(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.

---