, regarding guns and law enforcement, and the pathetic failure of our liberal MISeducation system to inform these poor souls of critical information.

Rarely have I seen so much ignorance in a single thread. In 7 years in this forum, I think this thread sets a record.

Never before have I seen such a stupid OP.

If what you say is true, then the Police need EXTREME retraining, reform and possibly defunding.

WE TAX PAYERS ARE NOT PAYING THE POLICE TO MURDER US FOR WHATEVER LAME EXCUSE THE POLICE THINK UP!!!!

 

[kaz]

I don't know why the 2 cops didn't just take him to the ground and cuff him they certainly had plenty of time to

Plenty of time ? All within a 1/2 second, huh ?

There are many posts within this thread that answer your question.

You think that the video captured the entire event?

I keep asking people who say what you do that the cops could have taken the woman beater who ignored the court order to stay away from her down from behind while he raced to the car if they saw video that I didn't, but all of you have said no. Did you?

He wasn't "racing" he was walking and the cops were right next to him the entire time.

The woman beater who ignored the court order to stay away from her you're defending was clearly walking to get to the car door.

Do it. Grab a dangerous guy from behind safely. Try it and report back

There were 2 cops there and one perp. Not only were there 2 cops but both of them were close enough to touch the perp. Why let him WALK around his car from the passenger side to the driver's side and then open the door?

So are you saying that 2 cops can't take down one guy?

And FYI tacking a guy from behind is one of the easiest ways to put someone on the ground

So still not clear. Are you talking about the two cops who took down the guy in Atlanta who wrestled him until he grabbed one of their tasers and shot at them?

No wait, you're talking about 2 cops in Wisconsin.

Can two cops take a guy down? Yes. Restrain him? Not so easily.

Again, Blake had the choice yet you blame the cops. Stupid shit you're peddling. And the guy was a woman beater, felon and was wanted and had violated the woman he beat's restraining order.

But you just blame the cops. Of course you do

 

[kaz]

I don't know why the 2 cops didn't just take him to the ground and cuff him they certainly had plenty of time to

Plenty of time ? All within a 1/2 second, huh ?

There are many posts within this thread that answer your question.

It didn’t take 1/2 a second to walk around the car, you forget we can all see the video

and the video only shows a portion of the entire event

Right, but again you're the one claiming that the cops could have taken the woman beater who ignored the court order to stay away from her down. Where is the video showing that?

So you don't think 2 cops could put one guy on the ground?

And FYI I already acknowledged that the guy had warrants and was not obeying lawful orders by the police.

The question is why didn't they take him to the ground and cuff him instead of letting him open the door of his car and reach in?

Because it's DANGEROUS. They had a poor angle and position and would have had to grab him from behind moving away from them. How do you people never put things together. What happened in Atlanta when that happened? Two cops got in a wrestling match. He grabbed a taser and shot it at them.

Also, being shot with a taser and not being affected is correlated with being on drugs, which makes him more dangerous.

This thing that they only needed to tackle him while reaching out from behind is flat our retarded.

WHAT HAPPENED IN ATLANTA? Seriously, you think they just wrestle him for a trophy or something?

Blake would have walked away and so would the cops if he OBEYED them. If he had a gripe, then take it up later

It's not more dangerous than letting a person open his car door and reach inside for a weapon.

He was unarmed outside of the car.

And the cops get paid to do a dangerous job so that is not an excuse

Right, they are paid to do a dangerous job. They aren't paid to let themselves be killed as you advocate.

Blake had a choice. The cops didn't. You can't run from that

 

[esalla]

I am not dead. Nor would I be scared of a twit like that. The cop is going to jail because he has no balls

YOU ARE DEAD, because you said you would wait. WRONG. The reason why cops are required to shoot immediately, the instant suspect's hands disappear, is because they can turn and shoot you in 1/2 second, if you don't shoot them first.

This became standard procedure a long time ago, after many cops were shot when they WAITED......and HESITATED. When suspect's hands disappear, you have NO TIME to defend yourself. It is shoot, or be shot.

You are a scared pussy, how would a man with a knife be able to kill a real man (not you) with a knife when the other man is holding a drawn weapon at point blank range.

This cop is toast, he is as dumb as you

 

[Hum Dinger]

First, your premise is false. Blake was not involved in a serious crime.

