ImageImageImageImageImage

George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2

Moderators: GONYK, K-DOT, Deeeez Knicks, Capn'O, Thugger HBC, j4remi, Jeff Van Gully, mrpoetryNmotion, mpharris36, NoLayupRule, King of Canada

BallSacBounce
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,617
And1: 2,377
Joined: Dec 14, 2011

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#101 » by BallSacBounce » Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:54 pm

Pointgod wrote:
HarthorneWingo wrote:
Fat Kat wrote:
Read on Twitter


Fire and arrest all of those cops who engaged in tacit conspiracies with the militias. They encouraged and condoned that behavior which makes them accomplices. The can't be trusted to "Protect and Serve."


I can’t see the police chief keeping a job after this. This is **** disgusting. They’re laughing and paling around with a murderer. This is the height of white privilege. He was a minor with an AR15 and the police didn’t stop to check that he’s licensed to carry. They could have saved lives by just doing their jobs properly.

Wisconsin is an open carry state that does not require a permit to do so. However, he was a.minor and I'm guessing, but not sure, that it changes things.
BallSacBounce
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,617
And1: 2,377
Joined: Dec 14, 2011

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#102 » by BallSacBounce » Thu Aug 27, 2020 1:02 pm

HarthorneWingo wrote:
BallSacBounce wrote:
HarthorneWingo wrote:
Fire and arrest all of those cops who engaged in tacit conspiracies with the militias. They encouraged and condoned that behavior which makes them accomplices. The can't be trusted to "Protect and Serve."


This was never going to end up any other way. Unrelenting uncontrolled riots were going to eventually bring out the militias spoiling for a fight and the cops will take the help where they can get it..

Easiest way to stop this is for local politicians to gain control over the rioters but the Democrats have no appetite for that. Well, unintended consequences and all that. It all needs to stop and now.


The cops will get the help where they can get it? Did that come from the Chief of Police? The Mayor? Is it in the Kenosha PD Handbook or Police Directives?

Please stop. The cops are with the neo nazis. Look up Oath Keepers.


Wingo the politicians have failed the citizens and the citizens will not just sit there and be targets for you. Sorry bud.

Who cares what the Mayor says of he's just protecting his political ass and not the citizens ass.

And just because it's a white guy defending doesn't make him a freaking neo Nazi or member of a militia, that's just low iq lazy thinking. Show me some proof he is. I'm not saying he's not, I have no idea, he might be but I think you're just being lazy and painting with a very broad brush.
BallSacBounce
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,617
And1: 2,377
Joined: Dec 14, 2011

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#103 » by BallSacBounce » Thu Aug 27, 2020 1:21 pm

It's come to this.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minneapolis-unrest-national-guard-black-man-suicide-misinformation/

Unrest hits Minneapolis after mistaken reports of police shooting Black man who actually shot himself
User avatar
mpharris36
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 70,509
And1: 43,454
Joined: Nov 03, 2010
     

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#104 » by mpharris36 » Thu Aug 27, 2020 1:25 pm

Pointgod wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
Tron Carter wrote:
Like I said, that’s what the report is claiming.


It should be easy enough to fact check because thank the lord the guy is alive. If the AG lied in the report (that Blake specifically acknowledge he himself had a knife) we have much bigger issues and he needs to be fired ASAP. Those interviews are on the record I would hope and Blake's attorney I assume would have been on hand if they were questioning him.

I am curious to hear from his girlfriend who called the cops on him. But again there is so much unknown which is why for the life of me that every single cop on active duty and every police force has to require there officers to wear and have on a body cam at all times. Why is that so hard? It not only protects the citizens it also protects the officers to if they feel they acted in the right. Its such a simple thing and I would hope that would have long term positive effects where these videos would get reviewed by a 3rd party and if action was required there would be evidence to support and not only fire but arrest the cops committing the acts of violence.


Here’s a comment from the guy who recorded it.

Read on Twitter


I think all that is fair. He may not have been aggressive towards the Police. But the police were told on the police audio that Jacob Blake was not suppose to be at that house (I assume a restraining order). And he has an active warrant for a sexual assault. So the police just can't let him go. I guess in the process of arresting him for that active warrant he started resisting arrest (as we see in the other angle of the video). The police tried to taser and tackle him (they simply need to be better at de-escalations). But at that point walking away from a officer pointing a gun at you and going into your car...at that point anything can happen.

Even if he didn't have a gun, you can't just let him drive away.

But my issue with the officers is letting it get to that point. If there are multiple officers there you need to restrain the man and if you can't well then they need to find better ways to restrain someone (I don't know specifically what that would be but I'm open to any and all possibilities) without shooting there weapon and I firmly believe that.
BAF Spurs:

ROSTER
1. Frank Ntilikina- $170/2 years
2. Michael Porter Jr.- $61/5 years
3. Terence Davis- $2/4 years
4. Chris Boucher- $1/3 years

9 lottery picks in the 2020 draft
Zenzibar
Starter
Posts: 2,063
And1: 1,527
Joined: Jan 10, 2019
         

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#105 » by Zenzibar » Thu Aug 27, 2020 1:58 pm

mpharris36 wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
It should be easy enough to fact check because thank the lord the guy is alive. If the AG lied in the report (that Blake specifically acknowledge he himself had a knife) we have much bigger issues and he needs to be fired ASAP. Those interviews are on the record I would hope and Blake's attorney I assume would have been on hand if they were questioning him.

