casinterest wrote:

N583JB wrote:

casinterest wrote:

So you are going to take the 21 foot rule, and then use it to emphasize why they took on a person walking around the front of the car towards the front door with his back to them and didn't tackle him?

Absolutely. The cops risked their lives to protect those kids.

If they were concerned about a knife, they would have tackled him on his way around the car. The man got shot in the back 7 times.

Same police force let a kid with an AR-15 walk in front of them after shooting 3 people.

You don't tackle a person armed with a knife. A knife is a deadly weapon.

N583JB wrote:

JJJ wrote:

N583JB wrote:

You mean countries where the police don't have to worry about being routinely murdered in the line of duty?

France, Germany, the UK, Japan, etc aren't really in a position to lecture about policing a well-armed population.

This man had a knife, not a gun, spare the fake outrage.

Are you implying that a knife is not a deadly weapon?

You brought the whole canard that US policing is so specific because the population elsewhere is not well armed.

If well armed is a knife then there's no exceptionalism. Pick one escape route or the other, not both.

N583JB wrote:

casinterest wrote:

N583JB wrote:

Absolutely. The cops risked their lives to protect those kids.

If they were concerned about a knife, they would have tackled him on his way around the car. The man got shot in the back 7 times.

Same police force let a kid with an AR-15 walk in front of them after shooting 3 people.

You don't tackle a person armed with a knife. A knife is a deadly weapon.

Plenty of video evidence of police disarming knife-armed suspects with batons, tackling them to the ground, etc.

It's what they're supposed to be trained to do.

JJJ wrote:

N583JB wrote:

JJJ wrote:

This man had a knife, not a gun, spare the fake outrage.

Are you implying that a knife is not a deadly weapon?

You brought the whole canard that US policing is so specific because the population elsewhere is not well armed.

If well armed is a knife then there's no exceptionalism. Pick one escape route or the other, not both.

I posted a video in this thread of another situation in which a man, being detained for a crime, fights with the police, breaks free, and reaches into his car. He pulls out a gun and shoots two of the police officers. In this situation, you had a main, being detained for a crime, fighting with the police, breaking free, being armed with a knife, and reaching into his car. Extremely dangerous situation for all involved. Was he reaching in the car for another weapon? Cops in other nations don't have to worry about nearly everyone being armed. They don't have to worry about what the person is reaching for in his car. Was he trying to get in the car so that he could flee with children (potential hostages) in the back? Was he going to flee , get in an accident, and hurt them? Was he going to take the kids away and kill them? Letting him leave that scene with those children was not an option.

JJJ wrote:

N583JB wrote:

casinterest wrote:

If they were concerned about a knife, they would have tackled him on his way around the car. The man got shot in the back 7 times.

Same police force let a kid with an AR-15 walk in front of them after shooting 3 people.

You don't tackle a person armed with a knife. A knife is a deadly weapon.

Plenty of video evidence of police disarming knife-armed suspects with batons, tackling them to the ground, etc.

It's what they're supposed to be trained to do.

Sure, if you have all the time in the world and there are no bystanders around. Not when the man armed with a knife is trying to get into a car with innocent children inside. That calls for immediate action.

There's a video that made the rounds last year of the LAPD trying to disarm someone with a knife. They have one officer with a pistol providing cover for another officer who has a beanbag shotgun. They use the beanbag shotgun on the man with the knife. He simply shrugs off the bags, runs to a nearby old woman, and slits her throat.

N583JB wrote:

JJJ wrote:

N583JB wrote:

You don't tackle a person armed with a knife. A knife is a deadly weapon.

Plenty of video evidence of police disarming knife-armed suspects with batons, tackling them to the ground, etc.

It's what they're supposed to be trained to do.

Sure, if you have all the time in the world and there are no bystanders around. Not when the man armed with a knife is trying to get into a car with innocent children inside. That calls for immediate action.

There's a video that made the rounds last year of the LAPD trying to disarm someone with a knife. They have one officer with a pistol providing cover for another officer who has a beanbag shotgun. They use the beanbag shotgun on the man with the knife. He simply shrugs off the bags, runs to a nearby old woman, and slits her throat.

That's why you have to position yourself between the threat and Innocents.

Not three guys chasing the goose.

N583JB wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

N583JB wrote:

Good question. I'm not a lawyer, but if I were his I'd be angling for a guilty plea to some lesser charges (being 17 and carrying a rifle without adult supervision) in exchange for the murder charges being dropped, particularly since every shooting was caught on camera and appeared to be self-defense.

Nothing for bringing an illegal long rifle across state lines? Wow I never knew ‘law and order’ was so selective. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Is it illegal to bring a rifle across state lines?

I'd say that screaming the N word at a group of heavily armed black and white folks and telling those folks to shoot you is a stupid game as well; throwing a flaming object and bum-rushing one of those armed people is an even stupider game. And we all saw how that worked out.

Actually, there is a lot of evidence now that suggests that at worst he will get off with a misdemeanor for open carrying as a 17 year old. For starters, there is video evidence that clearly shows it was self defense. He was attacked by one guy, who he shot, and then another guy (the one who lived) had a handgun of his own. So yeah.

The video clearly shows kyle running away, only to be attacked onto the ground at which point people are surrounding him trying to kick him and take his gun.

I would post some more, but there is a LOT... you can find it yourself with some google searches. For starters, he lived 30 minutes away from where that rioting took place, and a video of him prior to the shooting was posted that shows he was going there to protect property. https://twitter.com/elijahschaffer/stat ... 61346?s=21

Sorry for my jumbled sentences but there is really a lot to take in here and not all of the evidence has come to light. Apparently there was also some other unidentified shooter that triggered the first shot he fired.


(Also a bit of personal opinion, one of the people he killed was a registered sex offender who served 10 years for having a sexual experience with a minor. So if you ask me, I am not too upset about it..)

https://pdfhost.io/v/OG0N3VFFU_Print_Inmatepdf.pdf

JJJ wrote:

N583JB wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Plenty of video evidence of police disarming knife-armed suspects with batons, tackling them to the ground, etc.

It's what they're supposed to be trained to do.

Sure, if you have all the time in the world and there are no bystanders around. Not when the man armed with a knife is trying to get into a car with innocent children inside. That calls for immediate action.

There's a video that made the rounds last year of the LAPD trying to disarm someone with a knife. They have one officer with a pistol providing cover for another officer who has a beanbag shotgun. They use the beanbag shotgun on the man with the knife. He simply shrugs off the bags, runs to a nearby old woman, and slits her throat.

That's why you have to position yourself between the threat and Innocents.

