2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: groveler on August 24, 2020, 07:45:17 AM
-
Check this out
https://twitter.com/nolimitchrizi/status/1297684746370252806
My understanding is that the guy also stated that he had a gun like they did.
Presumably he went for it.
You need to select "view" till it gets taken down.
-
Play stupid games
Non-compliance
-
Cops: Get on the ground now!
Suspect: What you gonna do? Shoot me?
Cops (to dispatch): We need an ambulance ....
-
it doesn't matter if he committed a crime...
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jacob-blake-crimes-donald-trump-jr-andy-ngo-republican-convention-black-lives-matter-a9686566.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jacob-blake-crimes-donald-trump-jr-andy-ngo-republican-convention-black-lives-matter-a9686566.html)
past criminal complaints
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7043323-Jacob-Blake-Criminal-Complaint.html (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7043323-Jacob-Blake-Criminal-Complaint.html)
to the media he is another angel needlessly shot by police
-
Not following orders will get you shot, but then again I have seen too many police completely ignore their deescalation training. This cop also let the situation completely get out of control (useless shirt grabbing), but without context of body cam it is difficult to make a snap judgement.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1uv7DU8Q2Y
Blake is no saint, but shooting an unarmed man, who is retreating, in his back 7 times.
Are these the good cops?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1uv7DU8Q2Y
Blake is no saint, but shooting an unarmed man, who is retreating, in his back 7 times.
Are these the good cops?
going to a vehicle and reaching under the seat is not retreating...
-
going to a vehicle and reaching under the seat is not retreating...
unless Antman
-
going to a vehicle and reaching under the seat is not retreating...
So you don't have a problem with a cop grabbing the suspect, from behind, and unloading 7rds point blank, into Blake's back.
Sounds like a pretty gruesome execution to me.
-
So you don't have a problem with a cop grabbing the suspect, from behind, and unloading 7rds point blank, into Blake's back.
Sounds like a pretty gruesome execution to me.
Your imagination is running amok again..... and just in time for another 2 week lock down!
It's going to be a long 2 weeks. :crazy:
-
So you don't have a problem with a cop grabbing the suspect, from behind, and unloading 7rds point blank, into Blake's back.
Sounds like a pretty gruesome execution to me.
The fact his back was to the officers doesn't make him not a threat though. Think about it for a second, the cop was 1-2 feet behind the man. If the man grabbed a gun he wouldn't have to turn to shoot at the cop. He could stick it under his arm and fire behind him reliably hitting the cop center mass.
BTW he wasn't executed, he lived.
Now 7 times does seem like a lot of shots but there might be good explanations for that many rounds. The cop may have fired a warning shot or he may have tried to hit a limb and when that didn't work he went center mass. Who knows though, he could just be a terrible shot under pressure.
-
So you don't have a problem with a cop grabbing the suspect, from behind, and unloading 7rds point blank, into Blake's back.
show me where I said that
-
Now 7 times does seem like a lot of shots but there might be good explanations for that many rounds. The cop may have fired a warning shot or he may have tried to hit a limb and when that didn't work he went center mass. Who knows though, he could just be a terrible shot under pressure.
Or he kept missing center mass because he is the kind of cop who does not understand the value of training and as a result regularly puts himself, his partners, and the community at risk.
-
People can continue to fight and be a threat even with 7 rounds in them if nothing vital is hit.
Shoot until the threat is stopped.
Is there an arbitrary number of rounds that a Cop must cease firing after, similar to arbitrary mag capacity limits for Hawaii residents?
-
Flapp pointed out on the other thread he did have a knife in the passenger floorboard, which makes it a justified shooting and a possible suicide by cop.
Maybe I am being too harsh but it does not inspire confidence that the video shows at least 3 officers involved in a physical confrontation and the guy still manages to make it all the way around to the other side of his car and open the door with kids inside.
It could be the police hesitation was due to the sensitive political environment, and that hesitation ironically created an out of control situation which sparked the sort of riots they were trying to prevent.
Definitely not a good time to be a cop, and my deepest gratitude to all the LEOs doing their best to hold it together.
-
Blake is no saint, but shooting an unarmed man, who is retreating, in his back 7 times.
Are these the good cops?
....
I can't even believe you said that
-
Flapp pointed out on the other thread he did have a knife in the passenger floorboard, which makes it a justified shooting and a possible suicide by cop.
Maybe I am being too harsh but it does not inspire confidence that the video shows at least 3 officers involved in a physical confrontation and the guy still manages to make it all the way around to the other side of his car and open the door with kids inside.
It could be the police hesitation was due to the sensitive political environment, and that hesitation ironically created an out of control situation which sparked the sort of riots they were trying to prevent.
Definitely not a good time to be a cop, and my deepest gratitude to all the LEOs doing their best to hold it together.
I watched the video and it was very disturbing. I think you are correct that the political environment, that particular situation with children in close proximity, and people standing by watching their every move caused hesitation.
I can only speak for myself, but if I found myself in that situation and the cops tell me to stand down, I WILL STAND DOWN. I am a parent who loves my children and will do anything to keep them safe. I wonder if that guy was even thinking of how traumatic it looked with his kids watching their dad (actually the word father should be used. Dad is reserved for those who earned it) scuffle with police with their firearms drawn. Not to mention the danger. That cop's adrenaline was off the charts and his weapon was drawn.
But of course we live in an "Its all about me" society now.
I personally am concerned with all of these news events happening. All the troublemakers disrupting the peaceful protests, violence and property damage, armed citizens taking the law into their hands because of these troublemakers, etc.,etc.
The battle lines are being drawn every day. Like a snowball rolling amok down a snow filled mountain.
-
....
I can't even believe you said that
Because I don't believe suspects being shot in the back, as imminent threats.
-
People can continue to fight and be a threat even with 7 rounds in them if nothing vital is hit.
Shoot until the threat is stopped.
How is a suspect moving away, from the cops, to get back, into his car, a threat to the cops?
-
How is a suspect moving away, from the cops, to get back, into his car, a threat to the cops?
what was he reaching for? Pick from below:
-gun
-knife
-
show me where I said that
So you don't approve of cops shooting people in the back?
-
what was he reaching for? Pick from below:
-gun
-knife
Pure conjecture.
-
So you don't approve of cops shooting people in the back?
show me where I said that
-
SNIP
I can only speak for myself, but if I found myself in that situation and the cops tell me to stand down, I WILL STAND DOWN. I am a parent who loves my children and will do anything to keep them safe. I wonder if that guy was even thinking of how traumatic it looked with his kids watching their dad (actually the word father should be used. Dad is reserved for those who earned it) scuffle with police with their firearms drawn. Not to mention the danger. That cop's adrenaline was off the charts and his weapon was drawn.
That's a key word there in BOLD. Thinking is someone running on the basis of rational thought. In this case, any many like it, I think it based on emotion and rational thought is thrown out.
-
Your imagination is running amok again..... and just in time for another 2 week lock down!
It's going to be a long 2 weeks. :crazy:
The only imagination is you thinking that you know everything and having to comment, on every post, in this forum, to prove it.
-
Because I don't believe suspects being shot in the back, as imminent threats.
Well, that's your opinion on what you believe to be a threat and what you don't.
And I'll just mention here that having a firearm, knife, etc is NOT a minimum standard for what is a threat. Why people get so caught up with that MSM BS is ::)
-
show me where I said that
That would mean arguing based on FACTS.
-
show me where I said that
Never mind already.
-
Well, that's your opinion on what you believe to be a threat and what you don't.
And I'll just mention here that having a firearm, knife, etc is NOT a minimum standard for what is a threat. Why people get so caught up with that MSM BS is ::)
So I ask you a question, do you think you can justify shooting someone, beyond a reasonable doubt, in the back, in a court of law?
-
That would mean arguing based on FACTS.
Why do want to escalate?
-
So I ask you a question, do you think you can justify shooting someone, beyond a reasonable doubt, in the back, in a court of law?
Give me a specific context. Just because someone's back is facing me doesn't necessarily mean there is no threat.
Why do want to escalate?
I'm generally poking fun. Sorry that I triggered your sensitivities. . .
-
I'm generally poking fun. Sorry that I triggered your sensitivities. . .
My apologies.
My sensitives are extra long and get hurt easily. :shaka:
-
Give me a specific context. Just because someone's back is facing me doesn't necessarily mean there is no threat.
I agree.
