Some fires did something (Kenosha WI)

[Highway Star]

Saw this live streamed last night:

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/ ... 9242743808
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/12 ... 1699404800

NPR considers this a "large protest" and "some fires burned".

They're having a......fire sale.......
..........YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHH

[Highway Star]

Some aftermath:

https://twitter.com/Stokum/status/1297889429588148225

[XtremeJibber2001]

No comments about Jacob Blake being shot in the back by police officers in front of his three kids? I suppose, like Breonna Taylor, it's just another justifiable homicide ...

[Highway Star]

No comments about Jacob Blake being shot in the back by police officers in front of his three kids? I suppose, like Breonna Taylor, it's just another justifiable homicide ...

Sure.

> 15 seconds of video of an event that happened less than 24 hours ago
> Blake not effected by taser / taser misdeployed
> Being yelled at to drop the knife
> Walks away from officers that have their guns drawn
> Attempts to enter car that can potentially be used as a deadly weapon
> Attempts to enter car with children that can possibly be used as hostages/human shields
> Attempts to enter car and potentially endanger children
> Attempts to enter car and potentially retrieve gun
> Prior record for multiple violent offenses, he wouldn't think twice about assaulting or shooting *you personally* if you made him mad

That said, Kenosha is clearly a lily white Chicago satellite city which keeps it's poor people tightly contained.

Justified shooting, bog standard policing.

EDIT: Here is the Jacob Blake complaint from May 3rd:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... plaint.pdf

[XtremeJibber2001]

No comments about Jacob Blake being shot in the back by police officers in front of his three kids? I suppose, like Breonna Taylor, it's just another justifiable homicide ...

Sure.

> 15 seconds of video of an event that happened less than 24 hours ago
> Blake not effected by taser / taser misdeployed
> Being yelled at to drop the knife
> Walks away from officers that have their guns drawn
> Attempts to enter car that can potentially be used as a deadly weapon
> Attempts to enter car with children that can possibly be used as hostages/human shields
> Attempts to enter car and potentially endanger children
> Attempts to enter car and potentially retrieve gun
> Prior record for multiple violent offenses, he wouldn't think twice about assaulting or shooting *you personally* if you made him mad

That said, Kenosha is clearly a lily white Chicago satellite city which keeps it's poor people tightly contained.

Justified shooting, bog standard policing.

My thought is three officers should be able to subdue an unarmed man without killing him. I mean the officer that killed him grabbed his shoulder and then his shirt (but not his body) which was an error by the officer, so then the officer kills him? The other officers were doing what exactly? Aiming their their guns against the man instead of assisting in subduing him I guess?

The man should have never made it to his car had the police done their job $02.

[easyrider16]

We need more facts, sure, but what we know so far looks very bad for the shooters. Hard to argue deadly force was necessary when shooting someone in the back.

There needs to be a sea change in how police are trained to use deadly force. It should only be deployed when there is an imminent threat of serious bodily harm to police or others in the area. The one thing most of these situations seem to have in common is that deadly force is being used when the imminent threat has passed or never manifested to being with. Someone running toward/entering a car that "might" be used as a weapon is really a pretty spurious argument for imminent threat of serious bodily harm. I mean if we took that as an imminent threat then police could shoot to kill anyone for just entering a car, which of course is absurd.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I mean if we took that as an imminent threat then police could shoot to kill anyone for just entering a car, which of course is absurd.

Well if an officer says don't get in your car and, you do anyway, clearly you deserve to die.

Also, if you answer your door legally armed because someone is knocking on it in the middle of the night, like Ryan Whitaker did, you also deserve to die.

[easyrider16]

The other issue that I think people need to understand is that police are not allowed to shoot someone for running away and/or not following an order. Here's what the Supreme Court said about it: “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

Obviously the details matter. A single officer responding to a scene alone is going to have much more justification for resorting to deadly force than an incident where the suspect is outnumbered by police, as was the case in Kenosha and many other similar cases.

[Highway Star]

Just a reminder that if you resist arrest, the police might not kill you, but you could end up maimed and paralyzed.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/bre ... story.html

[Highway Star]

The other issue that I think people need to understand is that police are not allowed to shoot someone for running away and/or not following an order. Here's what the Supreme Court said about it: “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

Obviously the details matter. A single officer responding to a scene alone is going to have much more justification for resorting to deadly force than an incident where the suspect is outnumbered by police, as was the case in Kenosha and many other similar cases.

LOL, you're funny.

Cops don't have to wait for the bad guys to pull out their gun and shot first. That's not how use of force works. This isn't f*** Star Wars you neckbeard.

[Highway Star]

There needs to be a sea change in how police are trained to use deadly force.

Agree completely. They should be allowed to shoot rioters.

[easyrider16]

Cops don't have to wait for the bad guys to pull out their gun and shot first. That's not how use force works. This isn't f*** Star Wars you neckbeard.

I guess we can put you into that group of people that don't seem to understand that police have to have an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm before using deadly force. Sure, police don't have to wait for the bad guy to shoot first, but they certainly can't shoot someone unless that someone is presenting an imminent threat. If the gun's still in his pocket, that's not an imminent threat. If he's running away, that's not an imminent threat. That's actually the law as it stands today, not just something I'd like to see implemented.

[Highway Star]

Cops don't have to wait for the bad guys to pull out their gun and shot first. That's not how use force works. This isn't f*** Star Wars you neckbeard.

I guess we can put you into that group of people that don't seem to understand that police have to have an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm before using deadly force. Sure, police don't have to wait for the bad guy to shoot first, but they certainly can't shoot someone unless that someone is presenting an imminent threat. If the gun's still in his pocket, that's not an imminent threat. If he's running away, that's not an imminent threat. That's actually the law as it stands today, not just something I'd like to see implemented.

You're straight up cumguzzling CNN.

Use of force is EXTREMELY clear and well documented. Clearly in this case the suspect was an imminent threat to the officers and bystanders. He could have easily pulled out a gun and started shooting. The officer was right to shoot when he did and likely saved lives.

[easyrider16]

Use of force is EXTREMELY clear and well documented. Clearly in this case the suspect was an imminent threat to the officers and bystanders. He could have easily pulled out a gun and started shooting. The officer was right to shoot when he did and likely saved lives.

Actually, I'm providing you with an accurate recitation of the law. I even cited a Supreme Court case up there. I note you have not cited to a single case or statute. I believe it is you who are falling prey to a media narrative, be it the right-wing side.

BTW, did the guy have a gun? From what I understand he was unarmed. Hard to argue he could have pulled out a gun if he in fact had no gun on him.

[Highway Star]

Use of force is EXTREMELY clear and well documented. Clearly in this case the suspect was an imminent threat to the officers and bystanders. He could have easily pulled out a gun and started shooting. The officer was right to shoot when he did and likely saved lives.

Actually, I'm providing you with an accurate recitation of the law. I even cited a Supreme Court case up there. I note you have not cited to a single case or statute. I believe it is you who are falling prey to a media narrative, be it the right-wing side.

Imagine being as stupid and dishonest as you are.

Primary Holding
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/