Not three guys chasing the goose.

Hindsight is amazing, isn't it? I bet if you were an NFL quarterback every single ball you'd throw would be a touchdown, you'd go your career with zero interceptions, incompletions, or fumbles, and you'd win every game 240-0. After all, it looks so easy on TV. Just throw the ball to the guy in the end zone.

Real life isn't like that.

Veigar wrote:

N583JB wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Nothing for bringing an illegal long rifle across state lines? Wow I never knew ‘law and order’ was so selective. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Is it illegal to bring a rifle across state lines?

I'd say that screaming the N word at a group of heavily armed black and white folks and telling those folks to shoot you is a stupid game as well; throwing a flaming object and bum-rushing one of those armed people is an even stupider game. And we all saw how that worked out.

Actually, there is a lot of evidence now that suggests that at worst he will get off with a misdemeanor for open carrying as a 17 year old. For starters, there is video evidence that clearly shows it was self defense. He was attacked by one guy, who he shot, and then another guy (the one who lived) had a handgun of his own. So yeah.

The video clearly shows kyle running away, only to be attacked onto the ground at which point people are surrounding him trying to kick him and take his gun.

I would post some more, but there is a LOT... you can find it yourself with some google searches. For starters, he lived 30 minutes away from where that rioting took place, and a video of him prior to the shooting was posted that shows he was going there to protect property. https://twitter.com/elijahschaffer/stat ... 61346?s=21

Sorry for my jumbled sentences but there is really a lot to take in here and not all of the evidence has come to light. Apparently there was also some other unidentified shooter that triggered the first shot he fired.


(Also a bit of personal opinion, one of the people he killed was a registered sex offender who served 10 years for having a sexual experience with a minor. So if you ask me, I am not too upset about it..)

https://pdfhost.io/v/OG0N3VFFU_Print_Inmatepdf.pdf

No, just like the others, he broke curfew. He will be charged with armed assault and manslaughter, unless Kenosha wants more riots.

casinterest wrote:

Veigar wrote:

N583JB wrote:

Is it illegal to bring a rifle across state lines?

I'd say that screaming the N word at a group of heavily armed black and white folks and telling those folks to shoot you is a stupid game as well; throwing a flaming object and bum-rushing one of those armed people is an even stupider game. And we all saw how that worked out.

Actually, there is a lot of evidence now that suggests that at worst he will get off with a misdemeanor for open carrying as a 17 year old. For starters, there is video evidence that clearly shows it was self defense. He was attacked by one guy, who he shot, and then another guy (the one who lived) had a handgun of his own. So yeah.

The video clearly shows kyle running away, only to be attacked onto the ground at which point people are surrounding him trying to kick him and take his gun.

I would post some more, but there is a LOT... you can find it yourself with some google searches. For starters, he lived 30 minutes away from where that rioting took place, and a video of him prior to the shooting was posted that shows he was going there to protect property. https://twitter.com/elijahschaffer/stat ... 61346?s=21

Sorry for my jumbled sentences but there is really a lot to take in here and not all of the evidence has come to light. Apparently there was also some other unidentified shooter that triggered the first shot he fired.


(Also a bit of personal opinion, one of the people he killed was a registered sex offender who served 10 years for having a sexual experience with a minor. So if you ask me, I am not too upset about it..)

https://pdfhost.io/v/OG0N3VFFU_Print_Inmatepdf.pdf

No, just like the others, he broke curfew. He will be charged with armed assault and manslaughter, unless Kenosha wants more riots.

Unless Kenosha wants more riots? So you want to put people in prison based on what violent rioters want? Who needs a legal system....let's just throw anyone and everyone in prison to appease the violent mobs. What a truly horrific sentiment.

casinterest wrote:

Veigar wrote:

N583JB wrote:

Is it illegal to bring a rifle across state lines?

I'd say that screaming the N word at a group of heavily armed black and white folks and telling those folks to shoot you is a stupid game as well; throwing a flaming object and bum-rushing one of those armed people is an even stupider game. And we all saw how that worked out.

Actually, there is a lot of evidence now that suggests that at worst he will get off with a misdemeanor for open carrying as a 17 year old. For starters, there is video evidence that clearly shows it was self defense. He was attacked by one guy, who he shot, and then another guy (the one who lived) had a handgun of his own. So yeah.

The video clearly shows kyle running away, only to be attacked onto the ground at which point people are surrounding him trying to kick him and take his gun.

I would post some more, but there is a LOT... you can find it yourself with some google searches. For starters, he lived 30 minutes away from where that rioting took place, and a video of him prior to the shooting was posted that shows he was going there to protect property. https://twitter.com/elijahschaffer/stat ... 61346?s=21

Sorry for my jumbled sentences but there is really a lot to take in here and not all of the evidence has come to light. Apparently there was also some other unidentified shooter that triggered the first shot he fired.


(Also a bit of personal opinion, one of the people he killed was a registered sex offender who served 10 years for having a sexual experience with a minor. So if you ask me, I am not too upset about it..)

https://pdfhost.io/v/OG0N3VFFU_Print_Inmatepdf.pdf

No, just like the others, he broke curfew. He will be charged with armed assault and manslaughter, unless Kenosha wants more riots.

We will see, not everything has come to light. I really doubt he will be charged with armed assault an manslaughter, let alone for the interests of preventing stupid people rioting.

We can all go back and forth about the "proper" way to disarm someone who says they have a knife, etc or how deadly a knife is, I've yet to see anything convincing from the videos or the statement given by the police, which justifies firing seven shots into a man's back and killing him.

By the way, it took the police three days to come up with a short description of events. And their statement is pretty scant on detail. What does that typically indicate? Well from my perspective, it took so long because that's how long it takes to craft a statement that doesn't explicitly lie, but has had enough lawyers insert enough ambiguity to try and justify the actions of the police officer involved (I would know... I am lawyer!).

Yes, the police say Jacob Blake said he had a knife. But I have yet to hear or see any evidence he was threatening anyone with the knife. If he was, don't you think the police statement would have said so? If anyone's life was in immediate danger, if anyone was being actively threatened with a brandished knife, if there was any justifiable threat at all..... the police statement (after three days....) would have said this. But it didn't. If there was a good reason for shooting Jacob Blake in the back seven times (and by the way, having a knife is not automatically a good reason to kill someone), then we would know already. I've yet to see this articulated by the police.