However, since there is so much room, for misinterpretation, of true intentions, that shooting anyone, in the back, is a very risky, act of self-defense.
-
I agree.
However, since there is so much room, for misinterpretation, of true intentions, that shooting anyone, in the back, is a very risky, act of self-defense.
Yes. But see, again, that's your opinion. You weren't there, nor was I. The point that you weren't there is a big part of your questioning from a safe space at your keyboard, which is the same safe space as I am typing this from. I'm just saying that you have to consider the WHOLE context. Yes, the officers' training is likely a big factor, but I really think there's a HUGE misconception of what folks think they would or wouldn't do. Go back to the many videos of media being put through scenario training and I think 100% of them shot the "aggressor" too soon.
-
Yes. But see, again, that's your opinion. You weren't there, nor was I. The point that you weren't there is a big part of your questioning from a safe space at your keyboard, which is the same safe space as I am typing this from. I'm just saying that you have to consider the WHOLE context. Yes, the officers' training is likely a big factor, but I really think there's a HUGE misconception of what folks think they would or wouldn't do. Go back to the many videos of media being put through scenario training and I think 100% of them shot the "aggressor" too soon.
I get your point.
However, in this particular case, a suspect was shot from behind; video evidence makes that a fact. The question, of whether it was justified, is what is of issue.
If the cops are going to say that they needed to shoot Blake because he was leaving the scene, is that procedural thing they normally do? Shoot first and ask questions later?
If the cop is going to claim self-defense, video evidence does not confirm, an immediate threat ,of danger, to the officer, especially when it was the shooting officer, who willfully put himself in danger, by moving, into point blank range. If anything, his fellow officers, with their guns drawn, did not take the same actions or displayed similar intent, as did the shooting cop.
-
I wouldn't pass because I would not enforce any unconstitutional laws. Law abiding citizen stopped for a coffee with his firearm in his car. No problem.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVceB5JVCo
-
How is a suspect moving away, from the cops, to get back, into his car, a threat to the cops?
....
I want some of whatever you been smoking :rofl:
-
Pure conjecture.
They did find a knife on the driver's side floorboard.
-
They did find a knife on the driver's side floorboard.
Blake told them that he had a knife.
Why did the shooting cop feel the need to approach Blake so closely and put himself, in that situation, in the first place?
-
Never mind already.
thank you for playing...
-
They did find a knife on the driver's side floorboard.
Well, well, well, I guess Blake was not threatening anyone, with his knife.
"Authorities said Sheskey was among officers who responded to a domestic dispute, though they have not said whether Blake was part of the dispute. Sheskey shot Blake while holding onto his shirt after officers unsuccessfully used a Taser on him, the Wisconsin Justice Department said. State agents later recovered a knife from the floor on the driver’s side of the vehicle, the department said. State authorities did not say Blake threatened anyone with a knife."
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/08/28/wisconsin-prosecutors-charged-kyle-rittenhouse-17-with-homicide-for-fatally-shooting-protesters/
Now then, we have suspect that was not threatening the cops, yet Officer Sheskey felt it necessary, to follow Blake closely, pull his shirt, and then unload 7rds, of his service pistol, into Blake's back, at point blank range.
Following someone closely and then shooting that person, at point blank range, seems awfully personal, to me.
-
In my opinion, this one does not look good for Mr. Sheskey.
-
Well, well, well, I guess Blake was not threatening anyone, with his knife.
"Authorities said Sheskey was among officers who responded to a domestic dispute, though they have not said whether Blake was part of the dispute. Sheskey shot Blake while holding onto his shirt after officers unsuccessfully used a Taser on him, the Wisconsin Justice Department said. State agents later recovered a knife from the floor on the driver’s side of the vehicle, the department said. State authorities did not say Blake threatened anyone with a knife."
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/08/28/wisconsin-prosecutors-charged-kyle-rittenhouse-17-with-homicide-for-fatally-shooting-protesters/
Now then, we have suspect that was not threatening the cops, yet Officer Sheskey felt it necessary, to follow Blake closely, pull his shirt, and then unload 7rds, of his service pistol, into Blake's back, at point blank range.
Following someone closely and then shooting that person, at point blank range, seems awfully personal, to me.
The authorities did not state anything about Blake's knife threats. They did NOT say he did OR did not. An exclusion of a statement on that matter doesn't indicate one conclusion or another.
Perhaps he wanted the police officers to autograph his knife, therefore he went to the driver's side.
We are talking about Blake and not Rittenhouse right? :wacko:
-
Perhaps he wanted the police officers to autograph his knife, therefore he went to the driver's side.
We are talking about Blake and not Rittenhouse right? :wacko:
How do you know, if the cops placed it on the drivers side, after the shooting?
No bodycams remember?
-
How do you know, if the cops placed it on the drivers side, after the shooting?
No bodycams remember?
How do we know that you are a real Hawaiian? Hawaiians usually have more to say about lots of other topics rather than just hating on America
-
How do you know, if the cops placed it on the drivers side, after the shooting?
No bodycams remember?
You omitted the part of my reply as to the absence of information. An absence of information doesn't mean a default that Blake did not threaten anyone.
No one knows what he intended to do with a knife but he does have a criminal history
Online court records indicate Kenosha County prosecutors charged Blake on July 6 with sexual assault, trespassing and disorderly conduct in connection with domestic abuse. An arrest warrant was issued the following day.
One can make a reasonable prediction what he may do with a knife in that situation
-
How do we know that you are a real Hawaiian? Hawaiians usually have more to say about lots of other topics rather than just hating on America
What do you know about Hawaiians or what they truly think or feel?
-
What do you know about Hawaiians or what they truly think or feel?
yet you can claim "most" cops are bad
what do you know about cops or what they truly think or feel?
-
How do you know, if the cops placed it on the drivers side, after the shooting?
No bodycams remember?
That would require a conspiracy involving the Cops on scene.
Just another conspiracy theory based on absolutely no evidence.
:wacko:
-
In my opinion, this one does not look good for Mr. Sheskey.
Why does this not look good for the cop?
What do people believe the cop should have done in this situation? He had a warrant out for his arrest for sexual assault, and he had kids in his car. Was the cops supposed to just let him get in the car and drive off? Put his gun away so that he could grapple with the dude? I have no sympathy for fucking idiots like Blake. If I have cops pointing their guns at me ordering me to get down I would expect to get shot if I didn’t comply and started reaching for something.
Why are these criminals not held to the same standard as everyone else?
-
I get your point.
However, in this particular case, a suspect was shot from behind; video evidence makes that a fact. The question, of whether it was justified, is what is of issue.
If the cops are going to say that they needed to shoot Blake because he was leaving the scene, is that procedural thing they normally do? Shoot first and ask questions later?
If the cop is going to claim self-defense, video evidence does not confirm, an immediate threat ,of danger, to the officer, especially when it was the shooting officer, who willfully put himself in danger, by moving, into point blank range. If anything, his fellow officers, with their guns drawn, did not take the same actions or displayed similar intent, as did the shooting cop.
How can a video confirm (or disprove) a person's perception of immediate threat or perception of danger? Even if YOU think there wasn't. You accuse of all of us being Judge Dredd. You're doing the same thing! You're judging and holding grudges on people based on. . . well, we've already gone there too often. No sense continuing to whack the dead horse in the balls. . . won't feel it. . .
-
thank you for playing...
You giving up? Wuss. . . ;D
-
You accuse of all of us being Judge Dredd. You're doing the same thing! You're judging and holding grudges on people based on. . . well, we've already gone there too often.
I said many, not everybody.
-
How can a video confirm (or disprove) a person's perception of immediate threat or perception of danger?
If Officer Sheskey, believed that he was in imminent danger, why did he follow Blake so close and pull on his shirt? Is that procedurally correct?
If I need to arrest a guy and he is pointing at gun at me, do I just walk right up to him, employ a jiujitsu move, and handcuff him?
-
If Officer Sheskey, believed that he was in imminent danger, why did he follow Blake so close and pull on his shirt? Is that procedurally correct?
If I need to arrest a guy and he is pointing at gun at me, do I just walk right up to him, employ a jiujitsu move, and handcuff him?
Dunno. Have you had training?
-
If Officer Sheskey, believed that he was in imminent danger, why did he follow Blake so close and pull on his shirt? Is that procedurally correct?
If I need to arrest a guy and he is pointing at gun at me, do I just walk right up to him, employ a jiujitsu move, and handcuff him?