Second, until an officer clear sees a weapon he has no authority to shoot anyone. Guessing that someone might have a weapon is not valid reason to shoot them.

Third, in America it has always been considered an act of EXTREME cowardice to shoot a man in the back. Obviously, when a person's back is to you, they are no threat.

Maybe someday you will post when you have a modicum of knowlkedge of the subject matter.

First, I have no "premise" about any "serious crime"

Second, you are absolutely wrong. Officers are trained in their police academies to shoot suspects whose hands disappear from view. They are REQUIRED to do that. There is no guess. Officers must shoot regardless of if a gun is present or not.

Third, Again, you are absolutely wrong. Shooting in the back has nothing to do with this. Shooting a suspect whose HANDS DISAPPEAR, is standard police procedure all over America. It makes no difference what the orientation of the suspect's body is to the officer. Any time suspect's hands disappear they are immediately a lethal threat. Period.

Also this has nothing to do with cowardice. This is police self-defense, not a duel.

First, your question DID assert a "serious crime":

"If YOU were a police officer, and you were questioning somebody about a serious crime, and he suddenly bolts away from you, and then reaches into a car, with his hands now not visible to you, what do you do ? "

Second, no police do not have the authority to shoot someone just because their hands disappear from view. The idea is ludicrous. You're saying that if someone puts their hands in their pockets, the police can shoot them?

Third, shooting someone in the back is an act of cowardice, and if the police are trained to do that then they're trained to be cowards.

The only time police shooting are justified is when the person is a definite threat to the police officer or someone else. Not when the cop guesses that the person might be a threat.

Well, you're making your argument using part of the actual facts, and leaving out some pertinent facts.

What facts are those?

 

[protectionist]

I already told you how I would handle it being the senior police officer on site. And, again, good police procedure would have prevented it from happening as it did. You keep dancing around that fact.

That wasn't the question.
And I am not dancing around anything. YOU are whose is dancing around the question of the OP and the TOPIC of this thread, which is >> "with his hands now not visible to you, what do you do ?" This is referring to the reaching into the car, not walking alongside it.

And I don't recall you ever answering the question.

 

[kaz]

I don't know why the 2 cops didn't just take him to the ground and cuff him they certainly had plenty of time to

Plenty of time ? All within a 1/2 second, huh ?

There are many posts within this thread that answer your question.

You think that the video captured the entire event?

I keep asking people who say what you do that the cops could have taken the woman beater who ignored the court order to stay away from her down from behind while he raced to the car if they saw video that I didn't, but all of you have said no. Did you?

He wasn't "racing" he was walking and the cops were right next to him the entire time.

The woman beater who ignored the court order to stay away from her you're defending was clearly walking to get to the car door.

Do it. Grab a dangerous guy from behind safely. Try it and report back

There were 2 cops there and one perp. Not only were there 2 cops but both of them were close enough to touch the perp. Why let him WALK around his car from the passenger side to the driver's side and then open the door?

So are you saying that 2 cops can't take down one guy?

And FYI tacking a guy from behind is one of the easiest ways to put someone on the ground

That is exactly right. Did you Atlanta and the shooting there? One drunk guy overpowered two cops. Need better h2h training.

It's hard to restrain a guy fighting back. Both were on drugs and both had walked through a taser. They were amped up

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I am not dead. Nor would I be scared of a twit like that. The cop is going to jail because he has no balls

YOU ARE DEAD, because you said you would wait. WRONG. The reason why cops are required to shoot immediately, the instant suspect's hands disappear, is because they can turn and shoot you in 1/2 second, if you don't shoot them first.

This became standard procedure a long time ago, after many cops were shot when they WAITED......and HESITATED. When suspect's hands disappear, you have NO TIME to defend yourself. It is shoot, or be shot.

You are a scared pussy, how would a man with a knife be able to kill a real man (not you) with a knife when the other man is holding a drawn weapon at point blank range.

This cop is toast, he is as dumb as you

Cop didn’t know it was a knife he was reaching for.

 

[kaz]

I don't know why the 2 cops didn't just take him to the ground and cuff him they certainly had plenty of time to

Plenty of time ? All within a 1/2 second, huh ?

There are many posts within this thread that answer your question.

You think that the video captured the entire event?