Yes, domestic disputes are very difficult to deal with. You can see from the videos released the commotion, the noise, the volatile emotions. But I'm sorry, this is part of the job of being a police officer. It is your job to handle these situations. The default solution, too often when the police come in contact with black people, is to kill them. Yes, white people get unjustifiably shot by the police too. But standing up for black people in America and standing against police mistreatment against black people doesn't take away from that either.

And before someone harps on about I wouldn't know anything about this because I'm in the UK - I'm actually American - born and raised in Arizona, a very heavily armed state at that....

airbus3801 wrote:

We can all go back and forth about the "proper" way to disarm someone who says they have a knife, etc or how deadly a knife is, I've yet to see anything convincing from the videos or the statement given by the police, which justifies firing seven shots into a man's back and killing him.

By the way, it took the police three days to come up with a short description of events. And their statement is pretty scant on detail. What does that typically indicate? Well from my perspective, it took so long because that's how long it takes to craft a statement that doesn't explicitly lie, but has had enough lawyers insert enough ambiguity to try and justify the actions of the police officer involved (I would know... I am lawyer!).

Yes, the police say Jacob Blake said he had a knife. But I have yet to hear or see any evidence he was threatening anyone with the knife. If he was, don't you think the police statement would have said so? If anyone's life was in immediate danger, if anyone was being actively threatened with a brandished knife, if there was any justifiable threat at all..... the police statement (after three days....) would have said this. But it didn't. If there was a good reason for shooting Jacob Blake in the back seven times (and by the way, having a knife is not automatically a good reason to kill someone), then we would know already. I've yet to see this articulated by the police.

Yes, domestic disputes are very difficult to deal with. You can see from the videos released the commotion, the noise, the volatile emotions. But I'm sorry, this is part of the job of being a police officer. It is your job to handle these situations. The default solution, too often when the police come in contact with black people, is to kill them. Yes, white people get unjustifiably shot by the police too. But standing up for black people in America and standing against police mistreatment against black people doesn't take away from that either.

And before someone harps on about I wouldn't know anything about this because I'm in the UK - I'm actually American - born and raised in Arizona, a very heavily armed state at that....

I suppose you think it would have been better to let the armed man wanted for sexual assault to get in a car full of children and drive away?

It doesn't matter what the police say, or how long it took them to say it. People don't care. They want outrage, facts be damned. There were riots in Minneapolis again yesterday because a man killed himself. Social media lies started stating that the police killed the man. They didn't. They released video of the man putting a pistol in his mouth and pulling the trigger. The riots continued. Some people just want to destroy things.

There were riots in Detroit several weeks ago. Why? The police were trying to arrest a man wanted in connection with a mass shooting that killed 3 people and left four others wounded. The man who was wanted did not resist arrest. While the police were trying to handcuff him, the man's friend walked up, pointed a handgun directly at an officer's head, and pulled the trigger. Somehow, he missed. The police returned fire and killed the gunman. All of this was captured on video. Before the video could be released, a "witness" on Facebook stated that the police had "executed" and "unarmed man" who "was begging for his life". Lies. All of it. People didn't care. They still rioted.

There are many, many other examples. The facts don't matter to the anti-police crowd.

N583JB wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Veigar wrote:

Actually, there is a lot of evidence now that suggests that at worst he will get off with a misdemeanor for open carrying as a 17 year old. For starters, there is video evidence that clearly shows it was self defense. He was attacked by one guy, who he shot, and then another guy (the one who lived) had a handgun of his own. So yeah.

The video clearly shows kyle running away, only to be attacked onto the ground at which point people are surrounding him trying to kick him and take his gun.

I would post some more, but there is a LOT... you can find it yourself with some google searches. For starters, he lived 30 minutes away from where that rioting took place, and a video of him prior to the shooting was posted that shows he was going there to protect property. https://twitter.com/elijahschaffer/stat ... 61346?s=21

Sorry for my jumbled sentences but there is really a lot to take in here and not all of the evidence has come to light. Apparently there was also some other unidentified shooter that triggered the first shot he fired.


(Also a bit of personal opinion, one of the people he killed was a registered sex offender who served 10 years for having a sexual experience with a minor. So if you ask me, I am not too upset about it..)

https://pdfhost.io/v/OG0N3VFFU_Print_Inmatepdf.pdf

No, just like the others, he broke curfew. He will be charged with armed assault and manslaughter, unless Kenosha wants more riots.

Unless Kenosha wants more riots? So you want to put people in prison based on what violent rioters want? Who needs a legal system....let's just throw anyone and everyone in prison to appease the violent mobs. What a truly horrific sentiment.

Fun watching the usual suspects list all the illegal things the black guy did as proof why he deserved to be shot in the back, while ignoring all the illegal things the white kid did as proof of why he is innocent of murdering people. I wonder why that is.

MaverickM11 wrote:

N583JB wrote:

casinterest wrote:

No, just like the others, he broke curfew. He will be charged with armed assault and manslaughter, unless Kenosha wants more riots.

Unless Kenosha wants more riots? So you want to put people in prison based on what violent rioters want? Who needs a legal system....let's just throw anyone and everyone in prison to appease the violent mobs. What a truly horrific sentiment.

Fun watching the usual suspects list all the illegal things the black guy did as proof why he deserved to be shot in the back, while ignoring all the illegal things the white kid did as proof of why he is innocent of murdering people. I wonder why that is.

If you'd actually click on links before making baseless assumptions, you'd see that he was referring to the white man who was killed during the riots a couple of nights ago. The white man who was screaming the N-word at people and apparently spent 10 years in prison for sexually assaulting a child. If you want to defend the character of that person, feel free.

Fun watching the usual suspects list all the illegal things the black guy did as proof why he deserved to be shot in the back, while ignoring all the illegal things the white kid did as proof of why he is innocent of murdering people. I wonder why that is.

Yep, right on time. You can set your watch to it.

N583JB wrote:

airbus3801 wrote:

We can all go back and forth about the "proper" way to disarm someone who says they have a knife, etc or how deadly a knife is, I've yet to see anything convincing from the videos or the statement given by the police, which justifies firing seven shots into a man's back and killing him.

By the way, it took the police three days to come up with a short description of events. And their statement is pretty scant on detail. What does that typically indicate? Well from my perspective, it took so long because that's how long it takes to craft a statement that doesn't explicitly lie, but has had enough lawyers insert enough ambiguity to try and justify the actions of the police officer involved (I would know... I am lawyer!).

Yes, the police say Jacob Blake said he had a knife. But I have yet to hear or see any evidence he was threatening anyone with the knife. If he was, don't you think the police statement would have said so? If anyone's life was in immediate danger, if anyone was being actively threatened with a brandished knife, if there was any justifiable threat at all..... the police statement (after three days....) would have said this. But it didn't. If there was a good reason for shooting Jacob Blake in the back seven times (and by the way, having a knife is not automatically a good reason to kill someone), then we would know already. I've yet to see this articulated by the police.