Based on that logic, why did the Hawaiians welcome White visitors from America? Did they not know from the beginning what would end up happening?
The officer wasn't in imminent danger in the beginning, or else he would have fired sooner. So, no reason to NOT follow and attempt to subdue.
-
Dunno. Have you had training?
No training for that situation.
-
No training for that situation.
Ok. So what makes you SO sure that the officer handled it incorrectly?
Well, how about this one. What other considerations are you factoring into how YOU would handle the situation? Are you positive you have all of the information that the officer had? Well, other than WaPo facts. . .
You call many on here judgemental, quick to judge and execute, etc. What makes you any different or better?
-
Ok. So what makes you SO sure that the officer handled it incorrectly?
Well, how about this one. What other considerations are you factoring into how YOU would handle the situation? Are you positive you have all of the information that the officer had? Well, other than WaPo facts. . .
You call many on here judgemental, quick to judge and execute, etc. What makes you any different or better?
His opinions always start from a position of hate and bias. Then he scours the Internet to confirm that bias.
No big mystery.
-
Ok. So what makes you SO sure that the officer handled it incorrectly?
Well, how about this one. What other considerations are you factoring into how YOU would handle the situation? Are you positive you have all of the information that the officer had? Well, other than WaPo facts. . .
You call many on here judgemental, quick to judge and execute, etc. What makes you any different or better?
First, from what little martial arts training, I have received, I never go to engage anyone that I suspect is armed or going for their arms. I manage the distance and/or flee, at the first safest opportunity.
Second, posters are quick to judge me relentlessly, so I return the favor. Its funny though, when I return the favor, those posters get mad, as if I am not allowed to tag them back.
-
His opinions always start from a position of hate and bias. Then he scours the Internet to confirm that bias.
No big mystery.
Haters gonna hate! ;)
-
You giving up? Wuss. . . ;D
your boss is an asshole
-
First, from what little martial arts training, I have received, I never go to engage anyone that I suspect is armed or going for their arms. I manage the distance and/or flee, at the first safest opportunity.
Second, posters are quick to judge me relentlessly, so I return the favor. Its funny though, when I return the favor, those posters get mad, as if I am not allowed to tag them back.
First, totally different context LE and you. Slightly changing gears, while I don’t disagree with avoid confrontation as a first instinct, sometimes an attacker isn’t going to give you the luxury of choice. Again, you’re mixing contexts.
Second, you’re positing on a forum and have such thin skin. Learn to ignore and scroll on.
-
your boss is an asshole
Not now. He’s having a beer, so all good. ;D
-
First, totally different context LE and you. Slightly changing gears, while I don’t disagree with avoid confrontation as a first instinct, sometimes an attacker isn’t going to give you the luxury of choice. Again, you’re mixing contexts.
From the video, Blake was walking back to his car. Whether he was reaching for a knife, that is unknown. The problem is that, if everyone is making the argument that Blake was going, for a weapon; unloading 7rds into his back, before making that determination, appears to premature, IMHO, which only follows the infamous shoot first and find excuses later, premise.
Second, you’re positing on a forum and have such thin skin. Learn to ignore and scroll on.
That is awesome advice that I thank you for. :shaka:
-
:hmm:
-
:hmm:
Maybe a knife or large set of keys?
If it was a knife, then why did Officer Sheskey, take the risk, to pursue Blake so closely and yank his shirt?
Looking forward to hear his excuse, on this matter.
-
Maybe a knife or large set of keys?
If it was a knife, then why did Officer Sheskey, take the risk, to pursue Blake so closely and yank his shirt?
Looking forward to hear his excuse, on this matter.
That he doesn’t have the same martial arts training as you do?
-
That he doesn’t have the same martial arts training as you do?
Why he had to unload his service weapon the way he did?
-
Why he had to unload his service weapon the way he did?
Why didn’t Blake comply?
-
if this happened in 1898...
-
if this happened in 1898...
Only Inspector would remember ;D
-
if this happened in 1898...
Only Inspector would remember ;D
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
It really doesn’t look good for Officer Sheskey with three officers on scene.
How far he traveled with guns drawn on him.
They drew guns. He was already perceived as a threat.
Didn’t think he was gonna get in his car? ( guy looks like he’s making a beeline for the drivers door. )
The shirt pull technique? (Could be this replace the choke hold due to protests.)
My daughter and I were discussing it.
I was arguing stupid games, stupid prizes.
She asked, whatever he did he deserve to be killed ?
Edit: that was before we knew he survived.
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
It really doesn’t look good for Officer Sheskey with three officers on scene.
How far he traveled with guns drawn on him.
They drew guns. He was already perceived as a threat.
Didn’t think he was gonna get in his car? ( guy looks like he’s making a beeline for the drivers door. )
The shirt pull technique? (Could be this replace the choke hold due to protests.)
My daughter and I were discussing it.
I was arguing stupid games, stupid prizes.
She asked, whatever he did he deserve to be killed ?
People don’t always get what they deserve. Easy to be young an naive.
-
Why didn’t Blake comply?
That is not the issue.
The issue Is whether shooting a suspect, in the back, is the correct course of action, if the goal was to apprehend the suspect?
-
That is not the issue.
The issue Is whether shooting a suspect, in the back, is the correct course of action, if the goal was to apprehend the suspect?
Why isn’t it that the issue? Because you say so? Psssh.
If Blake complied, would he have gotten “executed point blank with 7 rounds? Just like I’d you don’t want to get shot, you might not want to try breaking into my house. Consequences for bad actions. If not, enabling bad behavior.
-
Why isn’t it that the issue? Because you say so? Psssh.
I don't think anyone is challenging the cops prerogative to arrest Blake.
People are challenging, whether the shooting of Blake, in his back, was legally justified? Was the officer facing an immediate threat of death, the moment right before shooting Blake? What is so hard to understand about that?
If Blake complied, would he have gotten “executed point blank with 7 rounds? Just like I’d you don’t want to get shot, you might not want to try breaking into my house. Consequences for bad actions. If not, enabling bad behavior.
I am glad you stated the above.
"If Rittenhouse did not decide to violate the law and carry an AR-15, while underage, he may have not been, in the shooting situation that led to him killing two and injuring another."
-
I don't think anyone is challenging the cops prerogative to arrest Blake.
People are challenging, whether the shooting of Blake, in his back, was legally justified? Was the officer facing an immediate threat of death, the moment right before shooting Blake? What is so hard to understand about that?
I am glad you stated the above.
"If Rittenhouse did not decide to violate the law and carry an AR-15, while underage, he may have not been, in the shooting situation that led to him killing two and injuring another."
I wasn’t challenging anything with Blake being legally justified. I was challenging your judgement that it wasn’t.
Look back at my posts. I didn’t say anything about whether or not what he did was legal.
Damn. Learn how to read.
-
Not now. He’s having a beer, so all good. ;D
even after having a beer, your boss is an asshole
he's just easier to take after I've had a beer or two...
-
That is not the issue.
The issue Is whether shooting a suspect, in the back, is the correct course of action, if the goal was to apprehend the suspect?
if blake complied, he would have been apprehended and not shot...
-
even after having a beer, your boss is an asshole
he's just easier to take after I've had a beer or two...
He’s moved on to whiskey
-
if blake complied, he would have been apprehended and not shot...
Three cops.
Time to react to the situation.
They couldn’t apprehend him without shooting him (7 times) in the back while grabbing his shirt as he entered the vehicle which he had to walk a ways to with cops with guns drawn following him?
Why not use the grab the shirt technique 8 steps ago?
Or the minute the taser didn’t work?
Why not use the tackle and beat the shit out him technique HPD would have used if you don’t comply.
Do not run from HPD.
I don’t know about now, but back In the day, they wouldn’t shoot you, but if you ran, when they caught you.....
if blake complied, he would have been apprehended and not shot...
Still I agree. Stupid games stupid prizes.
If he complied he would not have been shot.
Seems to be a common theme in a lot of these.
Philando Castile is one of the most bothering for me personally.
-
Philando Castile is one of the most bothering for me personally.
Also the one we hear the least about for some reason
-
He’s moved on to whiskey
if he passes out, put his hand in a bowl of warm water...
-
Matthews said officers made multiple requests to Blake to drop the knife, but he was uncooperative. He said officers used a Taser on Blake, but it did not incapacitate him.
“Blake forcefully fought with the officers, including putting one of the officers in a headlock,” Matthews said. A second stun from a Taser also did not stop him, he said.
