Some fires did something (Kenosha WI)

[XtremeJibber2001]

This photo to me is really telling. Here you have two men, armed to protect themselves against one another, but here they see each others humanity. It’s too bad it takes something like this to actually see the other person.

3D42295B-A32C-4384-9597-1ECE35DB4A91.jpeg (46.49 KiB) Viewed 1055 times

[Highway Star]

This photo to me is really telling. Here you have two men, armed to protect themselves against one another, but here they see each others humanity. It’s too bad it takes something like this to actually see the other person.

3D42295B-A32C-4384-9597-1ECE35DB4A91.jpeg

Is that the felon with the illegal handgun that came inches from blowing Kyle's head off?

[Highway Star]

Here is the Jacob "Digital" Blake criminal complaint/warrant from May 3rd that officers were made aware of when responding to the incident that resulted in the shooting:

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

Yikes.

[Highway Star]

Wow you shitbirds sure are quiet today. Still waiting on orders from the DNC? Or maybe just feeling a bit assblasted?

[easyrider16]

You've really not provided much reason for further comment.

Here is the Jacob "Digital" Blake criminal complaint/warrant from May 3rd that officers were made aware of when responding to the incident that resulted in the shooting:

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

Yikes.

None of the above is relevant to the issue as to whether the police had cause to use deadly force. To answer that question, we need more details about the incident that led to the shooting. We now have information that a knife was recovered from the vehicle. Did Blake have that knife in his hand at any point? Did police know the knife was there? Did anyone see Blake brandishing it in a threating manner? In short, did police have reason to believe he was about to use a knife to harm someone? If the answer is no, deadly force was not justified.

Just watching the video, the police officer grabs Blake's shirt while his back is turned. There is no indication that he had a knife in his hand or that he was about to use one. The police officer then shoots him in the back seven times at very close range. It looked to me like the officer was trying to prevent Blake's escape, not protect himself or anyone else. I realize the video may not tell the whole story, but the story it does tell does not justify the use of deadly force. We need more facts.

[Mister Moose]

None of the above is relevant to the issue as to whether the police had cause to use deadly force. To answer that question, we need more details about the incident that led to the shooting. We now have information that a knife was recovered from the vehicle. Did Blake have that knife in his hand at any point? Did police know the knife was there? Did anyone see Blake brandishing it in a threating manner? In short, did police have reason to believe he was about to use a knife to harm someone? If the answer is no, deadly force was not justified.

Just watching the video, the police officer grabs Blake's shirt while his back is turned. There is no indication that he had a knife in his hand or that he was about to use one. The police officer then shoots him in the back seven times at very close range. It looked to me like the officer was trying to prevent Blake's escape, not protect himself or anyone else. I realize the video may not tell the whole story, but the story it does tell does not justify the use of deadly force. We need more facts.

I haven't read the Wisconsin Police Use of Deadly Force manual, but I think you're wrong. If a cop in close proximity to a suspect he feels is or may be a threat, any sudden movement toward a pocket or a storage area (aka a car) could be deadly for the cop. They are trained on the limit of their reaction time and on the speed of neutralizing a threat with bullets. Just because a wound is fatal doesn't mean you die instantly. If the suspect disobeys a verbal command and proceeds with a threatening motion, things go downhill in a hurry. I don't have the number handy,(feel free to google it) but there is a number of feet within which a knife can be deadly even if you are armed with a gun.

Also, no cop I've talked to says you just shoot one bullet when threatened sufficiently to draw a sidearm.

[easyrider16]

What police manuals say is irrelevant on this issue. It's a matter of what the law says. This is a Constitutional issue. Police manuals can be unconstitutional.

As I said above, I agree that if the use of deadly force is justified, the officer should empty the clip and ensure the suspect is neutralized. But before that awesome power is exercised, there must be adequate justification- i.e. someone's life is in danger. The officer needs more than strong suspicion for that. They need facts. Reaching for a pocket without knowing what's in the pocket isn't enough. Reaching for something in a car without knowing what that something is isn't enough. Even "he had a gun" isn't really enough in some circumstances, i.e. if he was standing still pointing the gun at the ground.

