(08-29-2020, 04:50 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2020, 03:35 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Theres been two high profile killings in the last month where the subject was unarmed and executed by police. Ones where they knew they were unarmed so your thought process does not follow. Their job is not to kill anyone who may escape unarmed or go against arrest.
I said it was funny you'd bring it up without knowing the history.
Name them.
Jacob Blake, the case that recently set off the the most recent firestorm, was a classic case of someone disobeying police. He was tazed, yet still continued to flee and reached into the car, leaving police no choice but to fire on him. They don't know what he was reaching for.
We had a case here in Cincinnati on the 11th where a man was observed breaking the law. When approached, he tried to flee and was tazed, but continued to fight with officers and since they didn't know if he was armed and he continued to fight, they were left with no choice but to shoot him.
In Chicago, the criminal was fleeing and tried to run over a police officer with his car. The police gave chase and the criminal continued to flee. They didn't know if the guy had a gun, but since he nearly ran over an officer, he obviously was dangerous. No one knows what happened, because the body cam footage only shows when the one cop shot at the criminal in the car, when he attempted to hit the other officer. When the chase was on foot, we loose visual as the events took place behind a wooden fence, but several shots can be heard. The cops said they were being shot at.
Those were the cases. All justifiable. What are you referring to?
Jacob Blake was unarmed at the shooting and could have been stopped non lethally by competent policing. So could Rasyshard Brooks which was around June I believe. Had already been searched for a weapon and police fired on him.
(08-29-2020, 06:43 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2020, 04:50 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Name them.
Jacob Blake, the case that recently set off the the most recent firestorm, was a classic case of someone disobeying police. He was tazed, yet still continued to flee and reached into the car, leaving police no choice but to fire on him. They don't know what he was reaching for.
We had a case here in Cincinnati on the 11th where a man was observed breaking the law. When approached, he tried to flee and was tazed, but continued to fight with officers and since they didn't know if he was armed and he continued to fight, they were left with no choice but to shoot him.
In Chicago, the criminal was fleeing and tried to run over a police officer with his car. The police gave chase and the criminal continued to flee. They didn't know if the guy had a gun, but since he nearly ran over an officer, he obviously was dangerous. No one knows what happened, because the body cam footage only shows when the one cop shot at the criminal in the car, when he attempted to hit the other officer. When the chase was on foot, we loose visual as the events took place behind a wooden fence, but several shots can be heard. The cops said they were being shot at.
Those were the cases. All justifiable. What are you referring to?
Jacob Blake was unarmed at the shooting and could have been stopped non lethally by competent policing. So could Rasyshard Brooks which was around June I believe. Had already been searched for a weapon and police fired on him.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about and you continue to dodge my question. How are the police supposed to know that Blake isn't going for a weapon? He isn't complying with the officers orders and tasing isn't even stopping him.
As for Brooks, apparently you haven't watched the 43 minute body cam footage. The officers couldn't have been nicer to this man who is obviously drunk or high. The ask him multiple times to get back into his car. He refuses they spent at least 40 minutes trying to get information from this guy and he doesn't even know where he is. Finally, after giving him multiple chances, they decide to arrest him. When trying to place him under arrest, he fights with the officers and tries to grab their taser. That is very clear by the video. Had he gotten control of that taser, he could've incapacitated the officers and taken their guns. Then we could've had two dead cops. According to his criminal history, this guy had a violent temper and had been charged with cruelty to children, battery on a family member and false imprisonment, so the officers had to assume their lives were in danger.
All you keep parroting is that these men were unarmed, so again I will ask and you'll probably ignore the question yet again. How were the cops supposed to know if perps are unarmed? Are they supposed to read minds? I know in Ireland no one probably has guns, but this isn't Ireland. In the U.S., almost all of the criminals are packing heat. Are the cops supposed to just let themselves be targets on the off chance the criminals they are chasing don't have a weapon? That would truly be stupid and if that was the case, no one would want to go into law enforcement, there would be no protection from criminals, vigilantism would run rampant and we'd have pure chaos. What is your solution, because so far, you've offered none.