As Blake opened the driver’s door of the SUV, Sheskey pulled on Blake’s shirt and then opened fire. Blake’s three children were in the backseat.
“Based on the inability to gain compliance and control after using verbal, physical and less-lethal means, the officers drew their firearms,” Matthews said. “Mr. Blake continued to ignore the officers’ commands, even with the threat of lethal force now present.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kenosha-police-union-gives-its-version-of-blake-shooting/ar-BB18tWPM?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds
looks like they followed procedures and training...
"but what else is the evil police union going to say to defend all the bad officers"
in 5, 4, 3,...
-
Matthews said officers made multiple requests to Blake to drop the knife, but he was uncooperative. He said officers used a Taser on Blake, but it did not incapacitate him.
“Blake forcefully fought with the officers, including putting one of the officers in a headlock,” Matthews said. A second stun from a Taser also did not stop him, he said.
As Blake opened the driver’s door of the SUV, Sheskey pulled on Blake’s shirt and then opened fire. Blake’s three children were in the backseat.
“Based on the inability to gain compliance and control after using verbal, physical and less-lethal means, the officers drew their firearms,” Matthews said. “Mr. Blake continued to ignore the officers’ commands, even with the threat of lethal force now present.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kenosha-police-union-gives-its-version-of-blake-shooting/ar-BB18tWPM?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds
looks like they followed procedures and training...
"but what else is the evil police union going to say to defend all the bad officers"
in 5, 4, 3,...
I might of missed something.
Can you show me, where did the police union say shooting suspects, to gain compliance, is part of their procedure?
-
I might of missed something.
Can you show me, where did the police union say shooting suspects, to gain compliance, is part of their procedure?
I’d say you missed a lot
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum
-
I’d say you missed a lot
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum
I did not know that the Kenosha Police Union bases their policies on Wikipedia articles. I look forward to hearing them cite that Wikipedia article, during the eventual legal proceedings.
Thanks. :thumbsup:
-
I might of missed something.
Can you show me, where did the police union say shooting suspects, to gain compliance, is part of their procedure?
they didn't, because it's not...
-
they didn't, because it's not...
Thanks for the clarification.
-
Thanks for the clarification.
I shouldn't have to clarify...
-
I shouldn't have to clarify...
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
-
they didn't, because it's not...
Sheldon. . .
-
if he passes out, put his hand in a bowl of warm water...
I dunno. My boss is kind of an asshole.
-
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
back in 1898...
-
I dunno. My boss is kind of an asshole.
yeah, loose bowels would really be a kicker...................
-
https://youtu.be/uj0mtxXEGE8
-
Liberal Revised Use of Force Continuum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK2HTrSOo-E
-
Liberal Revised Use of Force Continuum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK2HTrSOo-E
“Officer did a great job in that video, do you see what happens when an officer doesn’t “shoot first and ask questions later”? What if the gun wasn’t loaded? Did the suspect intend to shoot the officer just because he pointed it at him?”
—You know who, probably
-
“Officer did a great job in that video, do you see what happens when an officer doesn’t “shoot first and ask questions later”? What if the gun wasn’t loaded? Did the suspect intend to shoot the officer just because he pointed it at him?”
—You know who, probably
Always easy to ask "what if" when it's a stranger's ass on the line.
Personally, I think anyone who's stupid enough to point a lethal weapon at a Cop should have his death certificate read:
CAUSE OF DEATH: SUICIDE
-
:rofl: :rofl:that Chris rock video is one of my all-time favorites
That K&P video is perfect :thumbsup:
-
Always easy to ask "what if" when it's a stranger's ass on the line.
Personally, I think anyone who's stupid enough to point a lethal weapon at a Cop should have his death certificate read:
CAUSE OF DEATH: SUICIDE
Exactly. That’s what’s so nuts about the Blake shooting. You can tell the last thing the officer wanted to do was to shoot this dude. That’s why he went in for the t shirt pull, it was like a last ditch effort to try to stop this guy from making a fatal mistake. What could Blake possibly be going into the car for? I would really like to hear a rational thought process for what Blake was doing. From an officers perspective, if I have my gun on a suspect who’s not complying and just starts walking towards his vehicle I’m going to suspect this dude is off his rockers and that he intends to do harm.
-
To answer the topic's question: No, I would not want to be a cop. I can sit in the comfort of my chair in front of the keyboard and analyze everything and anything in the safety of my home. Hind sight is 20/20.
But cops do not have that luxury. Only training. And hopefully empathy. Courage. Compassion. They have to make gut wrenching decisions everyday. They have to deal with a public that demands their presence immediately when unpleasantries occur and withstand public scrutiny when things don't pan out the way the public wanted.
In the Blake situation, it seems no matter how the cops diffused the situation, they were bound to be scrutinized. People seem to say "they should have done this, they could have done that...."
And sure, they should've or could've. But how many of us ever done something then in retrospect wished we have done it better or another way? The consequences of our actions hardly have the fatal or long lasting results that cops have to deal with every day.
All I know is this. The best thing for anyone to do when in a confrontation with law enforcement is to comply when the order of STAND DOWN is given. It doesn't guarantee things will not go awry. But it is the BEST thing to do. Stay vigilant. Be observant. If you are wronged you should have your day in the court of law.
So far the majority of the situations in the recent past where people are all up in arms about injustice, police brutality, unnecessary killings and maiming's, the victims REFUSED TO LISTEN.
Sorry to say this but the majority of them were not the "Angels" their family make them out to be.
-
Exactly. That’s what’s so nuts about the Blake shooting. You can tell the last thing the officer wanted to do was to shoot this dude. That’s why he went in for the t shirt pull, it was like a last ditch effort to try to stop this guy from making a fatal mistake. What could Blake possibly be going into the car for? I would really like to hear a rational thought process for what Blake was doing. From an officers perspective, if I have my gun on a suspect who’s not complying and just starts walking towards his vehicle I’m going to suspect this dude is off his rockers and that he intends to do harm.
Once he's allowed to enter the vehicle. the vehicle itself can become a lethal weapon.
I can hear "you know who" now ....
"But he was just trying to get away. The Cops should have let him. If three Cops died, it was their fault for not getting out of the way."
:wacko:
-
If three Cops died, it was their fault for not getting out of the way."
Cops on the BI seem to like to jump in front of cars to provide an excuse to spray and pray. They never hit anything, at least.
-
Cops on the BI seem to like to jump in front of cars to provide an excuse to spray and pray. They never hit anything, at least.
Judgement call. If the Cop thinks blocking their path will make them stop, why not?
On the other hand, if the fleeing suspect looks determined to get away at all cost, blocking him with your body while you empty a mag at the windshield is a risky decision, to say the least.
Even if you hit the driver, there's no guarantee the vehicle will come to a stop. A wounded/dying driver probably won't be pressing the brake.
Would be funny to see a Cop stand his ground in front of a car with collision avoidance ..... :rofl:
-
Or he kept missing center mass because he is the kind of cop who does not understand the value of training and as a result regularly puts himself, his partners, and the community at risk.
Poor training
Intense stress
Warning shots
Shots to limbs instead of torso
All possible reasons.
-
How is a suspect moving away, from the cops, to get back, into his car, a threat to the cops?
Maybe cops thought he might be a threat to the kids in the van?
-
Poor training
Intense stress
Warning shots
Shots to limbs instead of torso
All possible reasons.
After that I speculated it was also possible he was hesitating because of political reasons, and ironically ended up starting the riot he was trying to prevent.
-
A federal intelligence alert obtained by the ABC7 I-Team has gone out to Chicago-area law enforcement with an ominous warning: nearly three dozen cold-blooded street gangs "have formed a pact to 'shoot on-site any cop that has a weapon drawn on any subject in public'."
https://abc7chicago.com/fbi-chicago-warns-that-gang-cabal-may-be-targeting-police-officers-/6397730/
-
"Shooting the guy, shooting the guy in the back many times, I mean, couldn't you have done something different?" Trump said. "Couldn't you have wrestled him?" (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-compared-police-who-shoot-people-to-golf-players-who-mess-up-their-shots-the-night-before-visiting-the-aftermath-of-the-jacob-blake-shooting-in-kenosha/ar-BB18A3QZ?li=BBnb7Kz)
As they say, great minds think alike. ;)
I am in total agreement with Trump, in concluding that Office Sheskey choked, in his decision, to shoot Blake, in his back. Our US President possesses great critical wisdom, in his raising this question, to the public and police. Trump in 2020 baby!!! :shaka:
I look forward to reading the similar group-think criticism, for Trump raising the same question I did earlier. :rofl:
-
Why isn’t it that the issue? Because you say so? Psssh.