Yes, domestic disputes are very difficult to deal with. You can see from the videos released the commotion, the noise, the volatile emotions. But I'm sorry, this is part of the job of being a police officer. It is your job to handle these situations. The default solution, too often when the police come in contact with black people, is to kill them. Yes, white people get unjustifiably shot by the police too. But standing up for black people in America and standing against police mistreatment against black people doesn't take away from that either.

And before someone harps on about I wouldn't know anything about this because I'm in the UK - I'm actually American - born and raised in Arizona, a very heavily armed state at that....

I suppose you think it would have been better to let the armed man wanted for sexual assault to get in a car full of children and drive away?

It doesn't matter what the police say, or how long it took them to say it. People don't care. They want outrage, facts be damned. There were riots in Minneapolis again yesterday because a man killed himself. Social media lies started stating that the police killed the man. They didn't. They released video of the man putting a pistol in his mouth and pulling the trigger. The riots continued. Some people just want to destroy things.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. So it's fine to kill people in the street if they're wanted for sexual assault? I don't think anyone, including the police, have implied that anything was done for the safety of the children? Probably the police officer didn't even know the children were there.

You say people want outrage, facts be damned. However I get the sense you're pretty outraged even though there's nothing in the facts that justifies the actions of the police. You're right, some people just want to destroy things. Some people are going to riot and burn things down in Minneapolis even after they find out their information was wrong. Still don't see why this means it's fine for Jacob Blake to get shot seven times.

NWAESC wrote:

Fun watching the usual suspects list all the illegal things the black guy did as proof why he deserved to be shot in the back, while ignoring all the illegal things the white kid did as proof of why he is innocent of murdering people. I wonder why that is.

Yep, right on time. You can set your watch to it.

Yep, ignore everything that you don't want to hear. He is an innocent black person to you, even though to people who actually bother to do some research, he is a pedophile white guy who ATTACKED KYLE FIRST AFTER HE TRIPPED. Maybe to you if someone attacked me after I tripped and beat me to a pulp I still wouldn't have a right to defend myself.

Shouldn’t have crossed state lines with a long gun. Or had it at all, since he’s 17.

Aren’t you guys all for “law and order,” or is that situational?

NWAESC wrote:

Shouldn’t have crossed state lines with a long gun. Or had it at all, since he’s 17.

Aren’t you guys all for “law and order,” or is that situational?

I stated very clearly in this thread last night that I believed this kid deserves to be in some serious trouble. I also believe that the shootings captured appeared to have been in self-defense, but that doesn't absolve him of the responsibility of making the decision to apparently break the law and put him in that situation in the first place. Similar to the "felony murder" rule, i.e. if someone dies while you are committing a crime, even if you had no intent of harming anyone, you can be charged with murder. What is crazy is that if this kid was a year older he'd probably be looking at zero charges or a likely acquittal.

N583JB wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

N583JB wrote:

Unless Kenosha wants more riots? So you want to put people in prison based on what violent rioters want? Who needs a legal system....let's just throw anyone and everyone in prison to appease the violent mobs. What a truly horrific sentiment.

Fun watching the usual suspects list all the illegal things the black guy did as proof why he deserved to be shot in the back, while ignoring all the illegal things the white kid did as proof of why he is innocent of murdering people. I wonder why that is.

If you'd actually click on links before making baseless assumptions, you'd see that he was referring to the white man who was killed during the riots a couple of nights ago. The white man who was screaming the N-word at people and apparently spent 10 years in prison for sexually assaulting a child. If you want to defend the character of that person, feel free.

Here are some tl;dr'd facts about the event:

The first shooting was not actually Kyle, as evidence from the video suggests. This one is still a bit iffy and up in the air, but I am also reading that a molotov was thrown at him at first. (I'm using this as a reference for the first shooting: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/ ... 138136.png)

After that however it is clear cut. He phones 911 after the first shooting, goes towards the police, and is chased at by the mob. After he falls to the ground, pedo guy hits him in the head with a skateboard, and is shot. I want to add that charging someone who has a weapon is extremely negligent towards OTHERS because even the most trained of shooters can't control where a bullet will fly if someone is flailing themselves at you. Anyways, skateboard pedo is taken out, someone else with a handgun attempts to confront him. I should add that this person with the handgun was another convicted felon who was not allowed to own a handgun. So that one is also clear cut, because if a convicted felon pulls a gun on you, what do you think they are trying to do? He was shot, survives, but his bicep is blown off. Somehow this guy is in the hospital for some reason and not in jail. Why is a convicted felon with a gun he isn't allowed to have walking free? Anyways, after he is shot, Kyle walks to police and surrenders himself. Also to people saying he crossed state lines (as if he drove a LONG time) - it was 30 minutes away from where he lived. Anyways, as for the gun laws, I am not 100% sure on it since there is a lot of things for and against him, like rifles being an exception for open carrying, his mom driving him there, and a myriad of other things (a useful link https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/cri ... 444231001/) but regardless of any potential misdemeanors for carrying the gun, it doesn't mean you don't have a right to defend yourself.

I apologize for referring to the skateboard dude as such, but I have absolutely 0 respect for people who sexually assault children. Zero. No matter what. It is so disgusting that words will not do it justice for me.

N583JB wrote:

JJJ wrote:

N583JB wrote:

Sure, if you have all the time in the world and there are no bystanders around. Not when the man armed with a knife is trying to get into a car with innocent children inside. That calls for immediate action.

There's a video that made the rounds last year of the LAPD trying to disarm someone with a knife. They have one officer with a pistol providing cover for another officer who has a beanbag shotgun. They use the beanbag shotgun on the man with the knife. He simply shrugs off the bags, runs to a nearby old woman, and slits her throat.

That's why you have to position yourself between the threat and Innocents.

Not three guys chasing the goose.

Hindsight is amazing, isn't it? I bet if you were an NFL quarterback every single ball you'd throw would be a touchdown, you'd go your career with zero interceptions, incompletions, or fumbles, and you'd win every game 240-0. After all, it looks so easy on TV. Just throw the ball to the guy in the end zone.

Real life isn't like that.

You can say hindsight when something unexpected happens but this can be chalked to training pure and simple. These guys were only trained to use a hammer and it's no wonder they found a nail.

JJJ wrote:

N583JB wrote:

JJJ wrote:

That's why you have to position yourself between the threat and Innocents.