(08-29-2020, 06:43 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2020, 04:50 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Name them.
Jacob Blake, the case that recently set off the the most recent firestorm, was a classic case of someone disobeying police. He was tazed, yet still continued to flee and reached into the car, leaving police no choice but to fire on him. They don't know what he was reaching for.
We had a case here in Cincinnati on the 11th where a man was observed breaking the law. When approached, he tried to flee and was tazed, but continued to fight with officers and since they didn't know if he was armed and he continued to fight, they were left with no choice but to shoot him.
In Chicago, the criminal was fleeing and tried to run over a police officer with his car. The police gave chase and the criminal continued to flee. They didn't know if the guy had a gun, but since he nearly ran over an officer, he obviously was dangerous. No one knows what happened, because the body cam footage only shows when the one cop shot at the criminal in the car, when he attempted to hit the other officer. When the chase was on foot, we loose visual as the events took place behind a wooden fence, but several shots can be heard. The cops said they were being shot at.
Those were the cases. All justifiable. What are you referring to?
Jacob Blake was unarmed at the shooting and could have been stopped non lethally by competent policing. So could Rasyshard Brooks which was around June I believe. Had already been searched for a weapon and police fired on him.
We must not tell lies, Dolores!
(08-29-2020, 06:43 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2020, 04:50 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Name them.
Jacob Blake, the case that recently set off the the most recent firestorm, was a classic case of someone disobeying police. He was tazed, yet still continued to flee and reached into the car, leaving police no choice but to fire on him. They don't know what he was reaching for.
We had a case here in Cincinnati on the 11th where a man was observed breaking the law. When approached, he tried to flee and was tazed, but continued to fight with officers and since they didn't know if he was armed and he continued to fight, they were left with no choice but to shoot him.
In Chicago, the criminal was fleeing and tried to run over a police officer with his car. The police gave chase and the criminal continued to flee. They didn't know if the guy had a gun, but since he nearly ran over an officer, he obviously was dangerous. No one knows what happened, because the body cam footage only shows when the one cop shot at the criminal in the car, when he attempted to hit the other officer. When the chase was on foot, we loose visual as the events took place behind a wooden fence, but several shots can be heard. The cops said they were being shot at.
Those were the cases. All justifiable. What are you referring to?
Jacob Blake was unarmed at the shooting and could have been stopped non lethally by competent policing. So could Rasyshard Brooks which was around June I believe. Had already been searched for a weapon and police fired on him.
Rayshard Brooks had just fought and won against 2 police officers he had also managed to steal a tazer and fire it at them. Now had Rayshard Brooks simply complied with the very tolerant police officers he would be sitting in jail where he should have been in the first place had he not been released due to “Covid”
Jacob Blake had an outstanding warrant for sexual assault no less. Was mentioned in the 911 call. Fought with police, was given every opportunity to surrender right up until he reached into his vehicle for who knows what. He too would be sitting in a cell right now had he simply complied with up until he was reaching into his vehicle extremely tolerant police officers.
Try again.
(08-29-2020, 07:12 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2020, 06:43 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Jacob Blake was unarmed at the shooting and could have been stopped non lethally by competent policing. So could Rasyshard Brooks which was around June I believe. Had already been searched for a weapon and police fired on him.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about and you continue to dodge my question. How are the police supposed to know that Blake isn't going for a weapon? He isn't complying with the officers orders and tasing isn't even stopping him.
As for Brooks, apparently you haven't watched the 43 minute body cam footage. The officers couldn't have been nicer to this man who is obviously drunk or high. The ask him multiple times to get back into his car. He refuses they spent at least 40 minutes trying to get information from this guy and he doesn't even know where he is. Finally, after giving him multiple chances, they decide to arrest him. When trying to place him under arrest, he fights with the officers and tries to grab their taser. That is very clear by the video. Had he gotten control of that taser, he could've incapacitated the officers and taken their guns. Then we could've had two dead cops. According to his criminal history, this guy had a violent temper and had been charged with cruelty to children, battery on a family member and false imprisonment, so the officers had to assume their lives were in danger.