If Blake complied, would he have gotten “executed point blank with 7 rounds? Just like I’d you don’t want to get shot, you might not want to try breaking into my house. Consequences for bad actions. If not, enabling bad behavior.
Well, not only me, but Trump raises the same issue and questions, as I do. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-compared-police-who-shoot-people-to-golf-players-who-mess-up-their-shots-the-night-before-visiting-the-aftermath-of-the-jacob-blake-shooting-in-kenosha/ar-BB18A3QZ?li=BBnb7Kz)
I guess people like Trump and myself must be emotionally driven and liberally biased, for asking the questions and arriving, to the conclusions, that we do. ???
-
Cops: Get on the ground now!
Suspect: What you gonna do? Shoot me?
Cops (to dispatch): We need an ambulance ....
Trump: "Shooting the guy, shooting the guy in the back many times, I mean, couldn't you have done something different? Couldn't you have wrestled him?"
Flapp_Jackson: Be quiet racist Hawaiian. No one wants to read more of your lack of experience nonsense and wild imaginations.... WAIT, I am so sorry Mr. President, I thought I was talking, to someone else.
Kuleana: You still think you're better than me. :rofl:
-
Check your dosages
-
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
I guess Trump and I are both idiots for arriving, to similar conclusions, regarding the Blake shooting. :D
Per Trump, police officers, who shoot civilians are chokers and that Officer Sheskey made a bad decision, in shooting Blake, in his back 7 times. :wtf:
-
I want some of whatever you been smoking :rofl:
Trump and I don't smoke anything, but use the same thing; our brains for objective and common sense critical reasoning, in analyzing the Blake shooting. :thumbsup:
-
Trump and I don't smoke anything, but use the same thing; our brains for objective and common sense critical reasoning, in analyzing the Blake shooting. :thumbsup:
Likening yourself to a celebrity is called delusions of grandeur.
-
Likening yourself to a celebrity is called delusions of grandeur.
It is very nice to know that I am not the only one, who questions the justification, of any police related shootings, unlike the fanatic blue lives matter, shoot-first and find-excuses-later mob, on this forum, that always chastises and make personal attacks, to anyone that does. Not everyone is a part, of that mob, BTW.
Trump in 2020 baby!!! :shaka:
-
It is very nice to know that I am not the only one, who questions the justification, of any police related shootings, unlike the fanatic blue lives matter, shoot-first and find-excuses-later mob, on this forum, that always chastises and make personal attacks, to anyone that does. Not everyone is a part, of that mob, BTW.
Trump in 2020 baby!!! :shaka:
Arguing the justifications of a police officer's actions are one issue but likening yourself to President Trump is another level of pandering or a thinly veiled delusion.
There are lots of people here with experience in firearms training, escalation of force and LE training. I don't know if anyone here can speak to the training criminals receive and their use of force policy
-
Arguing the justifications of a police officer's actions are one issue but likening yourself to President Trump is another level of pandering or a thinly veiled delusion.
Don't we all try to be like and emulate Trump?
I sure do; and its nice to see my mode of analysis is at least, on the same wavelength, like Trump. Maybe, more on this forum should do the same or be kind to those of us that think like him.
-
Don't we all try to be like and emulate Trump?
no.
On one hand you speak negatively of perceived group think here on this forum and then on the other hand you solicit everyone to think like one man.
-
...on the other hand you solicit everyone to think like one man.
I am not saying for people to act like Trump.
I am referring to Trump's open-mindedness, as evidenced, in his views, of police-related shootings, that I think more, on this forum, should equally embrace.
-
Check your dosages
He's still out of Lithium...
-
I am not saying for people to act like Trump.
I am referring to Trump's open-mindedness, as evidenced, in his views, of police-related shootings, that I think more, on this forum, should equally embrace.
Trump asked a question without judging the Cops.
You condemned the Cops' actions immediately -- going well beyond asking "why?"
Trump's trying to understand the FACTS. You're criticizing and accusing the Cops of "executing" a suspect.
I'm sure you'll never agree with that characterization, but it is what it is.
-
Trump asked a question without judging the Cops.
"They can do 10,000 great acts, which is what they do, and one bad apple — or a choker, Y'know a choker. They choke." - DJT
Sounds like a judgement of cops, who shoot civilians, as quoted by Trump, to me.
I'm sure you'll never agree with that characterization, but it is what it is.
I don't agree because I saw what Trump said.
Did you?
-
He's still out of Lithium...
I am so glad you are back on your medications.
Everyone can see how you are like when you are on it, but I can only wonder, what happens, when you run out. :shake:
-
"They can do 10,000 great acts, which is what they do, and one bad apple — or a choker, Y'know a choker. They choke." - DJT
Sounds like a judgement of cops, who shoot civilians, as quoted by Trump, to me.
I don't agree because I saw what Trump said.
Did you?
#1 Wrong! He was making a general statement. Nothing in the Blake case involved a choke hold. :rofl:
#2 You interpreted what he said to confirm your bias. Nothing more.
-
I am so glad you are back on your medications.
Everyone can see how you are like when you are on it, but I can only wonder, what happens, when you run out. :shake:
Lame troll comments from you are never-ending.
Why can't you stay on topic?
-
No one is gonna comment further on Trump’s comment?
It’s kinda interesting and seems worthy of further discussion.
Certainly on topic as it refers to the Kenosha officer shooting, and possibly even his stance on a number of police shootings.
Choke hold? He said officers sometimes choke. Like a golfer who muffs a three foot putt.
Or is everyone just going down Kuleana’s rabbit hole?
-
No one is gonna comment further on Trump’s comment?
It’s kinda interesting and seems worthy of further discussion.
Certainly on topic as it refers to the Kenosha officer shooting, and possibly even his stance on a number of police shootings.
Choke hold? He said officers sometimes choke. Like a golfer who muffs a three foot putt.
Or is everyone just going down Kuleana’s rabbit hole?
Jiminy Christmas not you too!
-
No one is gonna comment further on Trump’s comment?
It’s kinda interesting and seems worthy of further discussion.
Certainly on topic as it refers to the Kenosha officer shooting, and possibly even his stance on a number of police shootings.
Choke hold? He said officers sometimes choke. Like a golfer who muffs a three foot putt.
Or is everyone just going down Kuleana’s rabbit hole?
rather talk about guns and shootin'...can't wait to go back to the range and shoot the X out of bullseye....and flex on 'em
-
Jiminy Christmas not you too!
Heck no, not me too.
I’m not going down the rabbit hole to play with The Mad Hatter and the Queen of Hearts.
I’ll let you decide who’s who.
I am a little different from the usual cast of characters though.
So are a lot of the characters on here when you meet ‘em. Good guys all the ones I’ve met. Almost all.
But what do you think about Trump’s statement on the matter?
That cops sometimes choke like golfers standing over a three foot putt.
(Actually I gotta go back and watch it again so I know what the hell I’m talking about.)
rather talk about guns and shootin'...can't wait to go back to the range and shoot the X out of bullseye....and flex on 'em
Couldn’t agree more.
Postal match with pellet guns!
Two classes. Optics and open sights.
Now there’s a quarantine activity.
-
President Trump just says things. He's not typical. I don't know what he meant - maybe it was subtle. I do know from his speeches he back law enforcement but he is not a blind fool. He will get rid of people who are not competent. I did read his book, The Art of the Deal and in it he says that at his level he needs to deal with skilled people. He'll give people the chance but like on The Apprentice he will move you aside for more competent people. What he refers to I can only guess that principle applies to leadership positions.
-
I'm going to get a SCATT. I have a feeling this lockdown will last at least a month.
-
No one is gonna comment further on Trump’s comment? Certainly on topic as it refers to the Kenosha officer shooting, and possibly even his stance on a number of police shootings.
I don't think so Hound.
As you can see, a number of posters, in this thread, were more interested in shouting down, my points of contention, or making personal attacks. However, when Trump himself, echoed similar questions and conclusions that I posted; funny how the overwhelming criticism, of my position, suddenly ceased, except for a couple of others, who still felt they had to throw some weird insults, just to save face.
I guess many, who were so sure that my views, on this matter, was clearly insane, biased, or purely emotional driven were shocked to know Trump's position, which I think made them stop, in their own tracks, and maybe start questioning the validity, of some of their own views.
