Cop in America doing a bad job, again

I can see the point he's TRYING to make.

In this climate why even walk to your car and disobey their orders.

But its really irrelevant. He should have been subdued before he got to the car if they were worried he had a gun and if not, they shouldnt fire until they can confirm he has a weapon.
 
Anustart89 said:
You keep peddling the "he walked to his car" line, but if the cop was thinking "Oh shit, he's walking to his car, if he does that I'm going to "have to" shoot him", they had ample time to stop him from going to the car and to put him on the ground. The problem was that they only had access to one of their hands each because the other one was busy pointing a gun that should've never been pointed.

They basically set up a death trap for him from the moment they attempted to arrest him for breaking up a fight, made him walk towards it, did nothing to stop him from walking into it and then activated it themselves. And here's you saying "well he's a dummy for walking". What a fecking hill to die on, mate.
Click to expand...

I’m saying he walked to his car because he did though.

He didn’t die anywhere else.

I’m not apportioning any blame for it, merely noting that he did.

You lot seem to be denying that him walking to his car had anything to do with it at all, as if he got shot somewhere else,

That’s what I’ve always been trying to say. He DID walk to his car and because he did that, the officers took further actions than just standing in front of the car on the side walk.
It’s all their fault for not controlling the situation and it’s their fault for making the choice to shoot him but he did walk to his car, it’s as simple as that. Not ‘he walked to his car so he got shot’ but ‘he walked to his car and the officers shot him’.

Denying that as if he did nothing means they just shot him just because
 
Last edited:
arnie_ni said:
I can see the point he's TRYING to make.

In this climate why even walk to your car and disobey their orders.

But its really irrelevant. He should have been subdued before he got to the car if they were worried he had a gun and if not, they shouldnt fire until they can confirm he has a weapon.
Click to expand...
Thank you for at least attempting to see it from another POV. I’m not saying it’s right in the slightest, I’m just saying what you said, in this current climate, going to your car having disobeyed them is basically a death sentence. Which is fecked up and not his fault, it’s just the way it is.

Absolutely he should’ve been subdued before he got to the car. Absolutely they failed to control any part of it. Absolutely they shouldn’t fire.

But that didn’t happen, they didn’t control the situation, he managed to get to his car and he was shot. Now whether he would’ve been shot before getting to his car is the kicker.
 
matherto said:
Thank you for at least attempting to see it from another POV.

Absolutely he should’ve been subdued before he got to the car. Absolutely they failed to control any part of it. Absolutely they shouldn’t fire.

But that didn’t happen, they didn’t control the situation, he managed to get to his car and he was shot. Now whether he would’ve been shot before getting to his car is the kicker.
Click to expand...
It reeks of victim blaming and passing the buck so you have to understand why its not going to go down well.

All i know is, white, black, yelllow, green, if I have any dealings with cops in america im doing wtf they say to make sure i get home alive.

Even having to think that sums up the whole situation at the minute. It's out of control
 
Prior incident with the police with Jacob Blake. Mentions that he had a firearm on the floor under the drivers seat. I think the point that some is trying to make is that the cops were shitscared he was reaching into his car for a firearm. They tried to subdue him without using lethal force on the other the side of the car that you can see on the other video without succes. Of course that doesn't make me think it's justified to empty a clip into his back, however I would guess the police did this because they were afraid he would grab a firearm and turn around and shoot them. If no firearm arm if found in the front end off the car it's obviously very grimm and but even if there was a firearm, he might just wanted to get out of there.

https://racinecountyeye.com/police-k9-dozer-helps-subdue-man-who-pulled-gun-at-bar/
 
Shamana said:
Prior incident with the police with Jacob Blake. Mentions that he had a firearm on the floor under the drivers seat. I think the point that some is trying to make is that the cops were shitscared he was reaching into his car for a firearm. They tried to subdue him without using lethal force on the other the side of the car that you can see on the other video without succes. Of course that doesn't make me think it's justified to empty a clip into his back, however I would guess the police did this because they were afraid he would grab a firearm and turn around and shoot them. If no firearm arm if found in the front end off the car it's obviously very grimm and but even if there was a firearm, he might just wanted to get out of there.

https://racinecountyeye.com/police-k9-dozer-helps-subdue-man-who-pulled-gun-at-bar/
Click to expand...

What is the likelihood that the attending officers knew this detail from five years ago? Probably low. The story has one purpose and that is to mitigate the offence of shooting an unarmed man seven times in the back.
 
arnie_ni said:
It reeks of victim blaming and passing the buck so you have to understand why its not going to go down well.

