Black Lives Matter

[blue_gold_84]

It has nothing to do with being on one's computer chair. It's common sense as far as proper training goes, and it's clear this particular LEO was either poorly trained or not trained at all. He flubbed this incident completely and now an innocent man is recovering in hospital due to his recklessness and outright stupidity.

He was within arm's reach of the subject the entire duration of that video. He had strength in numbers with a colleague being right next him. You don't wait multiple seconds to let an actively resistant subject return to a vehicle with unknown contents. You holster your weapon, or lower it at the very least, and draw a different intervention option, or utilize a control technique like a takedown, either with the assistance of your colleague or not. I'm not sure what his verbal intervention was like during the incident but it was obviously ineffective. This LEO demonstrated his lack of knowledge in his job, in a situation where he's required to make decisions to protect the public good. He failed miserably.

The blame is not 50/50 - at all. The LEO could've and should've handled it differently. This is a cut and dry case of excessive use of force.

[JCon]

Just now, Mr Dee said:

No, I stand by the fact that you cannot shoot an unarmed person in the back, in a car, when there are 3 kids in the car. Don’t forget, that was shoot to kill.

Racists are the worst. 

[itchy]

31 minutes ago, Brandon said:

But how are you sure that he is unarmed and also he is resisting when he is not listening to the police and following orders to stand down.   How is the policeman suppose to know that this guy doesn't have a gun in the drivers seat.   

I don't think the Police handled it well and probably should of tazed or knocked him down before he reached the car but its so easy for you to say this kind of stuff on your computer chair rather then in the heat of the moment.    

I say blame is easily 50/50....  police should of tackled him before he reached the car and the guy should of listened.  Easy situation that could of been avoided.  

That argument and viewpoint doesn't wash any more,

Had they shot him after seeing a gun and it pointed at them, then that's reasonable. To shoot the guy based on the fact he might have had a gun plays right into the rhetoric of racists. If it was a white guy, would they have assumed he was going for a gun, and shot them? From everything we know about this situation was that this guy was trying t break up a fight between two women, and was trying to get his three kids away from the situation. Shooting based on the info we have and what we've seen, no one can say this was justified.

[Brandon]

13 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

No, I stand by the fact that you cannot shoot an unarmed person in the back, in a car, when there are 3 kids in the car. Don’t forget, that was shoot to kill.

But what if he has a gun under the drivers seat and turns around and shoots you in the face... how do you know that he doesn't have this?   Like I said easier said from the couch then in the heat of the moment.    

[Brandon]

8 minutes ago, itchy said:

That argument and viewpoint doesn't wash any more,

Had they shot him after seeing a gun and it pointed at them, then that's reasonable. To shoot the guy based on the fact he might have had a gun plays right into the rhetoric of racists. If it was a white guy, would they have assumed he was going for a gun, and shot them? From everything we know about this situation was that this guy was trying t break up a fight between two women, and was trying to get his three kids away from the situation. Shooting based on the info we have and what we've seen, no one can say this was justified.

When you have seconds to make a judgement call it's easier to say don't do this from the comfort of your couch where you have time to analyze.    

[Brandon]

13 minutes ago, JCon said:

Racists are the worst. 

If the cop was racist then why didn't he shoot him in the face beforehand?  Silly comment for you to make. 

[Brandon]

14 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

It has nothing to do with being on one's computer chair. It's common sense as far as proper training goes, and it's clear this particular LEO was either poorly trained or not trained at all. He flubbed this incident completely and now an innocent man is recovering in hospital due to his recklessness and outright stupidity.

He was within arm's reach of the subject the entire duration of that video. He had strength in numbers with a colleague being right next him. You don't wait multiple seconds to let an actively resistant subject return to a vehicle with unknown contents. You holster your weapon, or lower it at the very least, and draw a different intervention option, or utilize a control technique like a takedown, either with the assistance of your colleague or not. I'm not sure what his verbal intervention was like during the incident but it was obviously ineffective. This LEO demonstrated his lack of knowledge in his job, in a situation where he's required to make decisions to protect the public good. He failed miserably.