Choke hold? He said officers sometimes choke. Like a golfer who muffs a three foot putt.
You should not be surprised, since the person you are referring, who always criticizes me, in not reading carefully, is a guilty hypocrite, himself.
-
But what do you think about Trump’s statement on the matter?
That cops sometimes choke like golfers standing over a three foot putt.
(Actually I gotta go back and watch it again so I know what the hell I’m talking about.)
I clearly stated several times that it is my belief the cops screwed up, and it was confirmed by EEF. The difference is we believe the screw up happened before the shots were fired. With 3 cops and a struggle the perp should never have made it around to the other side of the car, much less managed to open the door.
The victim-obsessed media is fixated on the seven shots, but it might not have gotten to that point if the situation was handled correctly in the first place. Unfortunately it set up the ugly yet necessary conclusion.
So which part of the confrontation was Trump talking about? I do not know, but I guarantee you certain narcissists who regularly talk out of their ʻokole do not know either.
-
So which part of the confrontation was Trump talking about? I do not know, but I guarantee you certain narcissists who regularly talk out of their ʻokole do not know either.
"Shooting the guy, shooting the guy in the back many times, I mean, couldn't you have done something different? Couldn't you have wrestled him?" - DJT
I think this quote by Trump can help. :shaka:
-
"Shooting the guy, shooting the guy in the back many times, I mean, couldn't you have done something different? Couldn't you have wrestled him?" - DJT
I think this quote by Trump can help. :shaka:
This just reinforced my point. He literally said the same thing I just said, but your ideological victim goggles will not let you see it.
-
.
But what do you think about Trump’s statement on the matter?
That cops sometimes choke like golfers standing over a three foot putt.
(Actually I gotta go back and watch it again so I know what the hell I’m talking about.)
Legitimate question that started some actual discussion.
"Shooting the guy, shooting the guy in the back many times, I mean, couldn't you have done something different? Couldn't you have wrestled him?" - DJT
I think this quote by Trump can help. :shaka:
Rabbit holed. :grrr:
-
This just reinforced my point. He literally said the same thing I just said, but your ideological victim goggles will not let you see it.
I agree with your premise, but not your ending. You refer to Blake being shot, in the back, as the "necessary conclusion".
According to Trump, cops who shoots civilians are chokers. I agree with that assessment, and based on Trump's logic, Office Sheskey choked, and shot a person that he should not have shot. Blake was clearly wrong, for his non-compliance, but Officer Sheskey is the one, who also made a mistake.
-
I agree with your premise, but not your ending. You refer to Blake being shot, in the back, as the "necessary conclusion".
According to Trump, cops who shoots civilians are chokers. I agree with that assessment, and based on Trump's logic, Office Sheskey choked, and shot a person that he should not have shot. Blake was clearly wrong, for his non-compliance, but Officer Sheskey is the one, who also made a mistake.
That is not what he said, but your extreme reach of an assumption of what he meant.
Cops who shoot civilians re chokers?
Literally putting words in his mouth.
-
That is not what he said, but your extreme reach of an assumption of what he meant.
No need for the insult, but I concede, we agree to disagree.
-
I am not a tactical expert by any means, but when someone fights with the cops, shakes off the tazer, and reaches inside a car it is clearly time to use lethal force. At that point his life was forfeit, and however many bullets it takes to stop him is however many it takes.
-
That is not what he said, but your extreme reach of an assumption of what he meant.
Cops who shoot civilians re chokers?
Literally putting words in his mouth.
No need for the insult, but I concede, we agree to disagree.
he didn't insult you at all
-
he didn't insult you at all
I did before, but only because he is intelligent enough to know better.
-
But what do you think about Trump’s statement on the matter?
That cops sometimes choke like golfers standing over a three foot putt.
Trump is the President and all President's make comments filtered through political correctness. That is, except Trump, which is why he is the person that needs to be President, at this time, in America's history. Although Trump sometimes redacts previous comments, Trump is blunt and says what he feels; hence, we can be sure, what he says, at any particular time, is what he meant.
Earlier in the week, Trump was asked about the protests, riots, police brutality, etc. Trump did acknowledge that most cops were good, but went on record referencing how cops, who end up shooting civilians, such as in the Blake case, were "chokers". Even if that particular cop had no prior complaints or disciplinary actions, on their record, Trump said that cops are still capable of "choking", under the pressure. Honest and fair assessment, in my opinion.
Question: What does "choke" mean?
Answer: Based on Trump's interview, it appears he was utilizing the term, in reference, to failing to perform, during a stressful situation. Furthermore, "choke", when used in this fashion, is most often referred, in a negative context, to the person being described.
Question: What does Trump's reference to cops, who "choke", relate to police related civilian shootings?
Answer: Based on Trump's interview, it can be inferred that he believes most cops are good, but there are a few bad ones. An example, of which Trump said cops, who sometimes shoot civilians, are "chokers".
Question: How does his belief, take into account, the circumstances that led to Officer Sheskey's, "choking" decision, to shoot Blake 7 times, in his back?
Answer: From watching Trump's interview, he clearly recognized the speculation that Blake might have been going to get his knife, but still made his infamous comment, "Shooting the guy, shooting the guy in the back many times, I mean, couldn't you have done something different? Couldn't you have wrestled him?"
In the end, Trump's did not share anything Earth-shattering, but clearly recognized that cops, who end up shooting civilians should not be the norm. If cops are dealing with suspects already armed and ready to do harm, there is little doubt, what actions cops should take, in that situation. However, if a threat of harm has not fully materialized, then cops should be mindful and not "choke", by resorting, to deadly force, prematurely. IMHO, if Trump can acknowledge this line of reasoning, maybe we all should, at least, respect that possibility.
-
If there were three dead kids and a suicide this would be an entirely different conversation.
And that was a distinct possibility if he drove off given the possible domestic violence situation, non-compliance and the stupid shit that happens now days.
Did they mess up before he got to his car? Looks like it. If anything that’s where the “choke” happened.
Once he got to his car and opened the door getting in.......story kinda changed.
Maybe they should reinstate the choke hold because the cop shoulda MMA choke holded this dude. Unless of course he had the knife.
(Whatever happened to the full Nelson)
Ultimately, as Mac said, if he had complied he wouldn’t be shot.
-
Simple solution. If you don't want police dont call them. Fix your own problems yourself. Same thing with all govt services. You have a choice.
-
Did they mess up before he got to his car? Looks like it. If anything that’s where the “choke” happened.
Yes, they definitely should have elected some form, of non-deadly force, to detain Blake.
Once he got to his car and opened the door getting in.......story kinda changed.
Yes the story changed, but per Trump, was shooting Blake, in the back, the only available answer? It might have been the most safe and convenient answer, from Officer Sheskey's point of view, but not his only move. I concur with Trump that Sheskey "choked", on that one.
Maybe they should reinstate the choke hold because the cop shoulda MMA choke holded this dude. Unless of course he had the knife. (Whatever happened to the full Nelson)
There are a number of non-lethal grappling options that could be employed to someone from behind that I hope, in Sheskey's case, he was unfamiliar with. Definitely following so close to Blake was not Sheskey's only option, but one that he took, which put himself, in a situation to make a "choke" decision. This is hypothetical, of course, but Instead of guns drawn, with numbers on their side, gang rush Blake, as he got to his car door, like criminal thugs normally do, when they want to steal your car.
Ultimately, as Mac said, if he had complied he wouldn’t be shot.
True, but shooting people, for non-compliance, is not the only answer.
-
Yes, they definitely should have elected some form, of non-deadly force, to detain Blake.
Yes the story changed, but per Trump, was shooting Blake, in the back, the only available answer? It might have been the most safe and convenient answer, from Officer Sheskey's point of view, but not his only move. I concur with Trump that Sheskey "choked", on that one.
There are a number of non-lethal grappling options that could be employed to someone from behind that I hope, in Sheskey's case, he was unfamiliar with. Definitely following so close to Blake was not Sheskey's only option, but one that he took, which put himself, in a situation to make a "choke" decision. This is hypothetical, of course, but Instead of guns drawn, with numbers on their side, gang rush Blake, as he got to his car door, like criminal thugs normally do, when they want to steal your car.
True, but shooting people, for non-compliance, is not the only answer.
What kind of LE training have you received? Any defensive training you received?
-
What kind of LE training have you received? Any defensive training you received?