All i know is, white, black, yelllow, green, if I have any dealings with cops in america im doing wtf they say to make sure i get home alive.

Even having to think that sums up the whole situation at the minute. It's out of control
Click to expand...

Yeah I get that, I really do, but I’ve tried in every post to explain it’s not the guy’s fault for it and it feels like that’s been ignored. Not just ignored but ignored because I’m not just saying ‘police bad’ like everyone else so I’m getting ganged up on by an echo chamber even though I’m on the same side. feck the cops.

It’s completely fecked up and I can’t help but feel like the veil of America #1 has been completely decimated and we’re seeing just how awful a place it really is with the advent of social media.

I also don’t think if you see the whole event you can help attributing even 0.00000001% of the cause to the victim purely because they played a part in it whether it was actually their fault or not which I why I talked about choices previously. Ultimately he made the choice to disobey the orders, he should absolutely be able to make that choice and not get shot but unfortunately in 2020 America it means he got shot.
 
Last edited:
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
What is the likelihood that the attending officers knew this detail from five years ago? Probably low. The story has one purpose and that is to mitigate the offence of shooting an unarmed man seven times in the back.
Click to expand...

The story is from 2015. What I am saying is that Police officers are scared of people having a firearm in their car. Personally I think that the thought process going through the police officers head at that moment is a lot more probable than "he's a black man resisting arrest going to check on his kids so I will shoot him 7 times." It's a tragedy whatever way you look at it. The guy had a arrest warrant issued on him and the police may had been aware of this if they identified him which might be why they were trying to arrest him.

It's awfull, but I think all the details need to come out to get a clear picture why the victim acted the way he did and why the police acted the way they did. If this is a case of them just being trigger happy KKK cops, I will be cheering if they are found guilty of murder or homocide. But I would like to say again, I think it's a fecking tragedy and although he survived, his life is pretty much ruined.
 
Last edited:
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
What is the likelihood that the attending officers knew this detail from five years ago? Probably low. The story has one purpose and that is to mitigate the offence of shooting an unarmed man seven times in the back.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. I'm sure the devil grass will be mentioned shortly.
 
Shamana said:
The story is from 2015. What I am saying is that Police officers are scared of people having a firearm in their car. Personally I think that the thought process going through the police officers head at that moment is a lot more probable than "he's a black man resisting arrest going to check on his kids so I will shoot him 7 times." It's a tragedy whatever way you look at it. The guy had a arrest warrant issued on him and the police may had been aware of this if they identified him which might be why they were trying to arrest him.

It's awfull, but I think all the details need to come out to get a clear picture why the victim acted the way he did and why the police acted the way they did. If this is a case of them just being trigger happy KKK cops, I will cheering if they are found guilty of murder or homocide. But I would like to say again, I think it's a fecking tragedy and although he survived, his life is pretty much ruined.
Click to expand...
Regardless of what we think of those officers the fact is that they took no consideration for the children in the car or vicinity. That should be grounds for immediate termination. Employees in the late night food industry have better reasoning and deescalating skills than an uncomfortable amount of police officers it seems.
 
GiddyUp said:
Regardless of what we think of those officers the fact is that they took no consideration for the children in the car or vicinity. That should be grounds for immediate termination. Employees in the late night food industry have better reasoning and deescalating skills than an uncomfortable amount of police officers it seems.
Click to expand...

I cannot disagree with that.
 
Shamana said:
The story is from 2015. What I am saying is that Police officers are scared of people having a firearm in their car. Personally I think that the thought process going through the police officers head at that moment is a lot more probable than "he's a black man resisting arrest going to check on his kids so I will shoot him 7 times." It's a tragedy whatever way you look at it. The guy had a arrest warrant issued on him and the police may had been aware of this if they identified him which might be why they were trying to arrest him.

It's awfull, but I think all the details need to come out to get a clear picture why the victim acted the way he did and why the police acted the way they did. If this is a case of them just being trigger happy KKK cops, I will be cheering if they are found guilty of murder or homocide. But I would like to say again, I think it's a fecking tragedy and although he survived, his life is pretty much ruined.
Click to expand...

It seems the choice to shoot him was already made. They just waited for the moment when they might have cause. They had a number of options before he opened that door and didn't take them.

Warrant or not, fear of being shot, nothing justifies their action because they had opportunity to not let it get to that point and did not take it.
 