Not three guys chasing the goose.

Hindsight is amazing, isn't it? I bet if you were an NFL quarterback every single ball you'd throw would be a touchdown, you'd go your career with zero interceptions, incompletions, or fumbles, and you'd win every game 240-0. After all, it looks so easy on TV. Just throw the ball to the guy in the end zone.

Real life isn't like that.

You can say hindsight when something unexpected happens but this can be chalked to training pure and simple. These guys were only trained to use a hammer and it's no wonder they found a nail.

If they were only trained to use a hammer, they wouldn't have gone hands-on with him, nor would they have used their tazers. The gunfire was a last resort. Your post does not reflect the reality of what happened there.

Also I have a question, if you are tried as an adult, but only 17, what exactly does that mean for any "under 17" laws that are broken?

N583JB wrote:

If they were only trained to use a hammer, they wouldn't have gone hands-on with him, nor would they have used their tazers. The gunfire was a last resort. Your post does not reflect the reality of what happened there.

And your post(s) do not allow for any errors the police made in this situation. I already pointed out that there were errors made, and that is obvious. However none of your posts seem to allow for that. I think it is because you are "playing the opposite" against the many others that do not seem to acknowledge the many obvious errors Mr. Blake made. I just wish people would acknowledge both.

Tugg

A much more detailed analysis of the Kenosha shooting: https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/12988 ... 63809?s=19

My earlier post was slightly misinformed and messy, so I’ll just leave this instead for those who are interested

N583JB wrote:

JJJ wrote:

N583JB wrote:

Hindsight is amazing, isn't it? I bet if you were an NFL quarterback every single ball you'd throw would be a touchdown, you'd go your career with zero interceptions, incompletions, or fumbles, and you'd win every game 240-0. After all, it looks so easy on TV. Just throw the ball to the guy in the end zone.

Real life isn't like that.

You can say hindsight when something unexpected happens but this can be chalked to training pure and simple. These guys were only trained to use a hammer and it's no wonder they found a nail.

If they were only trained to use a hammer, they wouldn't have gone hands-on with him, nor would they have used their tazers. The gunfire was a last resort. Your post does not reflect the reality of what happened there.

Three police officers getting hands on the guy yet there he is calmly walking to his car like he doesn't give a damn.

Either the man's a superhero (he wasn't) or the three cops couldn't or wouldn't physically impose themselves on one guy.

Kiwirob wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Yes, Justine Damond had called the police to report a crime and when she went out to meet the cops she was shot dead. And it took an entire year before the cop was even indicted. But no one burned anything down. George Floyd's killer cop was arrested in a matter of days but MN is still ablaze.

So, your message is that when the unjust killing of innocent people happens, it is best to do nothing, not make a fuss and just forget about it?

What I'm saying is unjust killing of people happens all the time but it only matters when the killed person was black, nobody appears to care if it's anyone else. I didn't read about, or see on the news any protests for the three people I mentioned above.

When a white person is killed, justice is swift. When a black person is killed, meh.... it is what it is. Maybe justice will be served, maybe not. S/He was probably a drug dealer and had warrants anyway so why all the fuss? That seems to be the narrative from the right.

Let's treat black people the way white people are treated. Or, better yet, treat white people the way black people are treated. Let's have the police shoot unarmed white people over and over and over and over and over because "I thought s/he had a gun" or "I thought that was the suspect (because they all look the same)" or "oh, well.... another white person with a record gone. Why all the fuss?"

EDIT:

A man crossed state lines with a gun (but somehow that is not possible for people in Chicago?) and killed two people. He was given a bottle of water and calmly escorted to police custody. A man walked into a Baptist church in South Carolina, murdered nine people and when he was arrested alive, he was taken to Burger King. An unarmed black man was shot in the back seven times by officers and another was suffocated and died at the hands of officers. Tell me there is no white privilege in this country.

N757ST wrote:

seb146 wrote:

N757ST wrote:

You claimed he followed orders? He didn’t.

Perhaps you should look at the fact that everything is not black and white, it’s shades of gray. Also, look at scenarios with less of a one sided view. Let’s talk about one case, not 7 others that may of may not have been justified. In this case, the person shot appears to have been holding a weapon, was a wanted man accused of violent crime, was disobeying orders from law enforcement who tried unsuccessfully to use non lethal force on him, and who then made his way toward his car full of kids.

Again: provide links that he did any of that. Proof or it didn't happen.

Here’s what appears to be a knife.

https://i.postimg.cc/0NCgMNXn/blake.jpg

Heres the video from the other side of the car where he’s fighting with police.

https://www.tmz.com/2020/08/24/jacob-bl ... s-kenosha/

The WSJ verified the active warrants against him.

“ Who is Jacob Blake?

Mr. Blake, 29 years old, lives in Kenosha. According to the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Blake grew up in Evanston, Ill., and is the grandson of an Evanston civil-rights activist and preacher.

There was a warrant for his arrest filed in Wisconsin Circuit Court in July on charges of criminal trespass, domestic abuse and third-degree sexual assault. Mr. Crump, the attorney, didn’t respond to a request for comment on Mr. Blake’s record.”

And article about the struggle and the fact he was tased:

http://www.insider.com/police-used-tase ... 20-8%3famp

The knife looks pretty limp. But, a cell phone looks like a gun when police see it in the hands of a Black man, so

Police were there for a completely different call, IIRC. The aggressors are the cops. Again. Dragging him out of the car.

seb146 wrote:

N757ST wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Again: provide links that he did any of that. Proof or it didn't happen.

Here’s what appears to be a knife.

https://i.postimg.cc/0NCgMNXn/blake.jpg

Heres the video from the other side of the car where he’s fighting with police.

https://www.tmz.com/2020/08/24/jacob-bl ... s-kenosha/

The WSJ verified the active warrants against him.

“ Who is Jacob Blake?

Mr. Blake, 29 years old, lives in Kenosha. According to the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Blake grew up in Evanston, Ill., and is the grandson of an Evanston civil-rights activist and preacher.

There was a warrant for his arrest filed in Wisconsin Circuit Court in July on charges of criminal trespass, domestic abuse and third-degree sexual assault. Mr. Crump, the attorney, didn’t respond to a request for comment on Mr. Blake’s record.”

And article about the struggle and the fact he was tased:

http://www.insider.com/police-used-tase ... 20-8%3famp

The knife looks pretty limp. But, a cell phone looks like a gun when police see it in the hands of a Black man, so

Police were there for a completely different call, IIRC. The aggressors are the cops. Again. Dragging him out of the car.

