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.   

 

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.   

 

"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.   

Intuitive common sense and lessons learned being Hawaiian and raised in a crime ridden neighborhood.   

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?   

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!   

 

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?   

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!   

"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.