GiddyUp said:
Regardless of what we think of those officers the fact is that they took no consideration for the children in the car or vicinity. That should be grounds for immediate termination. Employees in the late night food industry have better reasoning and deescalating skills than an uncomfortable amount of police officers it seems.
Click to expand...

And nobody is disagreeing with that, no matter what you might think.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
It seems the choice to shoot him was already made. They just waited for the moment when they might have cause. They had a number of options before he opened that door and didn't take them.

Warrant or not, fear of being shot, nothing justifies their action because they had opportunity to not let it get to that point and did not take it.
Click to expand...

How do you know that for sure?

Assuming that they just want to shoot black people is a strong one Dwazza. Some do of course, they're racist as feck but just assuming they'd already made the choice to shoot him is a strong, loaded accusation.

I think the fact that they didn't just shoot him means they didn't already make the choice because how could they legislate for what happened next? What if he hadn't gone round the other side of his car, would they have shot him?
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
What the rest of us are saying is that sometimes there isn't a need to ask certain questions or examine certain angles because what occurred is wrong on some many levels.
Click to expand...

There is ALWAYS a need to ask certain questions and get every possible viewpoint on it. Looking at it from all angles does not change how wrong it was.

To not do so makes an echo chamber and is myopic and self serving. The legal system looks at it from all angles so why can't we?
 
matherto said:
How do you know that for sure?

Assuming that they just want to shoot black people is a strong one Dwazza. Some do of course, they're racist as feck but just assuming they'd already made the choice to shoot him is a strong, loaded accusation.

I think the fact that they didn't just shoot him means they didn't already make the choice because how could they legislate for what happened next? What if he hadn't gone round the other side of his car, would they have shot him?
Click to expand...

I don't but looking at the video, guns drawn, pointed at the guys back and no attempt made to apprehend him looks to me like they are waiting for him to give them cause. So, the officer has already made the decision that this guy is getting shot. No attempt to grab him, other than a feeble yank at his tank top. No attempt to get between him and the car door.

Skin colour is irrelevant to my interpretation. It may be relevant to the officer's decision but I'm not making that assumption.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
I don't but looking at the video, guns drawn, pointed at the guys back and no attempt made to apprehend him looks to me like they are waiting for him to give them cause. So, the officer has already made the decision that this guy is getting shot. No attempt to grab him, other than a feeble yank at his tank top. No attempt to get between him and the car door.

Skin colour is irrelevant to my interpretation. It may be relevant to the officer's decision but I'm not making that assumption.
Click to expand...

Is shouting orders at him not an attempt to apprehend him? Is a'feeble' attempt to yank at his tank top not an attempt to apprehend him?

We know they failed completely but they didn't just shoot him so they must've attempted something before they did.
 
matherto said:
There is ALWAYS a need to ask certain questions and get every possible viewpoint on it. Looking at it from all angles does not change how wrong it was.

To not do so makes an echo chamber and is myopic and self serving. The legal system looks at it from all angles so why can't we?
Click to expand...
You can keep telling yourself that as if you are saying something insightful that nobody has even thought of.... In reality your just repeating something tediously that nearly everyone else has spent minimal time contemplating in comparison to what we see as the bigger issue..

But you can choose to keep banging that drum if you like.
 
matherto said:
Is shouting orders at him not an attempt to apprehend him? Is a'feeble' attempt to yank at his tank top not an attempt to apprehend him?
Click to expand...

Shouting orders? No. It's laughable that you think it might be.

He's already opening the car door at the time the officer tugs at his shirt, too late by then if you're afraid of getting shot. They also know better than to grab at clothing. you grab the body. Clothing stretches and rips.
 
arnie_ni said:
I can see the point he's TRYING to make.

In this climate why even walk to your car and disobey their orders.

But its really irrelevant. He should have been subdued before he got to the car if they were worried he had a gun and if not, they shouldnt fire until they can confirm he has a weapon.
Click to expand...
The bolded bit is really what is it about, isn't it? And it's such a small, minuscule detail to focus on in this situation.
 
arnie_ni said:
I can see the point he's TRYING to make.

In this climate why even walk to your car and disobey their orders.

But its really irrelevant. He should have been subdued before he got to the car if they were worried he had a gun and if not, they shouldnt fire until they can confirm he has a weapon.
Click to expand...

I think we lack an understanding of exactly how black Americans feel. The frustration, despair and other emotions that are in play to cause a person to ignore something so obvious to us are unfathomable to me.
 
matherto said:
There is ALWAYS a need to ask certain questions and get every possible viewpoint on it. Looking at it from all angles does not change how wrong it was.