All you keep parroting is that these men were unarmed, so again I will ask and you'll probably ignore the question yet again. How were the cops supposed to know if perps are unarmed? Are they supposed to read minds? I know in Ireland no one probably has guns, but this isn't Ireland. In the U.S., almost all of the criminals are packing heat. Are the cops supposed to just let themselves be targets on the off chance the criminals they are chasing don't have a weapon? That would truly be stupid and if that was the case, no one would want to go into law enforcement, there would be no protection from criminals, vigilantism would run rampant and we'd have pure chaos. What is your solution, because so far, you've offered none.
If they were so deathly worried about him going to the car for a weapon they could have easily man handled him instead of shooting him 7 times in the back. A tad riskier but would have saved a life.
Also we already had this conversation in the thread on Rashard Brooks, you just weren't there. I've seen the video. He wasn't a threat to the public and was running away, worst case scenario they pick him up later. Instead he's shot dead.
I offered solutions above if you cared to read them. The willingness in American culture to be the most incarcerated people in the world with some of the most oppressive policing is astounding. "Land of the free" LOL
(08-29-2020, 08:12 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2020, 06:43 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Jacob Blake was unarmed at the shooting and could have been stopped non lethally by competent policing. So could Rasyshard Brooks which was around June I believe. Had already been searched for a weapon and police fired on him.
Rayshard Brooks had just fought and won against 2 police officers he had also managed to steal a tazer and fire it at them. Now had Rayshard Brooks simply complied with the very tolerant police officers he would be sitting in jail where he should have been in the first place had he not been released due to “Covid”
Jacob Blake had an outstanding warrant for sexual assault no less. Was mentioned in the 911 call. Fought with police, was given every opportunity to surrender right up until he reached into his vehicle for who knows what. He too would be sitting in a cell right now had he simply complied with up until he was reaching into his vehicle extremely tolerant police officers.
Try again.
Compliance?
https://twitter.com/ArsenalSensible/stat...89728?s=19
(08-29-2020, 09:44 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2020, 07:12 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Again, you have no idea what you are talking about and you continue to dodge my question. How are the police supposed to know that Blake isn't going for a weapon? He isn't complying with the officers orders and tasing isn't even stopping him.
As for Brooks, apparently you haven't watched the 43 minute body cam footage. The officers couldn't have been nicer to this man who is obviously drunk or high. The ask him multiple times to get back into his car. He refuses they spent at least 40 minutes trying to get information from this guy and he doesn't even know where he is. Finally, after giving him multiple chances, they decide to arrest him. When trying to place him under arrest, he fights with the officers and tries to grab their taser. That is very clear by the video. Had he gotten control of that taser, he could've incapacitated the officers and taken their guns. Then we could've had two dead cops. According to his criminal history, this guy had a violent temper and had been charged with cruelty to children, battery on a family member and false imprisonment, so the officers had to assume their lives were in danger.
All you keep parroting is that these men were unarmed, so again I will ask and you'll probably ignore the question yet again. How were the cops supposed to know if perps are unarmed? Are they supposed to read minds? I know in Ireland no one probably has guns, but this isn't Ireland. In the U.S., almost all of the criminals are packing heat. Are the cops supposed to just let themselves be targets on the off chance the criminals they are chasing don't have a weapon? That would truly be stupid and if that was the case, no one would want to go into law enforcement, there would be no protection from criminals, vigilantism would run rampant and we'd have pure chaos. What is your solution, because so far, you've offered none.
If they were so deathly worried about him going to the car for a weapon they could have easily man handled him instead of shooting him 7 times in the back. A tad riskier but would have saved a life.