I keep asking people who say what you do that the cops could have taken the woman beater who ignored the court order to stay away from her down from behind while he raced to the car if they saw video that I didn't, but all of you have said no. Did you?

Raced to the car? Can you point out the section of the video where he “raced to the car.“ Let me know the time code where he did anything but walk and I’ll check it out

He walked briskly. If the officers were trained in H2H combat they would not have had to draw their weapons. Also, why send a woman officer there? Makes no sense.

That made me laugh out loud. Thank you.
1. He didn’t walk briskly, he walked, watch the video
2. You really think cops with guns aren’t trained to apprehend and arrest subjects?! Are you serious?
3. Why not send a woman officer? Don’t be a dick

You're just word parsing and bickering now, you couldn't be more clear you have nothing

No I’m it word parsing I’m calling out the BS spin you all are trying to use to justify this shooting. THERES A VIDEO WE CAN ALL SEE WHAT HAPPENED!! Stop lying about what happened. You said he “raced to the car” that’s a straight up lie. He clearly walked

Right, there's a video. Yet you keep contradicting the video as if we didn't see it and we don't know you're lying. The cops were behind him.

Blake had a choice. The cops didn't. You can't hide from that

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I don't know why the 2 cops didn't just take him to the ground and cuff him they certainly had plenty of time to

Plenty of time ? All within a 1/2 second, huh ?

There are many posts within this thread that answer your question.

You think that the video captured the entire event?

I keep asking people who say what you do that the cops could have taken the woman beater who ignored the court order to stay away from her down from behind while he raced to the car if they saw video that I didn't, but all of you have said no. Did you?

Raced to the car? Can you point out the section of the video where he “raced to the car.“ Let me know the time code where he did anything but walk and I’ll check it out

He walked briskly. If the officers were trained in H2H combat they would not have had to draw their weapons. Also, why send a woman officer there? Makes no sense.

That made me laugh out loud. Thank you.
1. He didn’t walk briskly, he walked, watch the video
2. You really think cops with guns aren’t trained to apprehend and arrest subjects?! Are you serious?
3. Why not send a woman officer? Don’t be a dick

You're just word parsing and bickering now, you couldn't be more clear you have nothing

No I’m it word parsing I’m calling out the BS spin you all are trying to use to justify this shooting. THERES A VIDEO WE CAN ALL SEE WHAT HAPPENED!! Stop lying about what happened. You said he “raced to the car” that’s a straight up lie. He clearly walked

What would you have done if you were one of the cops?

 

[Meister]

First, your premise is false. Blake was not involved in a serious crime.

Second, until an officer clear sees a weapon he has no authority to shoot anyone. Guessing that someone might have a weapon is not valid reason to shoot them.

Third, in America it has always been considered an act of EXTREME cowardice to shoot a man in the back. Obviously, when a person's back is to you, they are no threat.

Maybe someday you will post when you have a modicum of knowlkedge of the subject matter.

First, I have no "premise" about any "serious crime"

Second, you are absolutely wrong. Officers are trained in their police academies to shoot suspects whose hands disappear from view. They are REQUIRED to do that. There is no guess. Officers must shoot regardless of if a gun is present or not.

Third, Again, you are absolutely wrong. Shooting in the back has nothing to do with this. Shooting a suspect whose HANDS DISAPPEAR, is standard police procedure all over America. It makes no difference what the orientation of the suspect's body is to the officer. Any time suspect's hands disappear they are immediately a lethal threat. Period.

Also this has nothing to do with cowardice. This is police self-defense, not a duel.

First, your question DID assert a "serious crime":

"If YOU were a police officer, and you were questioning somebody about a serious crime, and he suddenly bolts away from you, and then reaches into a car, with his hands now not visible to you, what do you do ? "

Second, no police do not have the authority to shoot someone just because their hands disappear from view. The idea is ludicrous. You're saying that if someone puts their hands in their pockets, the police can shoot them?

Third, shooting someone in the back is an act of cowardice, and if the police are trained to do that then they're trained to be cowards.

The only time police shooting are justified is when the person is a definite threat to the police officer or someone else. Not when the cop guesses that the person might be a threat.

Well, you're making your argument using part of the actual facts, and leaving out some pertinent facts.

What facts are those?

I'm not here to do your homework, skippy. Go back and review the facts, look at your post, and see what you left out.