There is no justification for shooting a father in front of his children at point blank range 7 times in the back .
Not even the mafia would be so sick.
Soz. Got a bit snowflakey there.
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 14:10,
Reply)
So, if he was reaching for a firearm, the police shouldn't shoot him because children are watching?
Once in the back of the head would have been sufficient. But his back is far easier to hit, and seven shots should be plenty to ensure he doesn't continue to reach for his weapon and proceed to discharge it into one of the Officers/children.
But God forbid the police shoot a known felon with previous convictions for concealing weapons in his car, after repeatedly telling said fuckwit to stop moving to the vehicle, right?
This is nothing but another excuse for a bunch of fucking morons to riot.
(, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 14:14, Reply)
Should the police shoot people at point blank range 7 times in the back at all?
Should armed police turn up to a domestic dispute and start threatening to kill people?
Soz for being a cunt about it.
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 14:23,
Reply)
All police in the USA (as far as I know) are armed.
Should police turn up to a domestic dispute? Yes. Particularly if it has spilled out onto the street and somebody with a history of violent domestic disputes (this dude) happens to be there.
Should they threaten to shoot somebody if they don't comply with their instructions? Yes.
The fuck should I have empathy with this cunt for? If an armed Officer tells me to stop moving, I'm going to stop fucking moving.
(, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 14:38, Reply)
It'd be funny if you got Parkinsons and were shot for not freezing because of it.
(, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 14:42, Reply)
If someone is brandishing a gun and pointing it at people and in assessing the situation, the police think that they're going to shoot....then deadly force is fair game.
From that video, it doesn't look like the situation has escalated to the stage that shoot to kill is justified. Difficult to tell as we can't see what's in the car.
I would like to think that police don't kill people unnecessarily, but since watching one kneel on an unarmed man's neck until he died a few weeks ago, I'm less certain.
(, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 14:47, Reply)
If it turns out he was reaching for a weapon, would you say the use of force was justified, though?
(, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 15:07, Reply)
he'd barely got the door open before the copper was blazing away,
Is getting into your car after being told to stop grounds for execution?
You're right that there might be circumstances we don't know about that happened before the video started, maybe he was threatening to get his gun and shoot the other woman. But on the face of this vid alone it seems disproportionate. Cars are left hand drive in the states, so he wasnt going for the glove compartment at least. Maybe he was planing to drive off?
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 15:57,
Reply)
If you look at the link I posted further up
He's previously been convicted of concealing firearms behind/under the driver's seat of his car.
In the video Sock posted, just before the Police Officer fires, you can see Mr Blake suddenly reach for something at floor level. It's quick, but there's definitely a direct movement made.
Is it completely beyond possibility that he was reaching for a weapon? Or that the Officer had reasonable suspicion to believe he was?
If an Officer draws his weapon and tells you to keep your hands raised, you wouldn't suddenly reach into your pocket, would you? Because you might get shot. I don't see how this is any different. He was repeatedly told to stop moving. He wasn't shot until he reached for something in his vehicle. If you were going to keep a concealed weapon handy in your car, you'd probably keep it somewhere within easy reach of the driver's seat. Like the door cubby.
(, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 16:04, Reply)
if you look at the video his body only lowered down after he was shot, probably as his shattered spine were stopping sending nerve impulses to his back muscles
Shooting someone in the back who might or might not be attempting to locate a weapon seems a pretty low threshold for executing them, even if they are ignoring your orders. I don't know about prior convictions, didn't see a mention of them on any news articles or the police statements they gave after. Sure it's not just some claim you read on social media? From witnesses it sounds like he was trying to break up a domestic fight with his family all there, so it seems unlikely he was planning to start shooting at police
{edit} so he has some pending charges for domestic, but no weapons charges
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 16:16,
Reply)
racinecountyeye.com/police-k9-dozer-helps-subdue-man-who-pulled-gun-at-bar/?fbclid=IwAR2sJUHqIAUaZqEvzW_Anfx24M_QzhEpYEQafEsub3iUaYhhikVidND8fTg
(, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 16:25, Reply)
well, this does add to the threat, I concede.
I did put the caveat that my reading was on the video alone, you seem to be quite well informed on the background, and they are good sources
I guess they'll find out in the enquiry, if he didn't end up having a gun in the car they'll be in hot water
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 16:35,
Reply)
That's a big "if" there my friend
In fact, he was unarmed and didn't own any guns or weapons : abcn.ws/3gk0xYM
(, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 16:05, Reply)
Of course he doesn't legally own any weapons.
He's a convicted felon. That doesn't mean he wasn't in possession of one, though.
He's also facing numerous Domestic Abuse charges. Which explains why the Fiancé was so quick to jump to his defence. Google Trauma Bonding, if you're not familiar with the phenomenon.
(, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 16:11, Reply)
So shoot all convicted felons, is that it ?
"Convicted felon" doesn't mean he WAS in possession of a weapon either...
(, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 16:27, Reply)
No, but if he was reaching for one, or appeared to be reaching for one after being told repeatedly to stop moving
I reckon the Officers are within their rights to neutralise the threat however they see fit. They had already deployed a taser that had failed, how else should they have resolved the situation? Ask him nicely one more time to stop reaching into his vehicle? Say please?
(, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 16:33, Reply)
7 shots at point blank range with his back turned.
Why have you been investigating the shady past of the victim rather than the shady past of the inept/monstrous person who tried to kill him?
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 17:43,
Reply)
get a room you two
stop dancing around the fire, spit it out and get down to the nitty gritty
(
artifus is doing it all wrong, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 17:52,
Reply)
Re: gun or no gun
This vid is interesting
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckz7EmDxhtU
(, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 16:39, Reply)
is there where you think police murdering somebody is justified if you can establish they're not a nice person
I think you need more than suspicion they MIGHT be opening their car door with the intention of locating a weapon before you shoot them seven timed in the back . I think you need a reasonable imminent threat. They hadn't been called to robbery, there was two unarmed women fighting in a domestic dispute, not the kind of thing you'd be expecting a shootout.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Mon 24 Aug 2020, 16:31,
Reply)
Your Honor, the accussed is not nice.
Ok, i've heard enough, to the gallows with him.
(, Wed 26 Aug 2020, 21:19, Reply)