Your comment about reaction time is interesting. I think part of the problem with many of these shootings is that police are reacting way too fast to a perceived threat instead of being more circumspect. Police need to think before they act, not just react. I understand many will say that the officer should react fast to neutralize the threat and err on the side of protecting themselves, but that's not how I see it. Police are not soldiers. They are not there to neutralize threats. They are there to protect and serve citizens.

[XtremeJibber2001]

What police manuals say is irrelevant on this issue. It's a matter of what the law says. This is a Constitutional issue. Police manuals can be unconstitutional.

As I said above, I agree that if the use of deadly force is justified, the officer should empty the clip and ensure the suspect is neutralized. But before that awesome power is exercised, there must be adequate justification- i.e. someone's life is in danger. The officer needs more than strong suspicion for that. They need facts. Reaching for a pocket without knowing what's in the pocket isn't enough. Reaching for something in a car without knowing what that something is isn't enough. Even "he had a gun" isn't really enough in some circumstances, i.e. if he was standing still pointing the gun at the ground.

Your comment about reaction time is interesting. I think part of the problem with many of these shootings is that police are reacting way too fast to a perceived threat instead of being more circumspect. Police need to think before they act, not just react. I understand many will say that the officer should react fast to neutralize the threat and err on the side of protecting themselves, but that's not how I see it. Police are not soldiers. They are not there to neutralize threats. They are there to protect and serve citizens.

US military in Iraq had tougher rules of engagement, where I'd argue the rules should be more relaxed given its a war zone, than the police do today.

[Highway Star]

What police manuals say is irrelevant on this issue. It's a matter of what the law says. This is a Constitutional issue. Police manuals can be unconstitutional.

As I said above, I agree that if the use of deadly force is justified, the officer should empty the clip and ensure the suspect is neutralized. But before that awesome power is exercised, there must be adequate justification- i.e. someone's life is in danger. The officer needs more than strong suspicion for that. They need facts. Reaching for a pocket without knowing what's in the pocket isn't enough. Reaching for something in a car without knowing what that something is isn't enough. Even "he had a gun" isn't really enough in some circumstances, i.e. if he was standing still pointing the gun at the ground.

Your comment about reaction time is interesting. I think part of the problem with many of these shootings is that police are reacting way too fast to a perceived threat instead of being more circumspect. Police need to think before they act, not just react. I understand many will say that the officer should react fast to neutralize the threat and err on the side of protecting themselves, but that's not how I see it. Police are not soldiers. They are not there to neutralize threats. They are there to protect and serve citizens.

You and your family are going to be killed by criminals one day and your delusions will be the cause of it.

[Highway Star]

This should be helpful for some people:

[Highway Star]

Dragging happens more often than you would think.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/maryland-tro ... ct-dragged

[Highway Star]

[Mister Moose]

What police manuals say is irrelevant on this issue. It's a matter of what the law says. This is a Constitutional issue. Police manuals can be unconstitutional.

Huh. Which section of the Constitution covers municipal police forces?

As I said above, I agree that if the use of deadly force is justified, the officer should empty the clip and ensure the suspect is neutralized. But before that awesome power is exercised, there must be adequate justification- i.e. someone's life is in danger. The officer needs more than strong suspicion for that. They need facts. Reaching for a pocket without knowing what's in the pocket isn't enough. Reaching for something in a car without knowing what that something is isn't enough.

Wrong. If the officer believes you to be a potential threat, and you do not follow commands, and you make a sudden move with your hand towards a storage area, you are wrong.

Your comment about reaction time is interesting. I think part of the problem with many of these shootings is that police are reacting way too fast to a perceived threat instead of being more circumspect. Police need to think before they act, not just react. I understand many will say that the officer should react fast to neutralize the threat and err on the side of protecting themselves, but that's not how I see it. Police are not soldiers. They are not there to neutralize threats. They are there to protect and serve citizens.

You don't understand, you don't know what you're talking about at all.

If you wait to see and ID the gun that has been reached for, you lose if it's a gun rising towards aiming at you.

