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

[JGalt]

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.

If they're trained to know what they're supposed to do, they would know that there's no such thing as a "warning shot". They were in the middle of a neighborhood. Where do you think the bullet from that "warning shot" would've gone?

From what I know about police marksmanship or the lack thereof, it would have been the warning shot that put that idiot in the grave instead of a wheelchair.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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

How about we train the fucking police?

Did I forget to mention that the course will be held after school hours and doesn't count as part of the credits you need to graduate but is required if you wish to ever receive a high school diploma or GED.

*****SMILE*****

 

[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?

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?

You take him down to the ground and arrest him. You don’t shoot him 7 times in the back... why is this complicated for you people to understand?

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

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?

You take him down to the ground and arrest him. You don’t shoot him 7 times in the back... why is this complicated for you people to understand?

You should be a cop in da ghetto and show us how its done

 

[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?

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?

You dont know that the officers were not in imminent danger.. You can not see what it is he is grabbing. this is a split second decision you have to make....

IF you wait to see what it is in this individual's hand, he can fire a weapon before you can make the mental decision to shoot. The man is a violent felon.. Decide! you have 1/5th of a second to make a decision!

 

[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?

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

And the 2 facts you laid out didn't say the cop couldn't shoot. In fact your only fact was he didn't have a gun. The rest is fluffy bullshit.

 

[dblack]

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

How about we train the fucking police?

View attachment 379777

Did I forget to mention that the course will be held after school hours and doesn't count as part of the credits you need to graduate but is required if you wish to ever receive a high school diploma or GED.

Sorta like the Nazi youth programs. Teaching them to obey. You guys have it all figured out.

 

[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?

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?

You take him down to the ground and arrest him. You don’t shoot him 7 times in the back... why is this complicated for you people to understand?

Already tried that. See George Floyd.

Next.

 

[JGalt]

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?

You take him down to the ground and arrest him. You don’t shoot him 7 times in the back... why is this complicated for you people to understand?

At least he'll get his own street mural.

 

[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?

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?

Here's the problem: The cop opened fire without the benefit of a ling of site to whatever he perceived as a threat. He was shooting blindly

To answer your question, I would wait until I saw something in his hand that could be perceived as a weapon, and then I'd open fire.

You don't have to like it, and you might not think it's right, but if a cop is going to unholster his sidearm and use it, he'd better damn sure have a compelling reason to do that. Given that there was no weapon found in the car, a compelling reason is going to be difficult to find...

 

[task0778]

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?

"Warning shots don't work and never work except to put other members of society in jeopardy."

If you say so. If you fire over the guy's head high enough then the bullet's velocity is going to be significantly less by the time it's starts coming back down to earth. My thought was that the bullet wouldn't be lethal at that point, and the chances of hitting someone would seem to be vanishingly small. I thought it might be worth a shot. That and a very loud primal scream, "STOP or I'll shoot you dead!" Might've got his attention.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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

Eight more rounds to empty the magazine so it's now fifteen rounds?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Canon Shooter]

Already tried that. See George Floyd.

Next.

So we dispense with established arrest protocols simply because they went south in one instance?

How stupid...

 

[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?

You take him down to the ground and arrest him. You don’t shoot him 7 times in the back... why is this complicated for you people to understand?

Ive been in this life and death decision a number of times. Fortunately for me I had officers with me to effect the arrest with a taser.

Your a fool and have no clue what is like to make split second decisions on limited information that can end someones or your own life. When you get into "Fight or Flight" and your adrenaline gets going, you can fire 7 rounds before you cognitively realize that you have fired your weapon. That is why we train officers monthly in these types of scenarios. Even seasoned officers sometimes can not tell you how many rounds they fired. I've done investigations where the officer recalls only firing once and they have spent 5-7 rounds.

 

[task0778]

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?

You take him down to the ground and arrest him. You don’t shoot him 7 times in the back... why is this complicated for you people to understand?

I think they tried that, and it didn't work.

I could be wrong, but I believe cops are trained that if you gotta shoot you should pretty much empty the gun.

 

[Canon Shooter]

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?

"Warning shots don't work and never work except to put other members of society in jeopardy."

If you say so. If you fire over the guy's head high enough then the bullet's velocity is going to be significantly less by the time it's starts coming back down to earth. My thought was that the bullet wouldn't be lethal at that point, and the chances of hitting someone would seem to be vanishingly small. I thought it might be worth a shot. That and a very loud primal scream, "STOP or I'll shoot you dead!" Might've got his attention.

Please, please, in the name of all that's holy, don't ever purchase a firearm. You're the type of person who shouldn't ever have one.

Here's some light reading on the topic for you:

 

[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?

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?

You take him down to the ground and arrest him. You don’t shoot him 7 times in the back... why is this complicated for you people to understand?

I think they tried that, and it didn't work.

I could be wrong, but I believe cops are trained that if you gotta shoot you should pretty much empty the gun.

No, they're not trained that way at all.

Seriously, where do you get your information? Yours are some of the most ridiculous and, frankly, ignorant posts in this thread...

 

[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?

You take him down to the ground and arrest him. You don’t shoot him 7 times in the back... why is this complicated for you people to understand?

You have never been in a fight for your very life, have you?

Its not so cut and dried as you would like to believe.

 

[Canon Shooter]

You dont know that the officers were not in imminent danger.

Sure I do.

There was no gun. No gun, no imminent danger. The cop may have believed he was in imminent danger, and he was wrong...

 

[airplanemechanic]

Can we all agree that had this violent sexual assault negro just calmly complied with the officers he'd be standing on his own two feet today?