The blame is not 50/50 - at all. The LEO could've and should've handled it differently. This is a cut and dry case of excessive use of force.

I agree he definitely flubbed the situation and does hold responsibility for not acting sooner.  

But answer me this.... would the guy get shot in the back had he listened to the police and avoided turning his back and reaching into his car for who knows what.   He definitely holds some responsibility for the situation.   I don't understand why people can't accept that sometimes people on both sides need to be held accountable.  

[Mr Dee]

4 minutes ago, Brandon said:

But answer me this.... would the guy get shot in the back had he listened to the police

He could face consequences for moving away, but c’mon, gunfire? That’s just, simply ridiculous and criminal.
Why are you even arguing this?

Edited August 24, 2020 by Mr Dee

[blue_gold_84]

2 minutes ago, Brandon said:

I agree he definitely flubbed the situation and does hold responsibility for not acting sooner.  

But answer me this.... would the guy get shot in the back had he listened to the police and avoided turning his back and reaching into his car for who knows what.   He definitely holds some responsibility for the situation.   I don't understand why people can't accept that sometimes people on both sides need to be held accountable.  

It's on the LEO to control the subject and deescalate the situation. For all we know, the LEO wasn't even issuing verbal commands and was just pointing his weapon right in the subject's face. But there's no use playing the what if game, so why even go there?

A LEO's duty is to the public. To protect the public and serve it by upholding the rule of law. In this instance, he didn't do his job because he let a subject continue to be actively resistant and walk away from him. He had ample time to neutralize the subject and properly and effectively deescalate the situation. He didn't manage the situation and now a man has seven bullet wounds because of that negligent incompetence. There's no onus on anyone but the LEO here; it's his duty and his job to be the law.

I'm not sure what's so difficult for you to understand about that. If you're going to make excuses for the LEO, why not do the same for the subject who got shot at point blank range?

[17to85]

16 minutes ago, Brandon said:

But what if he has a gun under the drivers seat and turns around and shoots you in the face... how do you know that he doesn't have this?   Like I said easier said from the couch then in the heat of the moment.    

That's a risk the officer has to take. Also why they need to de-escalate situations better. The cowboy attitude of shoot em in case they shoot at you is why defund the police is a movement right now.

And why shoot the poor guy that many times? If it's about your safety you surely don't need that many shots from the range to stop the suspect. 

 

No that is a textbook abuse of authority from a police officer. 100% in the wrong on a lotnof different levels

[Brandon]

7 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

He could face consequences for moving away, but c’mon, gunfire? That’s just, simply ridiculous and criminal.
Why are you even arguing this?

It goes back to decisions made in a matter of seconds... like I said it's super easy to analyze a situation from the couch and to say I would of done this and that....  when you have seconds to make a life or death judgement call and a guy who you think is dangerous is ignoring you and reaching into a car for which you have zero knowledge of what it contains... it's easy to throw stones without being in that persons shoes.   

No I have not been in that situation myself and would never want to be,  but at least I'm aware that it's a really hard job and you have to act on the fly.   I think people forget and watch to many movies or tv shows and realize that real life doesn't work the same as on tv.   You can't always talk it out or read peoples minds on what they are going to do.  You can't predict that a guy is going to be unarmed and just sit in his car peacefully.   

I acknowledged that they didn't handle the situation correctly and should of tackled him (IMO) before he reached the car.   I am simply stating that the guy who was shot should of been wise enough specially with everything on on lately to listen and not do something foolish.   I'm not glad that he was shot and think the situation is just poor all around... I'm just in the belief that people need to take responsibilities for their actions. 

For example If I was in a situation where I was in my car and the police say put your hands up with guns drawn ... I would be smart enough to realize.... I should listen and not made a quick movement for my glove box to get my registration or something else....  if I were to get shot for going to my glove box and ignoring orders then I believe I'm also at fault for that situation.  

[Brandon]

9 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

That's a risk the officer has to take. Also why they need to de-escalate situations better. The cowboy attitude of shoot em in case they shoot at you is why defund the police is a movement right now.

