My question is, why didn't the taser work?

[progressive hunter]

That's what most witness reports said. No, I'm sure of much of anything, except the guy got shot in the back 7 times. I ain't saying it was justified or not, certainly we oughta wait for the official report before making any judgments.

In your estimation, what would justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

if he was reaching for a gun,,,

Well, even if he was reaching for a gun (which he wasn't, as there was no gun in the car) the cop wouldn't be in imminent danger until the guy turned around. I know, it sounds silly, but it is what it is. Think about it: If the guy grabs a gun and doesn't turn around and aim it at the cop, the cop's not in danger of being shot.

So. there was no gun, so Blake wasn't reaching for a gun.

What else, then, could possibly justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

youre kidding right???

 

[Carl in Michigan]

How about the biggest question IMO. Why shoot him 7 times in the back?! WTF

If he's moving inside that vehicle, he's still a threat.

 

[Canon Shooter]

That's what most witness reports said. No, I'm sure of much of anything, except the guy got shot in the back 7 times. I ain't saying it was justified or not, certainly we oughta wait for the official report before making any judgments.

In your estimation, what would justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

Ignoring cops with guns drawn on you, reaching into your vehicle for SOMETHING.
.Cops cant read minds. There was a perceived and real threat

BLACK BEHAVIOR MATTERS

What was the real threat? It sure the **** wasn't a gun, because Blake didn't have on.

Even still, thinking the the guy might be reaching for a gun is not justification for shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times...

 

[Canon Shooter]

That's what most witness reports said. No, I'm sure of much of anything, except the guy got shot in the back 7 times. I ain't saying it was justified or not, certainly we oughta wait for the official report before making any judgments.

In your estimation, what would justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

if he was reaching for a gun,,,

Well, even if he was reaching for a gun (which he wasn't, as there was no gun in the car) the cop wouldn't be in imminent danger until the guy turned around. I know, it sounds silly, but it is what it is. Think about it: If the guy grabs a gun and doesn't turn around and aim it at the cop, the cop's not in danger of being shot.

So. there was no gun, so Blake wasn't reaching for a gun.

What else, then, could possibly justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

youre kidding right???

No, not in the least.

You said that if Blake was reaching for a gun then shooting him in the back seven times would be justified.

Blake wasn't reaching for a gun.

You got anything else?

 

[Doc7505]

That's what most witness reports said. No, I'm sure of much of anything, except the guy got shot in the back 7 times. I ain't saying it was justified or not, certainly we oughta wait for the official report before making any judgments.

In your estimation, what would justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

if he was reaching for a gun,,,

Well, even if he was reaching for a gun (which he wasn't, as there was no gun in the car) the cop wouldn't be in imminent danger until the guy turned around. I know, it sounds silly, but it is what it is. Think about it: If the guy grabs a gun and doesn't turn around and aim it at the cop, the cop's not in danger of being shot.

So. there was no gun, so Blake wasn't reaching for a gun.

What else, then, could possibly justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

Great Monday morning quarterbacking.... If I rang your bell and ran to the other side of the car and reached in trying to grab something, I'm sure you'd be pulling the trigger too....

 

[Canon Shooter]

That's what most witness reports said. No, I'm sure of much of anything, except the guy got shot in the back 7 times. I ain't saying it was justified or not, certainly we oughta wait for the official report before making any judgments.

In your estimation, what would justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

Reaching into an SUV after resisting arrest.
BTW don't disrespect the name "Canon" they make excellent products.....

The inarguable facts of the case are these:

Blake didn't have a gun.

Blake was shot in the back seven times by a police officer who, given that Blake didn't have a gun, was in no imminent danger.

Those two components would have to exist for this to be a justified shooting...

 

[Slade3200]

How about the biggest question IMO. Why shoot him 7 times in the back?! WTF

If he's moving inside that vehicle, he's still a threat.

Then grab him and cuff him don’t shoot him 7 times in the back. I didnt see any reason to use leather force

 

[progressive hunter]

That's what most witness reports said. No, I'm sure of much of anything, except the guy got shot in the back 7 times. I ain't saying it was justified or not, certainly we oughta wait for the official report before making any judgments.

