Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I got all the respect in the world for good cops who do a job that I would not be able to do. But I can also see when bad cops and poorly trained cops abuse their power which is what happened here in this case. ObviouslyYou should be a cop in da ghetto and show us how its doneYou 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?Lets roll play for a moment...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?
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?
BULL SHIT!the act of reaching into a vehicle places no one in imminent danger.
BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!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?
Thats right, he didn’t have a gun and was trying to get away. Nothing justified 7 bullets in his back. Keep trying though, what else can you spin up?I’ll play. the 3 “facts” you just laid out don’t justify 7 bullets in the mans back. Got anything else?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?
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.
Are you serious?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?Lets roll play for a moment...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?
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?
Already tried that. See George Floyd.
Next.
if he was reaching for a gun,,,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?
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?
Police never fire warning shots...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.
LOLYou 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?Lets roll play for a moment...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?
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?
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...
So we dispense with established arrest protocols simply because they went south in one instance?
How stupid...
Pretty much all center mass also... Nobody shoots to wound...Police never fire warning shots...
If an officers fight or flight causes them to shoot an unarmed citizen 7 times in the back then that officer is poorly trained, unfit for the job, or guilty of murder. It is an earned responsibility to wear a badge and to carry a gun to enforce our laws. Not everybody is cut out for it. Those who do the job right are hero’s in my eyes. Those who don’t are to be held responsible for their actions.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.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?Lets roll play for a moment...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?
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?
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.
I love arm chair fools... Try that from the officers perspective... You are not clairvoyant..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...
Failure Drill.... Two to the chest, one to the head.... Iv'e probably shot close to a million rounds over that 26 years....Pretty much all center mass also... Nobody shoots to wound...Police never fire warning shots...
If that’s the training the the training needs to be reformedYou 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?Lets roll play for a moment...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?
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?
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.
Again you miss the forest through the trees.... Its what led up to the weapons discharge... Violent felon, Domestic assault call, violently escapes custody, then trys to grab something the officers can not see from under the seat... The felon refuses verbal commands.. You have 1/5 of one second to make this decision, shoot or no shoot... And your fellow officers who were just assaulted are not in a position to help you... Decide! Your life depends on it!If an officers fight or flight causes them to shoot an unarmed citizen 7 times in the back then that officer is poorly trained, unfit for the job, or guilty of murder. It is an earned responsibility to wear a badge and to carry a gun to enforce our laws. Not everybody is cut out for it. Those who do the job right are hero’s in my eyes. Those who don’t are to be held responsible for their actions.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.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?Lets roll play for a moment...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?
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?
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.
If that’s the training the the training needs to be reformed
Its unclear if there was a weapon or not. I am still waiting for confirmation on what actually happened..Does anyone have a link that states there was no weapon in the vehicle? I cant find one.
Your making one hell of a wild ass assumption without facts.. You still dont know if there was a weapon or not.I got all the respect in the world for good cops who do a job that I would not be able to do. But I can also see when bad cops and poorly trained cops abuse their power which is what happened here in this case. ObviouslyYou should be a cop in da ghetto and show us how its doneYou 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?Lets roll play for a moment...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?
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?
The split second decision whether or not to shoot can be a difficult decision to make.I havent seen if there was a gun or wasnt,,got a link to a newer story??youre kidding right???if he was reaching for a gun,,,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?
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?
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?
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...