To not do so makes an echo chamber and is myopic and self serving. The legal system looks at it from all angles so why can't we?
Click to expand...

That is how police unions and savvy lawyers have managed to get corrupt and reprehensible police officers off scot-free and worse still even their jobs back for years and years.

But when someone is shot in the back 7 times in front of his kids when he could easily have been pulled to the floor and/or tased instead or when someone in handcuffs is starved of oxygen by a knee to his neck for 9 minutes, there has to be a point when you have to call something out for exactly what it is.
 
Shamana said:
I think what will determine the perception of this case is whether he had a gun in the front end up the car he was reaching/going into. He had a criminal record of brandishing a firearm while intoxicated and several other charges. Surely his car has been checked for a firearm. If nothing is found though, I suppose he was either checking with his children or trying to get out of there which certainly makes it a lot grimmer than it is already.

Footage from the other side as well

Click to expand...


We don't know if the officers were even aware of these previous charges though, nor the existing arrest warrant.

arnie_ni said:
I can see the point he's TRYING to make.

In this climate why even walk to your car and disobey their orders.

But its really irrelevant. He should have been subdued before he got to the car if they were worried he had a gun and if not, they shouldnt fire until they can confirm he has a weapon.
Click to expand...

I too think I know what he/she is trying to say. Basically, are we surprised that they shot him when he walked around and reached into his car? nope
Are we surprised that they shot him SEVEN times in the back? Yes! excessive.

Shamana said:
Prior incident with the police with Jacob Blake. Mentions that he had a firearm on the floor under the drivers seat. I think the point that some is trying to make is that the cops were shitscared he was reaching into his car for a firearm. They tried to subdue him without using lethal force on the other the side of the car that you can see on the other video without succes. Of course that doesn't make me think it's justified to empty a clip into his back, however I would guess the police did this because they were afraid he would grab a firearm and turn around and shoot them. If no firearm arm if found in the front end off the car it's obviously very grimm and but even if there was a firearm, he might just wanted to get out of there.

https://racinecountyeye.com/police-k9-dozer-helps-subdue-man-who-pulled-gun-at-bar/
Click to expand...
Possibly but don't they have batons or tasers to apprehend as opposed to by firing squad?

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
It seems the choice to shoot him was already made. They just waited for the moment when they might have cause. They had a number of options before he opened that door and didn't take them.

Warrant or not, fear of being shot, nothing justifies their action because they had opportunity to not let it get to that point and did not take it.
Click to expand...

They previously tried to apprehend him as opposed to shoot him on the other side of the car, everything has happened in a split second and one of them grabs his shirt as a last minute attempt to pull him away from the car so I cannot COMPLETELY agree with your assessment. If the officers did genuinely fear he was reaching for a weapon, I don't see why 7 warning shots in the back is the required protocol though. Having both guns drawn limited their ability to apprehend him appropriately and surely they have batons for non lethal arrests so again I don't see why the gun is the preferred method or stopping people? They are poor policeman without a doubt.
 
Stacks said:
They previously tried to apprehend him as opposed to shoot him on the other side of the car, everything has happened in a split second and one of them grabs his shirt as a last minute attempt to pull him away from the car so I cannot COMPLETELY agree with your assessment. If the officers did genuinely fear he was reaching for a weapon, I don't see why 7 warning shots in the back is the required protocol though. Having both guns drawn limited their ability to apprehend him appropriately and surely they have batons for non lethal arrests so again I don't see why the gun is the preferred method or stopping people? They are poor policeman without a doubt.
Click to expand...

I can agree that my assessment is harsh but split second is being generous, it's six to seven seconds in the video. As such, I think the option that was chosen was largely pre-determined. Why not barge in as he's getting to the door to place yourself between the guy and his car?

Unfortunately, the protocol is correct. They shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. My view is that the officer made that choice up to ten seconds before it happened.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
I can agree that my assessment is harsh but split second is being generous, it's six to seven seconds in the video. As such, I think the option that was chosen was largely pre-determined. Why not barge in as he's getting to the door to place yourself between the guy and his car?