Also we already had this conversation in the thread on Rashard Brooks, you just weren't there. I've seen the video. He wasn't a threat to the public and was running away, worst case scenario they pick him up later. Instead he's shot dead.
I offered solutions above if you cared to read them. The willingness in American culture to be the most incarcerated people in the world with some of the most oppressive policing is astounding. "Land of the free" LOL
(08-29-2020, 08:12 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Rayshard Brooks had just fought and won against 2 police officers he had also managed to steal a tazer and fire it at them. Now had Rayshard Brooks simply complied with the very tolerant police officers he would be sitting in jail where he should have been in the first place had he not been released due to “Covid”
Jacob Blake had an outstanding warrant for sexual assault no less. Was mentioned in the 911 call. Fought with police, was given every opportunity to surrender right up until he reached into his vehicle for who knows what. He too would be sitting in a cell right now had he simply complied with up until he was reaching into his vehicle extremely tolerant police officers.
Try again.
Compliance?
https://twitter.com/ArsenalSensible/stat...89728?s=19
What is the point? A belligerent [BLEEP] screaming at an officer? Did he strike the officer? Regardless, do you see what police officers have to deal with on a daily basis? I commend them on the restraint they show.
(08-29-2020, 09:44 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2020, 07:12 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Again, you have no idea what you are talking about and you continue to dodge my question. How are the police supposed to know that Blake isn't going for a weapon? He isn't complying with the officers orders and tasing isn't even stopping him.
As for Brooks, apparently you haven't watched the 43 minute body cam footage. The officers couldn't have been nicer to this man who is obviously drunk or high. The ask him multiple times to get back into his car. He refuses they spent at least 40 minutes trying to get information from this guy and he doesn't even know where he is. Finally, after giving him multiple chances, they decide to arrest him. When trying to place him under arrest, he fights with the officers and tries to grab their taser. That is very clear by the video. Had he gotten control of that taser, he could've incapacitated the officers and taken their guns. Then we could've had two dead cops. According to his criminal history, this guy had a violent temper and had been charged with cruelty to children, battery on a family member and false imprisonment, so the officers had to assume their lives were in danger.
All you keep parroting is that these men were unarmed, so again I will ask and you'll probably ignore the question yet again. How were the cops supposed to know if perps are unarmed? Are they supposed to read minds? I know in Ireland no one probably has guns, but this isn't Ireland. In the U.S., almost all of the criminals are packing heat. Are the cops supposed to just let themselves be targets on the off chance the criminals they are chasing don't have a weapon? That would truly be stupid and if that was the case, no one would want to go into law enforcement, there would be no protection from criminals, vigilantism would run rampant and we'd have pure chaos. What is your solution, because so far, you've offered none.
If they were so deathly worried about him going to the car for a weapon they could have easily man handled him instead of shooting him 7 times in the back. A tad riskier but would have saved a life.
Also we already had this conversation in the thread on Rashard Brooks, you just weren't there. I've seen the video. He wasn't a threat to the public and was running away, worst case scenario they pick him up later. Instead he's shot dead.
I offered solutions above if you cared to read them. The willingness in American culture to be the most incarcerated people in the world with some of the most oppressive policing is astounding. "Land of the free" LOL
Man handled him? If he has a gun, there is no "man handling" anyone. It takes a fraction of a second to get a shot off and they did not know if he was armed.
If you saw the Brooks video, you either didn't pay attention or are being willfully ignorant. It was a routine arrest. The cops did everything right and then Brooks decided to resist.
He grabbed the cop's taser. That cannot be disputed. It's right there on the body cam footage. He had the taser trying to shoot the cop. What else do you need? It's plain as day. You are so politically biased that you'd rather see 2 dead cops than to see them defend themselves and take down a criminal with a violent past. That says a lot about who you are as a person. I'm glad you don't live in this country. We have enough anarchists.
You offered
NO solutions, because you kept avoiding the main question, as you have once again.