You are very misinformed. The police were there because Blake's girlfriend called 911 and told the police that Blake - who was wanted for felony sexual assault - was there and he was not allowed to be there. The police were not the aggressors. Blake was the aggressor for showing up armed at his girlfriend's house when she did not want him there.

seb146 wrote:

A man crossed state lines with a gun (but somehow that is not possible for people in Chicago?) and killed two people. He was given a bottle of water and calmly escorted to police custody. A man walked into a Baptist church in South Carolina, murdered nine people and when he was arrested alive, he was taken to Burger King. An unarmed black man was shot in the back seven times by officers and another was suffocated and died at the hands of officers. Tell me there is no white privilege in this country.

Are people under the impression that it is unlawful to cross state lines with a gun? As far as I know it isn't. Also, we have no idea how he was taken into police custody. He walked calmly towards the police with his hands in the air, but they ignored him and instead went towards the victims. He was arrested a day later, circumstances unknown.

The Charleston scumbag surrendered peacefully to the police. He was not taken to Burger King. He was given food at the jail because they had no other food available and they are legally obligated to feed people in police custody.

If Blake had complied with law enforcement instead of resisting, he likely would have been taken to jail without issue.

seb146 wrote:

When a white person is killed, justice is swift. When a black person is killed, meh.... it is what it is. Maybe justice will be served, maybe not. S/He was probably a drug dealer and had warrants anyway so why all the fuss? That seems to be the narrative from the right.

No, it isn't swift justice for white people. The Black cop that shot and killed the White Justine Damond wasn't indicted for an entire year after he killed her.

Tugger wrote:

N583JB wrote:

If they were only trained to use a hammer, they wouldn't have gone hands-on with him, nor would they have used their tazers. The gunfire was a last resort. Your post does not reflect the reality of what happened there.

And your post(s) do not allow for any errors the police made in this situation. I already pointed out that there were errors made, and that is obvious. However none of your posts seem to allow for that. I think it is because you are "playing the opposite" against the many others that do not seem to acknowledge the many obvious errors Mr. Blake made. I just wish people would acknowledge both.

Tugg

It is possible that the police made mistakes, but we haven't heard their side of the story yet. We've heard Blake's side. I'm waiting for the rest to come out before passing judgment.

N583JB wrote:

Tugger wrote:

N583JB wrote:

If they were only trained to use a hammer, they wouldn't have gone hands-on with him, nor would they have used their tazers. The gunfire was a last resort. Your post does not reflect the reality of what happened there.

And your post(s) do not allow for any errors the police made in this situation. I already pointed out that there were errors made, and that is obvious. However none of your posts seem to allow for that. I think it is because you are "playing the opposite" against the many others that do not seem to acknowledge the many obvious errors Mr. Blake made. I just wish people would acknowledge both.

Tugg

It is possible that the police made mistakes, but we haven't heard their side of the story yet. We've heard Blake's side. I'm waiting for the rest to come out before passing judgment.

Well they have come out with part of their "side" and based on what that was, so far I am not impressed with their process or procedures. And I would say that, based on reading your posts, you have passed a fair amount of judgement.

One huge question I have is: Why did they not tazer him again? I get that "they tired it and it didn't affect him" but that doesn't make sense, other why shoot him seven times? "The first time didn't work... it obviously doesn't work so we won't try it again" is dumb. You have officers with handguns drawn, covering the worst case option. Just taze the hell out of him if needed. When he starts to get up, taze him again. So I will be interested in hearing why that didn't happen.

Another question I have is why not use the baton on him? One shot to the knee and he would have sat right back down. They were within arms reach of him, they let him get up, just club him if he is a danger.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

One huge question I have is: Why did they not tazer him again? I get that "they tired it and it didn't affect him" but that doesn't make sense, other why shoot him seven times? "The first time didn't work... it obviously doesn't work so we won't try it again" is dumb. You have officers with handguns drawn, covering the worst case option. Just taze the hell out of him if needed. When he starts to get up, taze him again. So I will be interested in hearing why that didn't happen.

Another question I have is why not use the baton on him? One shot to the knee and he would have sat right back down. They were within arms reach of him, they let him get up, just club him if he is a danger.

Tugg

With regard to the tazer, we don't know how many times they tried to use it. They very well may have tried more than once. Also, when you are shooting the prongs from the tazer, you are limited to two shots. So, if the officer who tried to taze Blake used up his cartridges, he wouldn't have been able to attempt to taze him again.

With regard to the baton, look up the 21 foot rule referenced earlier. Generally speaking, you don't want to be within 21 feet of someone armed with a knife, because it has been found that 21 feet is the distance that a person armed with a knife can close on you before you have a chance to properly react. If you are close enough to use a baton, you are close enough to get your throat cut, or stabbed in the face, or any number of bad things. IMO the only reason the officers got close to him when he was trying to get into his car was because they really didn't want to have to shoot him, nor did they want him to be able to flee with children in the car. The officers risked their lives to prevent any of that from happening.

I've been reading everything in this thread since it was started. I also viewed the 30 minute unabridged video, which included the attacks on Rittenhouse and all of his shootings of all involved. That video included him walking to the police afterward, who praised him for whatever reason, and his interview by several members of the press. Additionally, I watched the 60 minute press conference hosted that next day by the police chief, sheriff, mayor, county manager, and National Guard major general. The Kenosha County Sheriff's Department is handling the whole investigation per standard protocol since Kenosha Police Department is directly involved and cannot assure objectivity. I'm all in favor of laying low and letting the Sheriff's Department complete its investigation. Everything until then is hyperbole and personal opinion... which is obvious in this thread.

N583JB wrote:

With regard to the tazer, we don't know how many times they tried to use it. They very well may have tried more than once. Also, when you are shooting the prongs from the tazer, you are limited to two shots. So, if the officer who tried to taze Blake used up his cartridges, he wouldn't have been able to attempt to taze him again.

With regard to the baton, look up the 21 foot rule referenced earlier. Generally speaking, you don't want to be within 21 feet of someone armed with a knife, because it has been found that 21 feet is the distance that a person armed with a knife can close on you before you have a chance to properly react. If you are close enough to use a baton, you are close enough to get your throat cut, or stabbed in the face, or any number of bad things. IMO the only reason the officers got close to him when he was trying to get into his car was because they really didn't want to have to shoot him, nor did they want him to be able to flee with children in the car. The officers risked their lives to prevent any of that from happening.

There were three officers, as far as I can tell from the pictures available each had a tazer on them.