And why shoot the poor guy that many times? If it's about your safety you surely don't need that many shots from the range to stop the suspect. 

 

No that is a textbook abuse of authority from a police officer. 100% in the wrong on a lotnof different levels

They definitely bungled it,  I have no idea what the training is for that area.   In Canada it would of been handled differently I'd imagine.   

I wouldn't say this is Cowboy attitude and abuse of authority... this situation looks 100% of people who were either not trained properly or completely f'd up and made a panic decision.   Cowboy authority would of had them beating the guy to a pulp before he even had a chance to walk to the van.  

Why shoot him that many times,  most police are trained to shoot to stop the immediate threat.   Their has been times (not sure about in Winnipeg) where people hopped up on drugs had to be shot over 5 times to bring them down.    

In this case my opinion (I could be wrong)  is that the officer full blown panicked.   Did not handle the situation good at all.   

As for risk an officer takes...  if an officer were to take unnecessary risks like you suggest then eventually that officer is going to die.  That would never work.   

Edited August 24, 2020 by Brandon

[Mr Dee]

There are 2 sides of a fence - right and wrong. 

@Brandon you are on the wrong side of de-fence.

[Brandon]

5 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

There are 2 sides of a fence - right and wrong. 

@Brandon you are on the wrong side of de-fence.

Just because you don't share the same opinion does not mean you are correct.  At least I provided valid points to make up my opinion rather then simply jumping on a bandwagon and keeping a close mind.    As I said before... could the end result of this situation been different (better) had the guy followed orders and didn't put himself at risk by doing something foolish.   The answer is clearly yes.   

[blue_gold_84]

5 hours ago, Brandon said:

Just because you don't share the same opinion does not mean you are correct.  At least I provided valid points to make up my opinion rather then simply jumping on a bandwagon and keeping a close mind.    As I said before... could the end result of this situation been different (better) had the guy followed orders and didn't put himself at risk by doing something foolish.   The answer is clearly yes.   

What valid points did you make besides throwing around some what ifs and make excuses for an incompetent police officer by deflecting from his actions/inaction and blaming the subject? I'd sincerely like to know.

Typically, the onus is on the person who's been trained to manage and deescalate high stress, intense, constantly evolving situations, not the person with a gun pointed in his face and then at his back with seemingly no justification whatsoever. That's why LEOs have the authority they have: they're supposed to be held to a higher standard because of their role in upholding the law and maintaining societal and civil order.

Any LEO cognizant of and capable in his training within the framework of the law should know better than to open fire on someone with their back turned, especially when he had ample opportunity to neutralize that subject well before the shooting occurred, and especially when he's got backup with him. The threat assessment in that situation is low and puts him at an immediate advantage to neutralize the subject without lethal force. Instead, he just followed the subject at close range for several seconds and let him continue moving to his vehicle. That's either poor training or a complete disregard for his training - and either appears to be a seriously glaring problem with law enforcement in the US.

You say the subject is foolish for not complying with orders and you're not necessarily wrong. But isn't it just as foolish, if not more so, the police officer allowed the situation to escalate needlessly by following him at arm's length with his firearm drawn and doing ostensibly nothing else until opening fire? If the LEO does his job properly and employs a more appropriate intervention method when the subject began to walk away, the likelihood both men go home at the end of the day is very high, and without major incident. Instead, we've got one in the hospital and the other on administrative leave as an investigation is launched into why this happened. His inaction during the altercation is what led to the final outcome and that's a near perfect example of excessive use of force, inextricably changing two lives (at least) in the process.

I get what you're saying about looking at it from multiple angles but it isn't reasonable to ask a member of the public to hold himself accountable for his actions while not doing the same for the person who's been tasked with protecting those very members of the public.

Unfortunately, it's events like these that have so many alienated or outright afraid of law enforcement, particularly in marginalized populations. Can you really blame when this **** happens with the frequency it does?