How are cops supposed to know a suspect is unarmed? It's a simple question, with no real answer. Yet being the "know it all" that you think you are, you through out generalizations with no specifics and continue to completely avoid the question at the core of most of these issues. You're opinions as useless as teets on a boar hog.
(08-30-2020, 06:04 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2020, 09:44 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]If they were so deathly worried about him going to the car for a weapon they could have easily man handled him instead of shooting him 7 times in the back. A tad riskier but would have saved a life.
Also we already had this conversation in the thread on Rashard Brooks, you just weren't there. I've seen the video. He wasn't a threat to the public and was running away, worst case scenario they pick him up later. Instead he's shot dead.
I offered solutions above if you cared to read them. The willingness in American culture to be the most incarcerated people in the world with some of the most oppressive policing is astounding. "Land of the free" LOL
Man handled him? If he has a gun, there is no "man handling" anyone. It takes a fraction of a second to get a shot off and they did not know if he was armed.
If you saw the Brooks video, you either didn't pay attention or are being willfully ignorant. It was a routine arrest. The cops did everything right and then Brooks decided to resist. He grabbed the cop's taser. That cannot be disputed. It's right there on the body cam footage. He had the taser trying to shoot the cop. What else do you need? It's plain as day. You are so politically biased that you'd rather see 2 dead cops than to see them defend themselves and take down a criminal with a violent past. That says a lot about who you are as a person. I'm glad you don't live in this country. We have enough anarchists.
You offered NO solutions, because you kept avoiding the main question, as you have once again. How are cops supposed to know a suspect is unarmed? It's a simple question, with no real answer. Yet being the "know it all" that you think you are, you through out generalizations with no specifics and continue to completely avoid the question at the core of most of these issues. You're opinions as useless as teets on a boar hog.
Lots of videos out there of cops allowing the suspect to reach into their car, grab a gun and then the cops die.
I wonder if he likes watching those. I don't.
Criminals don't deserve to live over the police that put their lives on the line every day in the hardest job in the United States.
So what you are saying is that because guns are common police should be cautious and shoot people quickly if they don't comply?
Well that 2nd amendment right really brings great freedom to you.
(08-31-2020, 07:27 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like this right wing hero likes to beat up women too
https://twitter.com/Truthfu83152177/stat...13346?s=19
She's with a group of people who all seem to be upset with him. She gets in his face a couple of times, and then finally she pushes him. All a boy or a man has to do when a girl pushes him, is just throw his arms up and say "alright I'm out of here." If she was punching him or using some sort of bludgeon, things get more complicated, but this was just a shove. Instead of leaving, he wraps his arms around her and practically carries her 6 feet away. A guy comes up on his back trying to stop him, and in the course of trying to throw this guy off, he whips the girl around, I guess hoping that her legs will kick the other guy, hoping to injure them both.
This is the guy that you claim calmly exhausted all of his possible options to retreat and calmly and legally and defensively squeezed off 5 rounds into each of three different people...
I guess maybe the video is not really him. But if it is, it certainly fits the pattern I saw.
(08-31-2020, 08:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2020, 07:27 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like this right wing hero likes to beat up women too
https://twitter.com/Truthfu83152177/stat...13346?s=19
She's with a group of people who all seem to be upset with him. She gets in his face a couple of times, and then finally she pushes him. All a boy or a man has to do when a girl pushes him, is just throw his arms up and say "alright I'm out of here." If she was punching him or using some sort of bludgeon, things get more complicated, but this was just a shove. Instead of leaving, he wraps his arms around her and practically carries her 6 feet away. A guy comes up on his back trying to stop him, and in the course of trying to throw this guy off, he whips the girl around, I guess hoping that her legs will kick the other guy, hoping to injure them both.
This is the guy that you claim calmly exhausted all of his possible options to retreat and calmly and legally and defensively squeezed off 5 rounds into each of three different people...
I guess maybe the video is not really him. But if it is, it certainly fits the pattern I saw.
Boy, you sure know how to be stubborn when you're wrong.