In your estimation, what would justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

if he was reaching for a gun,,,

Well, even if he was reaching for a gun (which he wasn't, as there was no gun in the car) the cop wouldn't be in imminent danger until the guy turned around. I know, it sounds silly, but it is what it is. Think about it: If the guy grabs a gun and doesn't turn around and aim it at the cop, the cop's not in danger of being shot.

So. there was no gun, so Blake wasn't reaching for a gun.

What else, then, could possibly justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

youre kidding right???

No, not in the least.

You said that if Blake was reaching for a gun then shooting him in the back seven times would be justified.

Blake wasn't reaching for a gun.

You got anything else?

I havent seen if there was a gun or wasnt,,got a link to a newer story??

how did the cop know the violent felon that just fought them and ran away wasnt reaching for a gun??

as for 7 times,,I think that was mostly adrenaline,,

 

[Canon Shooter]

That's what most witness reports said. No, I'm sure of much of anything, except the guy got shot in the back 7 times. I ain't saying it was justified or not, certainly we oughta wait for the official report before making any judgments.

In your estimation, what would justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

Ignoring cops with guns drawn on you, reaching into your vehicle for SOMETHING.
.Cops cant read minds. There was a perceived and real threat

BLACK BEHAVIOR MATTERS

No, there wasn't.

Look, I understand where everyone is coming from. I'm also going to guess that most here have never been trained in the use of deadly force or trained in the concepts of escalation of force.

The cop thinking that maybe the guy might be reaching into the car for a gun is an insufficient basis on which to open fire, not to mention to open fire into someone's back. In fact, the face that Blake was shot in the back demonstrates that he was not threatening the cop. Unless he was Annie ******* Oakley he was in no position to fire on the police officer...

 

[Canon Shooter]

That's what most witness reports said. No, I'm sure of much of anything, except the guy got shot in the back 7 times. I ain't saying it was justified or not, certainly we oughta wait for the official report before making any judgments.

In your estimation, what would justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

if he was reaching for a gun,,,

Well, even if he was reaching for a gun (which he wasn't, as there was no gun in the car) the cop wouldn't be in imminent danger until the guy turned around. I know, it sounds silly, but it is what it is. Think about it: If the guy grabs a gun and doesn't turn around and aim it at the cop, the cop's not in danger of being shot.

So. there was no gun, so Blake wasn't reaching for a gun.

What else, then, could possibly justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

youre kidding right???

No, not in the least.

You said that if Blake was reaching for a gun then shooting him in the back seven times would be justified.

Blake wasn't reaching for a gun.

You got anything else?

I havent seen if there was a gun or wasnt,,got a link to a newer story??

how did the cop know the violent felon that just fought them and ran away wasnt reaching for a gun??

as for 7 times,,I think that was mostly adrenaline,,

A cop can have his suspicions. That's healthy. But if he acts on those suspicions and he's wrong, he shoulders full responsibility for what happens...

 

[MarathonMike]

Was it fully charged? Did the cops miss with it? Did they taser him more than once? Did they only have one taser load to fire? Those things aren't that expensive, right? What about firing a warning shot over his head? Even in a small town like Kenosha, your cops have to have options. And the training to know what they're supposed to do. We don't know the details yet, but it appears to be a situation that escalated into something that shouldn't have happened, and most of the fault lies with Blake for strenuously resisting; which elevates the cops' assessment of the threat level.

Let's get the Cops something more effective and easy to use than those Goddamn Tasers.

 

[airplanemechanic]

That's what most witness reports said. No, I'm sure of much of anything, except the guy got shot in the back 7 times. I ain't saying it was justified or not, certainly we oughta wait for the official report before making any judgments.

In your estimation, what would justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

Reaching into an SUV after resisting arrest.
BTW don't disrespect the name "Canon" they make excellent products.....

The inarguable facts of the case are these:

Blake didn't have a gun.

Blake was shot in the back seven times by a police officer who, given that Blake didn't have a gun, was in no imminent danger.

Those two components would have to exist for this to be a justified shooting...

The inarguable facts of the case are:

1. Blake didn't follow instructions.

2. Blake was under arrest for sexual assault.

3. Blake took off running to a car and reached under the seat when told to stop.

Wanna keep playing?