[Brandon]

22 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

I get what you're saying about looking at it from multiple angles but it isn't reasonable to ask a member of the public to hold himself accountable for his actions while not doing the same for the person who's been tasked with protecting those very members of the public.

Unfortunately, it's events like these that have so many alienated or outright afraid of law enforcement, particularly in marginalized populations. Can you really blame when this **** happens with the frequency it does?

Did you not read where I said I think it's 50/50 fault on both parties.  Did you not read where I said the police bungled the situation.   I clearly said that the actions of both parties lead to this consequence.   Society today always just wants to blame someone instead of holding everyone accountable for their own actions.   Nobody deserves to go through the trauma of shooting someone and nobody deserves going through the trauma of being shot.   Had both parties chose a better path then nobody would of got hurt.    It's really weird that society HAS to blame someone 100% instead and make one person a victim and one person a villain.  

As per the 2nd part the frequency is not high,  it's the optics because of the media and because people fixate on agendas.   You do realize that police shoot more white people then black people.  The black on black crime (shooting and otherwise) is insanely higher then police shootings.   But that isn't as juicy to glamorize for the media and people to complain about.  That wont sell stories and it's not as fun to complain about because a criminal shooting an innocent person is not something controversial and won't cause any sort of emotional reaction for people.    To me I find that f'd up because I don't care if you are Policeman held in high regard or a low live thug held in low regard... nobody should be shooting anyone.  

It's just weird that people will fixate on a situation like this  (which is bad) but then turn a blind eye when the USA bombs a tonne of innocent people to stop terrorism.  It's weird that people are not protesting the streets and rioting over crimes that are way more frequent (such as children being raped,  people being robbed/shot, massive massive corruption in politics)... 

 

[blue_gold_84]

9 hours ago, Brandon said:

Did you not read where I said I think it's 50/50 fault on both parties.  Did you not read where I said the police bungled the situation.   I clearly said that the actions of both parties lead to this consequence.   Society today always just wants to blame someone instead of holding everyone accountable for their own actions.   Nobody deserves to go through the trauma of shooting someone and nobody deserves going through the trauma of being shot.   Had both parties chose a better path then nobody would of got hurt.    It's really weird that society HAS to blame someone 100% instead and make one person a victim and one person a villain.  

As per the 2nd part the frequency is not high,  it's the optics because of the media and because people fixate on agendas.   You do realize that police shoot more white people then black people.  The black on black crime (shooting and otherwise) is insanely higher then police shootings.   But that isn't as juicy to glamorize for the media and people to complain about.  That wont sell stories and it's not as fun to complain about because a criminal shooting an innocent person is not something controversial and won't cause any sort of emotional reaction for people.    To me I find that f'd up because I don't care if you are Policeman held in high regard or a low live thug held in low regard... nobody should be shooting anyone.  

It's just weird that people will fixate on a situation like this  (which is bad) but then turn a blind eye when the USA bombs a tonne of innocent people to stop terrorism.  It's weird that people are not protesting the streets and rioting over crimes that are way more frequent (such as children being raped,  people being robbed/shot, massive massive corruption in politics)... 

 

I saw where you said it's 50/50. But it isn't 50/50 and I explained why, which you simply chose to ignore. The fact is one person here is the villain but he's the one who's supposed to be anything but a villain.

And it isn't optics. A man was shot in the back at close range by an incompetent police officer. You can bring up media sensationalism, "juicy" glamorization, and trying to "sell stories" to make people complain and that's not without merit. However, that's another conversation altogether as it relates to problems with the media itself. This event, however, is just another example of statistics bearing out the fact there is a massive racial disparity in police shootings and black people are more likely to be shot and killed than any other ethnicity in the US. Nobody should be shooting anyone but a police officer should be the last person to open fire on a civilian with his back turned to him.

https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ (https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/aboutthedata)

Quote

Black people have been 28% of those killed by police since 2013 despite being only 13% of the population.

Take a look at those charts and figures. They all point to a massive problem with systemic issues, a terrible racial bias, and a glaring lack of accountability in law enforcement, all of which are highlighted by this particular incident in Kenosha, WI. And just because black on black civilian crime is higher doesn't change that reality. 