Unfortunately, the protocol is correct. They shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. My view is that the officer made that choice up to ten seconds before it happened.
Click to expand...
Because they had their guns in hand. It looks to me that once they failed the physical confrontation, they panicked and resorted to the easy option of drawing guns as this would work in most circumstances since people will stop when a gun is put on them. Unfortunately this was not the case. It comes down to police officers not being willing to take any kind of risk whatsoever
 
The gun laws in the USA are for cowards. They think they need them for protection but they just generate more crime and cause more injury than if they didn't have them.
It will never change.
It will get worse.
 
arnie_ni said:
I can see the point he's TRYING to make.

In this climate why even walk to your car and disobey their orders.

But its really irrelevant. He should have been subdued before he got to the car if they were worried he had a gun and if not, they shouldnt fire until they can confirm he has a weapon.
Click to expand...


Absolutely.
 
Stacks said:
Because they had their guns in hand. It looks to me that once they failed the physical confrontation, they panicked and resorted to the easy option of drawing guns as this would work in most circumstances since people will stop when a gun is put on them. Unfortunately this was not the case. It comes down to police officers not being willing to take any kind of risk whatsoever
Click to expand...

From the video it seems that they're fine using one hand only, so I'm not buying the reasoning that because they were in a weaver stance with both hands on their pistol they couldn't do anything else.

It feels like they never had any control of the situation and let things get way out of hand.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
It seems the choice to shoot him was already made. They just waited for the moment when they might have cause. They had a number of options before he opened that door and didn't take them.

Warrant or not, fear of being shot, nothing justifies their action because they had opportunity to not let it get to that point and did not take it.
Click to expand...
I think there is a difference between completely fecking up the management of a situation that leads to you shooting someone and making a decision early on that you will shoot someone and waiting for an opportunity though. I'm not sure we have enough details to say the police intended to do it.
 
Police called to a domestic dispute, they take names and realise Blake had an outstanding warrant and tried to arrest him but completely fecked it up, that's the long and short of it as far as I can make out. Failed to restrain him when they had a chance 3 of them and not one covers his car door, complete lack of training and ability to control a situation leads to them shooting what seems to be an unarmed man 7 times as his young kids watch on. Was this guy a good guy? Seemingly not but that doesn't mean he should be executed they he was.
 
To say the police f. that up is to say it mildly, 3 of them failed to apprehend him and than chased him to the car. Then one of them fires in panick 7 times. What do they have training for? It sure isnt good to know you have police who panick in situations like that and are awful in the job they do. Awful to the point in someone getting killed or unable to walk again.

Anyone see that militia guy who first shot 3 people in Kenosha, then just walked by the police with his assault rifle in hand, 17 years old.
 
Last edited:
Squeaky Bumtime said:
To say the police f. that up is to say it mildly, 3 of them failed to apprehend him and than chased him to the car. Then one of them fires in panick 7 times. What do they have training for? It sure isnt good to know you have police who panick in situations like that and are awful in the job they do. Awful to the point in someone getting killed or unable to walk again.

Anyone see that militia guy who first shot 3 people in Kenosha, then just walked by the police with his assault rifle in hand, 17 years old.
Click to expand...

The police thanked him.
 
sebsheep said:
I think there is a difference between completely fecking up the management of a situation that leads to you shooting someone and making a decision early on that you will shoot someone and waiting for an opportunity though. I'm not sure we have enough details to say the police intended to do it.
Click to expand...
okay, what do you say about white guys running on the streets, with heavy assault rifles, and the police ignore them totally... how do you explain that?
 
Apparently there are some right wing militias there, hired by owner of businesses to protect their properties.

Just talked to a friend who watches a lot what's going on there and he says the country is de facto in a civil war just nobody wants to say that out loud.

Is it that bad?
 
Squeaky Bumtime said:
Apparently there are some right wing militias there, hired by owner of businesses to protect their properties.

Just talked to a friend who watches a lot what's going on there and he says the country is de facto in a civil war just nobody wants to say that out loud.

Is it that bad?
Click to expand...

Its getting there, the Police were handing out water to the Militia basically thanking them for their work.
 
InLevyITrust said:
Its getting there, the Police were handing out water to the Militia basically thanking them for their work.
Click to expand...

Cant blame them to be fair. If your city is on a city wide riots and your business is getting looted they'll bound to protect their interest.

We had our own community patrol during riots. Whether we're worried citizens or right wing militia is just a matter of optics
 
Sky1981 said:
Cant blame them to be fair. If your city is on a city wide riots and your business is getting looted they'll bound to protect their interest.

We had our own community patrol during riots. Whether we're worried citizens or right wing militia is just a matter of optics
Click to expand...
Once militias start to appear on the streets regulary you're in for a trouble. Big one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.