In situations like that, when the hand goes to the pocket, the mind will slow down. Deer in the headlights. It may only last 2 seconds, but these are situations where you don't have 2 seconds. Training for life and death moments considers all the possible outcomes and presents a pre determined set of criteria and actions. You already know what you are going to do if A,B, and C happen. You don't think in those cases. You trust and revert to training. And each police officer has to decide a few seconds ahead of a critical moment (When the person doesn't follow commands for example) if the unique set of circumstances before him warrant invoking that training. Is the person in front of me a threat or not? Do I want to come home in a body bag, or do I shoot and risk a murder trial? There is no clear easy answer to all situations.

Most police go their entire career without shooting. This isn't common.

Perhaps you want to change the police standards of training. Good luck with that.

You think the police should be willing to die every time they stop a car or arrest someone? That a criminal gets 2 free seconds to get the advantage, possibly lethally? How many people will sign up for that job? How many spouses will become widows? You want a perfect world, good for you. The rest of us have to live in reality.

If there is sufficient evidence the threat did not exist and the shooting was questionable, the officer gets his day in court. That's as good a system as we've thought up so far.

[easyrider16]

Huh. Which section of the Constitution covers municipal police forces?

The Bill of Rights. For instance, if a police manual said police could search an area without a warrant, a Court could rule that to be a violation of a person's constitutional rights despite it being in a police manual. Likewise, the unjustified use of force to arrest a person has been held to be a violation of a person's constitutional rights against search and seizure despite what a police manual may or may not say.

Wrong. If the officer believes you to be a potential threat, and you do not follow commands, and you make a sudden move with your hand towards a storage area, you are wrong.

I don't think current Supreme Court case law supports this conclusion. The officer has to reasonably believe his or someone else's life is in danger or danger of serious bodily injury. That's the standard articulated by the Supreme Court.

You don't understand, you don't know what you're talking about at all.

Cool, thanks for the ad hominem.

If you wait to see and ID the gun that has been reached for, you lose if it's a gun rising towards aiming at you.

In situations like that, when the hand goes to the pocket, the mind will slow down. Deer in the headlights. It may only last 2 seconds, but these are situations where you don't have 2 seconds. Training for life and death moments considers all the possible outcomes and presents a pre determined set of criteria and actions. You already know what you are going to do if A,B, and C happen. You don't think in those cases. You trust and revert to training. And each police officer has to decide a few seconds ahead of a critical moment (When the person doesn't follow commands for example) if the unique set of circumstances before him warrant invoking that training. Is the person in front of me a threat or not? Do I want to come home in a body bag, or do I shoot and risk a murder trial? There is no clear easy answer to all situations.

Most police go their entire career without shooting. This isn't common.

Perhaps you want to change the police standards of training. Good luck with that.

Absolutely. I'm well aware that these are split second decisions where the officer falls back on his or her training. Training needs to be addressed. It needs to be reformed and more needs to be provided. That's one of the things all this protesting is about - reforming how police are trained.

I disagree, by the way, that police can't be trained to think before they act. They have to think quickly, yes. But the whole point of training is to drill into the trainee how to act in a given situation. Acting without thinking is certainly not the goal. The goal is teaching the trainee to act correctly in the shortest amount of time possible.

You think the police should be willing to die every time they stop a car or arrest someone?

If they are not, they should not become police.

That a criminal gets 2 free seconds to get the advantage, possibly lethally? How many people will sign up for that job? How many spouses will become widows? You want a perfect world, good for you. The rest of us have to live in reality.

I think people already sign up to be police despite it being a very dangerous job. People also sign up to be soldiers and fight and die in wars. They sign up to be firefighters running into burning buildings to save people. Yes, I think people would still volunteer to be police. Keep in mind that I'm not saying police should not be allowed to defend themselves. All I'm saying is that the use of force that they exercise should be *justified* That's the law as it stands now, so I don't really see why this should be a problem.

And let's keep something in mind - the people who police are meant to protect and serve includes everyone. That means suspects, too. They are innocent until proven guilty, after all.

[Highway Star]

...............straight up huffing paint..........