Your last paragraph is nothing more than textbook whataboutism and that type of logical fallacy serves no purpose here but to derail a thread. Those things you listed are all terrible and deserve to be discussed just the same, along with crime rates in marginalized communities, substance abuse, domestic violence, sex crimes, etc. I think it's more than fair to say anyone capable of empathy will not turn a blind eye towards any of those things. In fact, there have been protests surrounding many of those events and issues - on several occasions. But perhaps start up another thread if you feel the need to discuss them instead of the topic at hand. 

 

[JCon]

This is all out of the alt-right playbook. 

[Super Duper Negatron]

Running should never get you shot in the back 7 times from close range. The "both sides" argument doesn't fly here.

[iHeart]

 

[17to85]

It just astounds me how OK some people are with authoritarianism. 

[Mr Dee]

Yep, she said it.

 

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

22 hours ago, Brandon said:

But what if he has a gun under the drivers seat and turns around and shoots you in the face... how do you know that he doesn't have this?  

Police are trained for this. You don't treat a suspect as armed unless you have reason to believe he is armed.  You're whatif argument is weak. 

22 hours ago, Brandon said:

If the cop was racist then why didn't he shoot him in the face beforehand?  Silly comment for you to make. 

This is a stupid comment. This is all that this comment deserves.

 

21 hours ago, Brandon said:

For example If I was in a situation where I was in my car and the police say put your hands up with guns drawn ... I would be smart enough to realize.... I should listen and not made a quick movement for my glove box to get my registration or something else....  if I were to get shot for going to my glove box and ignoring orders then I believe I'm also at fault for that situation.  

Philando Castlle couldn't be reached for comment.

21 hours ago, Brandon said:

Just because you don't share the same opinion does not mean you are correct.  At least I provided valid points to make up my opinion rather then simply jumping on a bandwagon and keeping a close mind.    As I said before... could the end result of this situation been different (better) had the guy followed orders and didn't put himself at risk by doing something foolish.   The answer is clearly yes.   

George Floyd couldn't be reached for comment. 

 

No. You didn't prove your point. Your "more white people get shot by police than black people" argument is flawed as was pointed out... "what if he had a fuckong BAZOOKA under the drivers seat" defense is bunk. Much of your arguments and defense of killing of unarmed Black men are exactly from the white nationalist playroom... I'm not saying you are a white nationalist... but if people keep pointing that out to you, and it doesn't encourage you to use different reasoning... well shoot, I don't know what to say.

 

Why are you always on that side of the debate?

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

4 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

Yep, she said it.

 

 

Makes sense... the other RNC speakers' accomplishments are *checks notes* - being part of the trump family, suing the MSM, and pointing guns at Black people. 

Edited August 25, 2020 by wanna-b-fanboy

[MOBomberFan]

18 hours ago, Brandon said:

It's just weird that people will fixate on a situation like this  (which is bad) but then turn a blind eye when the USA bombs a tonne of innocent people to stop terrorism.  It's weird that people are not protesting the streets and rioting over crimes that are way more frequent (such as children being raped,  people being robbed/shot, massive massive corruption in politics)... 

 

If we could point to one group of uniformed badge-wearing child-rapists and condemn them we would. Unfortunately child-rapists tend not to self-identify or conduct themselves in the public eye.

As for protesting wars... do you seriously not remember people protesting Iraq? Literally millions of Americans attended rallies leading up to and following the fall of Baghdad. Not to mention other countries that held their own protests.

Politics... thousands are protesting the dismantling of the USPS (definitely the work of corrupt politicians) in the US right now this very moment with a heavy contingent of veterans among them.

 

It's not weird for people to want the police to stop murdering unarmed black men (and make no mistake that's what they are doing... we have it on camera). It's weird to defend a police officer firing a weapon with one hand into an unarmed man's back as he tries to enter a vehicle full of children. It's like... totally indefensible. That cop ****** up hard and Americans of any color should expect better from their police.