The same as Trump, ZERO. :(
BTW, I look forward to outing you every time, when someone else offers a hypothetical solution, and you say NOTHING. :shaka:
:stopjack:
-
The same as Trump, ZERO. :(
BTW, I look forward to outing you every time, when someone else offers a hypothetical solution, and you say NOTHING. :shaka:
:stopjack:
"outing me"?
What are your "hypothetical solutions" based upon?
-
What are your "hypothetical solutions" based upon?
Intuitive common sense and lessons learned being Hawaiian and raised in a crime ridden neighborhood. >:D
-
Intuitive common sense and lessons learned being Hawaiian and raised in a crime ridden neighborhood. >:D
HPD is hiring. You could start change from within. Or perhaps go on a ride along and gain some perspective.
What kind of encounters did you have in your crime ridden neighborhood?
You mentioned race in your answer but I think that's the reason why we are in such a polarizing situation. Is being Hawaiian a factor in conducting effective law enforcement here in Hawaii?
-
Yes, they definitely should have elected some form, of non-deadly force, to detain Blake.
Did you miss the part where the officers Tazered him, but it was ineffective?
Police used a Taser and grappled with Jacob Blake before shooting him, witnesses say
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/police-used-a-taser-and-grappled-with-jacob-blake-before-shooting-him-witnesses-say/ar-BB18lS69
Also, the President, no matter who holds that office, should NEVER give statements about ANY police-involved shootings until after all the investigating is done. Then, if there are charges being brought, he should 100% refrain from giving any opinions or speculations on the matter to the press.
If the matter goes to court, statements by ANY high government official could be used by the defense as an attempt, intentional or not, to influence the jury pool.
Trying to get Trump to "condemn" people is an age-old ploy by the press to say, If he condemns the actions, he didn't do it fast enough, and if he doesn't because they are still gathering the facts, he's SUPPORTING the alleged perp/s.
Better to express feelings and condolences than an opinion -- especially with a hostile press waiting for Trump tp say something he probably should not have.
-
Did you miss the part where the officers Tazered him, but it was ineffective?
So, in your book, if tazering does not work, shoot center mass and call the coroner, for non-compliance? :wtf:
If that going to be the cops SOP, for any suspect that does not comply, just come out and say it.
America is a fascist state and forget about due process, of the law; Judge Dredd rules here: Comply or Die! :shake:
-
:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
-
FJ's View of Handling Non-Compliance of Suspects:
Officer: I need to see your identification.
Suspect: I don't have any on me.
Officer: Non-compliance? Eat lead!
______________________________________________
Officer: You are under arrest. Get on the ground now!
Suspect: Tell me what I am being charged for first.
Officer: Resisting arrest? You're cottage cheese!
______________________________________________
Officer: We are taking you to jail.
Suspect: Stop roughing me up!
Officer: Disobeying a cop? Here's 7rds, in your back, for your trouble!
_______________________________________________
These examples were over-exaggerating, of course.
However, do you really want to see cops have this kind of decision-making cycle?
-
So, in your book, if tazering does not work, shoot center mass and call the coroner, for non-compliance? :wtf:
If that going to be the cops SOP, for any suspect that does not comply, just come out and say it.
America is a fascist state and forget about due process, of the law; Judge Dredd rules here: Comply or Die! :shake:
"America is a fascist state and forget about due process, of the law"
It seems to me this is only the case in states or cities run by Democrats.
Americans are a good people that respect the law, mostly.
Democrats aren't Americans, they are Democrats.
Look at what Democrats are doing to Hawaii today.
It is not Americans messing the place up, today.
We Americans are going "Galt" and standing aside while
Democrats destroy the place.
-
FJ's View of Handling Non-Compliance of Suspects:
Officer: I need to see your identification.
Suspect: I don't have any on me.
Officer: Non-compliance? Eat lead!
______________________________________________
Officer: You are under arrest. Get on the ground now!
Suspect: Tell me what I am being charged for first.
Officer: Resisting arrest? You're cottage cheese!
______________________________________________
Officer: We are taking you to jail.
Suspect: Stop roughing me up!
Officer: Disobeying a cop? Here's 7rds, in your back, for your trouble!
_______________________________________________
These examples were over-exaggerating, of course.
However, do you really want to see cops have this kind of decision-making cycle?
This is what happens when you have no FACTS to offer.
Hyperbolic diarrhea. :wacko:
-
So, in your book, if tazering does not work, shoot center mass and call the coroner, for non-compliance? :wtf:
If that going to be the cops SOP, for any suspect that does not comply, just come out and say it.
America is a fascist state and forget about due process, of the law; Judge Dredd rules here: Comply or Die! :shake:
You said:
Yes, they definitely should have elected some form, of non-deadly force, to detain Blake.
I responded with FACTS. The MSN source (not right wing) stated that WITNESSES reported the Cops WRESTLED with the suspect and tried to Taser him. It also reported that the video which YOU hang your entire argument on was not started until AFTER the Cops had Blake on the ground, tried to Taser him, but then increased their distance when they discovered he had a knife.
Instead of admitting you were ignorant of the facts, vis-a-vis your statement the Cops should have elected some form of "non-deadly force," you attacked me by concocting a strawman of things I never said.
Can't have an honest, adult discussion with you. You think everyone who isn't like you in your biases is always wrong.
Go pound sand. I'm through trying to educate and enlighten you. Maybe you can try Googling information that gives both sides of a story for yourself. Ignorance can be cured.
-
:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
:rofl: :rofl:
I'm still the new guy here so I find it entertaining...…. :popcorn:
-
Look up police tactics.
Cops do not use non-lethal or less-than-lethal force on a perp who is holding a potentially lethal weapon (knife, gun, metal pipe, ...) UNLESS the Cop has backup. The backup Cops have their LETHAL firearms at the ready in case the non-lethal/less-than-lethal weapons fail which potentially puts that officer in harms way.
Simple and logical.
-
:rofl: :rofl:
I'm still the new guy here so I find it entertaining...…. :popcorn:
After years of the same racist, anti-military, anti-Law-Enforcement BS, it does get old.
Except for the ICBM silos hidden on Oahu. That one NEVER gets old! :rofl:
-
That TMZ video referenced/linked in Flapp’s link sure makes it look like they, the cops, were wrestling with him best they could in a chaotic situation with people crowded close around.
Wrestled with him, attempting tasing, knife.....this is way more gray than it seems.
https://www.tmz.com/2020/08/24/jacob-blake-shooting-new-angle-struggle-cops-kenosha/
-
That TMZ video referenced/linked in Flapp’s link sure makes it look like they, the cops, were wrestling with him best they could in a chaotic situation with people crowded close around.
Wrestled with him, attempting tasing, knife.....this is way more gray than it seems.
https://www.tmz.com/2020/08/24/jacob-blake-shooting-new-angle-struggle-cops-kenosha/
Careful!
Mind you don't contradict the MSM/DNC/BLM narrative.
I find it comical that "some people" love to rush to judgement based on partial evidence, then become unhinged when the facts dispute their conclusions. "It's much easier to lie to the people than to convince them they've been lied to."
This is why Twitter is dangerous. "Trending" has replaced "confirmed evidence."
-
:rofl: :rofl:
I'm still the new guy here so I find it entertaining...…. :popcorn:
You've got to love the forum's permatroll; a guy who constantly tries to present himself, as the most knowledgeable person, in this forum, that resorts to personal attacks, when he usually can't win, and thinks everyone is stupid, for not noticing, when he arrogantly does so.
He is the person, who will look for any lame inconsequential technicality, to prove his one-sided position; a staunch defender of cops, in all cases of police brutality and civilian-related shootings; a hero of the shoot-first and look-for-excuses mentality; and a fanatic supporter of the endless illegal wars that are bankrupting America.
He hates anyone's exercising, of their 1st Amendment rights, when it goes against his own delusional narrative; attacks anyone, who points out America's slide into fascism; and looks down, on the views of locals, and in particular, Native Hawaiians.
Other than himself, shamelessly thinking he is superior, than anyone else, in this forum, and probably be the guy to rat anyone, to the cops, that violates any of Hawaii's anti-gun laws; he occasionally can be a so-so guy. :shaka:
-
You've got to love the forum's permatroll;
Talk about hilarious irony, this post has it.
-
it's always 1898
-
Where do bad threads go when they die?
They don't go to heaven where the angels fly
They go to the lake of fire and fry
Won't see them again 'till 1898
-
Talk about hilarious irony, this post has it.