Also the subject was seated, the 21' rule doesn't apply. And then they violated the very "rule" you are quoting for why they couldn't do it when they ran after him. They obviously felt that they were safe enough to violate it then. As I said, I see some concerning actions policing there, not proper procedure.

As I said, I am interested to hear what the department has to say on these elements and their explanation for how what happened, happened.

Police procedures cannot be only "comply or be shot". You are dealing with humans and near infinite variables.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

N583JB wrote:

With regard to the tazer, we don't know how many times they tried to use it. They very well may have tried more than once. Also, when you are shooting the prongs from the tazer, you are limited to two shots. So, if the officer who tried to taze Blake used up his cartridges, he wouldn't have been able to attempt to taze him again.

With regard to the baton, look up the 21 foot rule referenced earlier. Generally speaking, you don't want to be within 21 feet of someone armed with a knife, because it has been found that 21 feet is the distance that a person armed with a knife can close on you before you have a chance to properly react. If you are close enough to use a baton, you are close enough to get your throat cut, or stabbed in the face, or any number of bad things. IMO the only reason the officers got close to him when he was trying to get into his car was because they really didn't want to have to shoot him, nor did they want him to be able to flee with children in the car. The officers risked their lives to prevent any of that from happening.

There were three officers, as far as I can tell from the pictures available each had a tazer on them.

Also the subject was seated, the 21' rule doesn't apply. And then they violated the very "rule" you are quoting for why they couldn't do it when they ran after him. They obviously felt that they were safe enough to violate it then. As I said, I see some concerning actions policing there, not proper procedure.

As I said, I am interested to hear what the department has to say on these elements and their explanation for how what happened, happened.

Police procedures cannot be only "comply or be shot". You are dealing with humans and near infinite variables.

Tugg

He wasn't seated....he was shot as he attempted to get into his car. The initial videos show him fighting on the ground with officers, then walking briskly away while being told to "drop the knife". He was shot once he opened the car door and leaned inside.

N583JB wrote:

"fighting on the ground with officers..."

And you are saying they can't get within 21' and use batons?

I have to step away for a bit but will recheck where I thought I had seen him seated. Still....

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

N583JB wrote:

"fighting on the ground with officers..."

And you are saying they can't get within 21' and use batons?

I have to step away for a bit but will recheck where I thought I had seen him seated. Still....

Tugg

It is entirely possible that they didn't know he had a knife until they began tussling with him, at which point they backed up and pulled their tasers and firearms out.

Veigar wrote:

I want to add that charging someone who has a weapon is extremely negligent towards OTHERS because even the most trained of shooters can't control where a bullet will fly if someone is flailing themselves at you.

Sorta blows away the whole right wing fantasy of good-guy-with-a-gun but ok...

Veigar wrote:

Anyways, skateboard pedo is taken out, someone else with a handgun attempts to confront him. I should add that this person with the handgun was another convicted felon who was not allowed to own a handgun. So that one is also clear cut, because if a convicted felon pulls a gun on you, what do you think they are trying to do? He was shot, survives, but his bicep is blown off. Somehow this guy is in the hospital for some reason and not in jail. Why is a convicted felon with a gun he isn't allowed to have walking free? Anyways, after he is shot, Kyle walks to police and surrenders himself. Also to people saying he crossed state lines (as if he drove a LONG time) - it was 30 minutes away from where he lived. Anyways, as for the gun laws, I am not 100% sure on it since there is a lot of things for and against him, like rifles being an exception for open carrying, his mom driving him there, and a myriad of other things (a useful link https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/cri ... 444231001/) but regardless of any potential misdemeanors for carrying the gun, it doesn't mean you don't have a right to defend yourself.

I apologize for referring to the skateboard dude as such, but I have absolutely 0 respect for people who sexually assault children. Zero. No matter what. It is so disgusting that words will not do it justice for me.

Are you suggesting the shooter somehow knew the rap sheet of each person he--who also has a rap sheet himself--was shooting? He did not surrender himself to the police--they didn't even apprehend him until the following day. And crossing state lines with a gun illegally has no 'distance component'--he committed multiple illegal acts while *being driven by his mother* to take part in vigilante justice. It is total insanity that he was even there in the first place. On the ground, in person, how would you identify him as a 'good guy' versus anyone else on scene with a gun?

Veigar wrote:

Actually, there is a lot of evidence now that suggests that at worst he will get off with a misdemeanor for open carrying as a 17 year old.

We will see, not everything has come to light. I really doubt he will be charged with armed assault an manslaughter, let alone for the interests of preventing stupid people rioting.

Nope, the charge sheet for Rittenhouse has just been announced and it looks like it’s a little more serious than “misdemeanour underage open carry”.......:

Kyle Rittenhouse faces one charge of first-degree intentional homicide, one count of first-degree reckless homicide, one count of attempted first-degree intentional homicide and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment. He would face a mandatory life sentence if convicted of first-degree intentional homicide, the most serious crime in Wisconsin.

And another piece of very bad news for Rittenhouse:

Under Wisconsin law, anyone 17 or older is treated as an adult in the criminal justice system.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7302423/kyle ... cob-blake/

Whether justified or not, whether police are good or bad, there is a huge need for law enforcement but it has to be fair and balanced. I lived in Detroit in the 70's until 81 when I moved to Denver. The 60's riots killed Detroit then. To fight the blight the huge Ren Cen was built, it was great but an island within a no man's zone. We took the oldest car among us to go to the Tiger games and only did afternoon games, often damage to the cars and 4 big guys was still a target. I was back there for work 20 years later, it was better in the actual downtown but the neighborhoods were dangerous, enough so the Avis security guard at the Airport told me absolutely not drive I75 thru downtown in the evening - too dangerous.

Now this crazy defund the police and letting every one go without charges has made downtown Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Chicago, Minneapolis, and New York to at least lose their entire downtown retail areas temporarily. It will take years before anyone shops downtown and a 'night on the town' looks like the movie Date Night. Who would now spend $5M on a condo downtown that has needles, poop and addicts stacked outside the front door.

Shouldn't be called "defund the police" rather "destroy the city". Decades of progress restoring our cities has just vanished.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Shouldn't be called "defund the police"

To clarify, “defund the police” isn’t about completely abolishing law enforcement as has been portrayed by the right.

What it actually calls for is a diversion of resources away from armed law enforcement to other services where it can be more effectively used.

For instance instead of having a massive police and federal system of law enforcement to wage a war on drugs, legalise and divert that money into medical and health services to deal with addiction. Instead of calling poorly trained police to deal with mental health episodes have a service of trained medical professionals who respond. Some low level infractions like littering are dealt with by community based officers not armed police. This is how social services work in most Western European countries rather than send armed police to deal with every matter.