 

[progressive hunter]

That's what most witness reports said. No, I'm sure of much of anything, except the guy got shot in the back 7 times. I ain't saying it was justified or not, certainly we oughta wait for the official report before making any judgments.

In your estimation, what would justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

if he was reaching for a gun,,,

Well, even if he was reaching for a gun (which he wasn't, as there was no gun in the car) the cop wouldn't be in imminent danger until the guy turned around. I know, it sounds silly, but it is what it is. Think about it: If the guy grabs a gun and doesn't turn around and aim it at the cop, the cop's not in danger of being shot.

So. there was no gun, so Blake wasn't reaching for a gun.

What else, then, could possibly justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

youre kidding right???

No, not in the least.

You said that if Blake was reaching for a gun then shooting him in the back seven times would be justified.

Blake wasn't reaching for a gun.

You got anything else?

I havent seen if there was a gun or wasnt,,got a link to a newer story??

how did the cop know the violent felon that just fought them and ran away wasnt reaching for a gun??

as for 7 times,,I think that was mostly adrenaline,,

A cop can have his suspicions. That's healthy. But if he acts on those suspicions and he's wrong, he shoulders full responsibility for what happens...

why do you keep leaving out the fact that blake just fought the cops and ran away???

but I guess youre right they should have waited until he shot them first,,, NOT!!!

 

[dblack]

Maybe what's needed is training for all the people that have encounters with police.

How about we train the ******* police?

 

[fncceo]

I didnt see any reason to use leather force

Leather force should only be used between consenting adults.

 

[progressive hunter]

Maybe what's needed is training for all the people that have encounters with police.

How about we train the ******* police?

most of the problems are not the cops but the idiots that think they stand a chance against them when they know they are in the wrong,,,

 

[Billy_Bob]

That's what most witness reports said. No, I'm sure of much of anything, except the guy got shot in the back 7 times. I ain't saying it was justified or not, certainly we oughta wait for the official report before making any judgments.

In your estimation, what would justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

Lets roll play for a moment...

You are the police officer. You have a violent felon who is wanted. You dont find this out until you and your fellow officers arrive at the scene of a domestic dispute where an assault has occurred. When you try to effect an arrest the subject resists violently and escapes your control. You pursue him and he gets the drop on you by opening a car door and reaching under the seat. You can not see what it is this individual is grabbing from under the seat.

What do you do? The man has ignored your verbal commands and fought violently to escape custody.

Do you wait to see what it is he has in his hands or do you act on the potential threat? You have exactly 1/5 of one second to make this decision. If he has a loaded gun you will be dead before you can react to what you have seen..

What would YOU DO?

 

[fbj]

That's what most witness reports said. No, I'm sure of much of anything, except the guy got shot in the back 7 times. I ain't saying it was justified or not, certainly we oughta wait for the official report before making any judgments.

In your estimation, what would justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

Reaching into an SUV after resisting arrest.
BTW don't disrespect the name "Canon" they make excellent products.....

The inarguable facts of the case are these:

Blake didn't have a gun.

Blake was shot in the back seven times by a police officer who, given that Blake didn't have a gun, was in no imminent danger.

Those two components would have to exist for this to be a justified shooting...

WHAT WAS THE THUG REACHING FOR?

 

[whitehall]

Warning shots don't work and never work except to put other members of society in jeopardy. The fact that these incidents seem to happen (only) in democrat run cities is suspect. What in the world could the Cops have been thinking?

 

[Slade3200]

That's what most witness reports said. No, I'm sure of much of anything, except the guy got shot in the back 7 times. I ain't saying it was justified or not, certainly we oughta wait for the official report before making any judgments.

In your estimation, what would justify shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times?

Reaching into an SUV after resisting arrest.
BTW don't disrespect the name "Canon" they make excellent products.....

The inarguable facts of the case are these:

Blake didn't have a gun.

Blake was shot in the back seven times by a police officer who, given that Blake didn't have a gun, was in no imminent danger.

Those two components would have to exist for this to be a justified shooting...

The inarguable facts of the case are:

1. Blake didn't follow instructions.

2. Blake was under arrest for sexual assault.

3. Blake took off running to a car and reached under the seat when told to stop.

Wanna keep playing?

I’ll play. the 3 “facts” you just laid out don’t justify 7 bullets in the mans back. Got anything else?