That's right.
You say nothing, when the aforementioned makes personal attacks, against this Hawaiian, but you attack this Hawaiian, when he fights back, against the aforementioned.
Just making sure everyone see your double-standard. :shaka:
-
it's always 1898
Sure lucky for you, the Chinese Exclusion Act ended, during WWII, and they closed the Japanese internment camps, huh?
-
Sure lucky for you, the Chinese Exclusion Act ended, during WWII, and they closed the Japanese internment camps, huh?
That's right.
You say nothing, when the aforementioned makes personal attacks, against this Hawaiian, but you attack this Hawaiian, when he fights back, against the aforementioned.
Just making sure everyone see your double-standard. :shaka:
That's the center of gravity for most of your arguments and attacks - race.
What does the Chinese Exclusion Act have to do with this post of being a police officer and why did you direct that towards me?
-
What does the Chinese Exclusion Act have to do with this post of being a police officer and why did you direct that towards me?
What's does your quote below have anything to with being a police officer?
it's always 1898
You can post things like this that you know is directed at me and I can't respond back? Give me a break...
-
You've got to love the forum's permatroll; a guy who constantly tries to present himself, as the most knowledgeable person, in this forum, that resorts to personal attacks, when he usually can't win, and thinks everyone is stupid, for not noticing, when he arrogantly does so.
He is the person, who will look for any lame inconsequential technicality, to prove his one-sided position; a staunch defender of cops, in all cases of police brutality and civilian-related shootings; a hero of the shoot-first and look-for-excuses mentality; and a fanatic supporter of the endless illegal wars that are bankrupting America.
He hates anyone's exercising, of their 1st Amendment rights, when it goes against his own delusional narrative; attacks anyone, who points out America's slide into fascism; and looks down, on the views of locals, and in particular, Native Hawaiians.
Other than himself, shamelessly thinking he is superior, than anyone else, in this forum, and probably be the guy to rat anyone, to the cops, that violates any of Hawaii's anti-gun laws; he occasionally can be a so-so guy. :shaka:
(https://i.imgur.com/Bj6bjuH.gif)
-
What's does your quote below have anything to with being a police officer?
You can post things like this that you know is directed at me and I can't respond back? Give me a break...
in 1898 the City of Brooklyn became part of New York City and NYPD absorbed 18 police departments. A lot happened in 1898 as far as law enforcement matters go.
Blue Lives Matter too.
-
in 1898 the City of Brooklyn became part of New York City and NYPD absorbed 18 police departments. A lot happened in 1898 as far as law enforcement matters go.
Blue Lives Matter too.
November 10 – The Wilmington Insurrection of 1898: A coup d'état by white supremacists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898
The Wilmington insurrection of 1898, also known as the Wilmington massacre of 1898 or the Wilmington coup of 1898,[6]
occurred in Wilmington, North Carolina, on Thursday, November 10, 1898.[7] It is considered a turning point in post-Reconstruction
North Carolina politics. The event initiated an era of more severe racial segregation and effective disenfranchisement of
African Americans throughout the South, a shift already underway since passage by Mississippi of a new constitution in 1890,
raising barriers to voter registration. Laura Edwards wrote in Democracy Betrayed (2000): "What happened in Wilmington became
an affirmation of white supremacy not just in that one city, but in the South and in the nation as a whole", as it affirmed that invoking
"whiteness" eclipsed the legal citizenship, individual rights, and equal protection under the law that blacks were guaranteed under
the Fourteenth Amendment.[8][9][10]
The white press in Wilmington originally described the event as a race riot caused by blacks. However, over time, with more facts
publicized, the event has come to be seen as a coup d'état, the violent overthrow of a duly elected government, by a group of white
supremacists. Multiple causes brought it about.[1][11][12][13][14][15][16] It is claimed to be the only such incident in American
history,[17][18] (other late Reconstruction Era violence did not result in a direct 'coup' or removal and replacement of elected officials
by unelected individuals).
The coup occurred after the state's white Southern Democrats conspired and led a mob of 2,000 white men to overthrow the
legitimately elected local Fusionist government. They expelled opposition black and white political leaders from the city, destroyed
the property and businesses of black citizens built up since the Civil War, including the only black newspaper in the city, and killed
an estimated 60 to more than 300 people.[2][3][4][5]
-
That's right.
You say nothing, when the aforementioned makes personal attacks, against this Hawaiian, but you attack this Hawaiian, when he fights back, against the aforementioned.
Just making sure everyone see your double-standard. :shaka:
(https://i.imgur.com/6lYvC6P.png)
-
in 1898 the City of Brooklyn became part of New York City and NYPD absorbed 18 police departments. A lot happened in 1898 as far as law enforcement matters go.
Blue Lives Matter too.
Impressive, if you learned of those things, yourself. :thumbsup:
I can't help, but wonder though, if the permatroll assisted you, with some of his google-fu.
-
Impressive, if you learned of those things, yourself. :thumbsup:
I can't help, but wonder though, if the permatroll assisted you, with some of his google-fu.
(https://i.imgur.com/ODX7zD4.gif)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/6lYvC6P.png)
Me; distressed by you? :rofl:
I am the one important person, in your life, remember?
-
Enough of that childishness.
:stopjack:
-
Enough of that childishness.
:stopjack:
LOL!!!
Once again, the one derailing the thread pretends to want to stay on topic.
Pathetic.
:sleeping:
-
After that I speculated it was also possible he was hesitating because of political reasons, and ironically ended up starting the riot he was trying to prevent.
A possibility. One study of policeman did find a delay in shooting black male targets so there is certainly an argument that could be made there.
Hesitation is a double edged sword, could make things better but could also make things worse.
-
"Shooting the guy, shooting the guy in the back many times, I mean, couldn't you have done something different?" Trump said. "Couldn't you have wrestled him?" (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-compared-police-who-shoot-people-to-golf-players-who-mess-up-their-shots-the-night-before-visiting-the-aftermath-of-the-jacob-blake-shooting-in-kenosha/ar-BB18A3QZ?li=BBnb7Kz)
As they say, great minds think alike. ;)
I am in total agreement with Trump, in concluding that Office Sheskey choked, in his decision, to shoot Blake, in his back. Our US President possesses great critical wisdom, in his raising this question, to the public and police. Trump in 2020 baby!!! :shaka:
I look forward to reading the similar group-think criticism, for Trump raising the same question I did earlier. :rofl:
Could the cop have wrestled him to the ground? Trump's question is a fair one, and after action analysis should address this question because there are nearly always things that could be improved on.
But the more detailed question that needs to be answered would be whether the officer could have done something different reasonably safely. Could the officer have reasonably holstered his firearm and gone hands on given what he knew at the time?
We don't know the answer to that yet though. We know the man mentioned a knife IIRC which would give a reasonable person hesitation to tackle him. We know that it was reported a knife was found near/on the driver's seat and at that point he was well within the dangerous distance. So if you were a cop would you tackle a man you had reason to believe was holding a knife?
-
Could the cop have wrestled him to the ground? Trump's question is a fair one, and after action analysis should address this question because there are nearly always things that could be improved on.
But the more detailed question that needs to be answered would be whether the officer could have done something different reasonably safely. Could the officer have reasonably holstered his firearm and gone hands on given what he knew at the time?
We don't know the answer to that yet though. We know the man mentioned a knife IIRC which would give a reasonable person hesitation to tackle him. We know that it was reported a knife was found near/on the driver's seat and at that point he was well within the dangerous distance. So if you were a cop would you tackle a man you had reason to believe was holding a knife?
The Cops had already gone hands on and also tried tasering him.
You should read the rest of this thread rather than picking up on only the latest 2 or 3 posts ...
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=37808.msg337315#msg337315
-
The Cops had already gone hands on and also tried tasering him.
You should read the rest of this thread rather than picking up on only the latest 2 or 3 posts ...
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=37808.msg337315#msg337315
I already knew cops had gone hands on and used a taser. And if you pay attention to the time stamps, I didn't respond to the latest posts, I responded to ones several days earlier.
-
I already knew cops had gone hands on and used a taser. And if you pay attention to the time stamps, I didn't respond to the latest posts, I responded to ones several days earlier.
Based on your own words, you didn't know those facts until my post:
"Could the officer have reasonably holstered his firearm and gone hands on given what he knew at the time?"
Tried and failed. That's not even a question given the facts, yet you asked anyway.