Of course Police unions are totally against this because less police needed for drugs, mental health and low level crimes means less police needed, less police paying union dues and their influence wanes.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Veigar wrote:

Actually, there is a lot of evidence now that suggests that at worst he will get off with a misdemeanor for open carrying as a 17 year old.

We will see, not everything has come to light. I really doubt he will be charged with armed assault an manslaughter, let alone for the interests of preventing stupid people rioting.

Nope, the charge sheet for Rittenhouse has just been announced and it looks like it’s a little more serious than “misdemeanour underage open carry”.......:

Kyle Rittenhouse faces one charge of first-degree intentional homicide, one count of first-degree reckless homicide, one count of attempted first-degree intentional homicide and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment. He would face a mandatory life sentence if convicted of first-degree intentional homicide, the most serious crime in Wisconsin.

And another piece of very bad news for Rittenhouse:

Under Wisconsin law, anyone 17 or older is treated as an adult in the criminal justice system.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7302423/kyle ... cob-blake/

If he is tried as an adult he walks. Mark my words. He also seems to be gearing to have a strong lawyer representing him: https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/129 ... 45600?s=20

Also more info about the people he shot in self defense, none of whom are black. Also the shooter is hispanic. If you call this a form of white supremacy you are deluded.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/ ... 707462.jpg

Kyle ran, tripped, then these three RIOTERS (not protesters) tried to attack him when he was down. And their rap sheets make them very hard to feel sorry for, especially the one who sexually assaulted a child. Play stupid games...

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

So, your message is that when the unjust killing of innocent people happens, it is best to do nothing, not make a fuss and just forget about it?

What I'm saying is unjust killing of people happens all the time but it only matters when the killed person was black, nobody appears to care if it's anyone else. I didn't read about, or see on the news any protests for the three people I mentioned above.

When a white person is killed, justice is swift. When a black person is killed, meh.... it is what it is. Maybe justice will be served, maybe not. S/He was probably a drug dealer and had warrants anyway so why all the fuss? That seems to be the narrative from the right.

Let's treat black people the way white people are treated. Or, better yet, treat white people the way black people are treated. Let's have the police shoot unarmed white people over and over and over and over and over because "I thought s/he had a gun" or "I thought that was the suspect (because they all look the same)" or "oh, well.... another white person with a record gone. Why all the fuss?"

EDIT:

A man crossed state lines with a gun (but somehow that is not possible for people in Chicago?) and killed two people. He was given a bottle of water and calmly escorted to police custody. A man walked into a Baptist church in South Carolina, murdered nine people and when he was arrested alive, he was taken to Burger King. An unarmed black man was shot in the back seven times by officers and another was suffocated and died at the hands of officers. Tell me there is no white privilege in this country.

Police are shooting unarmed white people, the difference is the public aren't interested, white people don't react when a white person is killed, black people on the other hand go nuts, the media love it, they fan the flames, it's sells more newspapers, more people watch on tv.

N583JB wrote:

JJJ wrote:

N583JB wrote:

Are you implying that a knife is not a deadly weapon?

You brought the whole canard that US policing is so specific because the population elsewhere is not well armed.

If well armed is a knife then there's no exceptionalism. Pick one escape route or the other, not both.

I posted a video in this thread of another situation in which a man, being detained for a crime, fights with the police, breaks free, and reaches into his car. He pulls out a gun and shoots two of the police officers. In this situation, you had a main, being detained for a crime, fighting with the police, breaking free, being armed with a knife, and reaching into his car. Extremely dangerous situation for all involved. Was he reaching in the car for another weapon? Cops in other nations don't have to worry about nearly everyone being armed. They don't have to worry about what the person is reaching for in his car. Was he trying to get in the car so that he could flee with children (potential hostages) in the back? Was he going to flee , get in an accident, and hurt them? Was he going to take the kids away and kill them? Letting him leave that scene with those children was not an option.

You've just proven the case for proper gun control and removal of the 2nd amendment.

Tugger wrote:

N583JB wrote:

"fighting on the ground with officers..."

And you are saying they can't get within 21' and use batons?

Of course they can. The 21' rule is merely an indication that you are within a dangerous zone, nothing more. Your Canadian neighbours seem to have taken a certain dislike of it and scrapped it as policy because it turned into too many injustifiable shootings.

'Outdated' 21-foot rule for police shootings finally bites the dust
https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016 ... ieces.html

Here's how a police force training in de-escalating and disarming works.

Baton-wielding cop disarms guy with a large knife.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaEUIYBA-Ys

Pair of cops, lunge at him from the sides and back, finally baton hit to the hand again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rWbfQtNHVU

This is where training kicks in, a cadet on her first day of practice in the street puts herself in front of a machete-wielding man to prevent him from going to an area where there are innocents. Once the man is cornered, he's shot in the leg and finally disarmed and apprehended.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yST8CIdn7a8

US cops are trained first and foremost to look after themselves first and foremost, and to shoot as soon as they get the slightest hint they might be in some danger. And they shouldn't worry because the force will take care of them and protect them even if it turns out they were wrong in assessing the threat.

This is like that by design. Police forces all over the world use US videos all the time to show how not to intervene.

Kiwirob wrote:

So you're saying Kyle Rittenhouse is hispanic, he's looks like your basic slightly chubby white boy to me.

Even with that surname he can perfectly have a hispanic mother.

Kiwirob wrote:

N583JB wrote:

JJJ wrote:

You brought the whole canard that US policing is so specific because the population elsewhere is not well armed.

If well armed is a knife then there's no exceptionalism. Pick one escape route or the other, not both.

I posted a video in this thread of another situation in which a man, being detained for a crime, fights with the police, breaks free, and reaches into his car. He pulls out a gun and shoots two of the police officers. In this situation, you had a main, being detained for a crime, fighting with the police, breaking free, being armed with a knife, and reaching into his car. Extremely dangerous situation for all involved. Was he reaching in the car for another weapon? Cops in other nations don't have to worry about nearly everyone being armed. They don't have to worry about what the person is reaching for in his car. Was he trying to get in the car so that he could flee with children (potential hostages) in the back? Was he going to flee , get in an accident, and hurt them? Was he going to take the kids away and kill them? Letting him leave that scene with those children was not an option.

You've just proven the case for proper gun control and removal of the 2nd amendment.

Quite the opposite, actually. I've proven why firearms are essential for defense here (the bad guys already illegally have guns, and when seconds count the police are minutes away). But, that is for a different thread.