I am curious to hear from his girlfriend who called the cops on him. But again there is so much unknown which is why for the life of me that every single cop on active duty and every police force has to require there officers to wear and have on a body cam at all times. Why is that so hard? It not only protects the citizens it also protects the officers to if they feel they acted in the right. Its such a simple thing and I would hope that would have long term positive effects where these videos would get reviewed by a 3rd party and if action was required there would be evidence to support and not only fire but arrest the cops committing the acts of violence.


Here’s a comment from the guy who recorded it.

Read on Twitter


I think all that is fair. He may not have been aggressive towards the Police. But the police were told on the police audio that Jacob Blake was not suppose to be at that house (I assume a restraining order). And he has an active warrant for a sexual assault. So the police just can't let him go. I guess in the process of arresting him for that active warrant he started resisting arrest (as we see in the other angle of the video). The police tried to taser and tackle him (they simply need to be better at de-escalations). But at that point walking away from a officer pointing a gun at you and going into your car...at that point anything can happen.

Even if he didn't have a gun, you can't just let him drive away.

But my issue with the officers is letting it get to that point. If there are multiple officers there you need to restrain the man and if you can't well then they need to find better ways to restrain someone (I don't know specifically what that would be but I'm open to any and all possibilities) without shooting there weapon and I firmly believe that.


Then the police force need to have a way to spike out the tires of a car or somehow disable it. Secondly, by the looks of it, the cops are not trained in using angles to determine a "suspects" intent. Thirdly, is this can be controversial but I;ll throw it out there.

Why not use a tranquilizer gun, with a strong enough dose to immobilize the biggest man alive. If it can immobilize a full grown rhino, it can certainly paralyze a 250 lb man. Problem solved. Why does it always have to be lethal force in an un-lethal situation (running away from, shooting in the back or hand-cuffed)?
User avatar
Stannis
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 12,418
And1: 5,210
Joined: Dec 05, 2011
Location: United States of Space
         

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#106 » by Stannis » Thu Aug 27, 2020 1:59 pm

Apparently the police are now saying they had the right to raid Taylor's apartment because she was part of some drug trafficking...

Looks like most of these guys are gonna get off the hook which is total bs but expected.
I believe he wasn't educated on the situation. Many people could have been harmed not only financially, physically, emotionally, spiritually. We do have freedom of speech, but there can be a lot of negative that comes with that

- LBJ on Morey + Hong Kong
User avatar
mpharris36
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 70,509
And1: 43,454
Joined: Nov 03, 2010
     

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#107 » by mpharris36 » Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:14 pm

Zenzibar wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
Here’s a comment from the guy who recorded it.

Read on Twitter


I think all that is fair. He may not have been aggressive towards the Police. But the police were told on the police audio that Jacob Blake was not suppose to be at that house (I assume a restraining order). And he has an active warrant for a sexual assault. So the police just can't let him go. I guess in the process of arresting him for that active warrant he started resisting arrest (as we see in the other angle of the video). The police tried to taser and tackle him (they simply need to be better at de-escalations). But at that point walking away from a officer pointing a gun at you and going into your car...at that point anything can happen.

Even if he didn't have a gun, you can't just let him drive away.

But my issue with the officers is letting it get to that point. If there are multiple officers there you need to restrain the man and if you can't well then they need to find better ways to restrain someone (I don't know specifically what that would be but I'm open to any and all possibilities) without shooting there weapon and I firmly believe that.


Then the police force need to have a way to spike out the tires of a car or somehow disable it. Secondly, by the looks of it, the cops are not trained in using angles to determine a "suspects" intent. Thirdly, is this can be controversial but I;ll throw it out there.

Why not use a tranquilizer gun, with a strong enough dose to immobilize the biggest man alive. If it can immobilize a full grown rhino, it can certainly paralyze a 250 lb man. Problem solved. Why does it always have to be lethal force in an un-lethal situation (running away from, shooting in the back or hand-cuffed)?



I am open to have discussions about any and all possibilities to detaining someone without lethal force. That was suppose to be tasers but that hasn't been as effective since some guys are just tough and once the taser wheres off or they miss they have no backup solution.

Spiking tires I feel wont do much, you can still operate a vehicle even if the tires are slashed. All you would need in that situation if for him to get back in the car with slashed tires lose control and run over a kid by accident or something to that extent.

I honestly don't know enough about tranquilizers and how effective and safe they are and how quick they work but anything can be a better solution then using deadly force so agree there.
BAF Spurs:

ROSTER
1. Frank Ntilikina- $170/2 years
2. Michael Porter Jr.- $61/5 years
3. Terence Davis- $2/4 years
4. Chris Boucher- $1/3 years

9 lottery picks in the 2020 draft
User avatar
mpharris36
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 70,509
And1: 43,454
Joined: Nov 03, 2010
     

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#108 » by mpharris36 » Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:18 pm

Stannis wrote:Apparently the police are now saying they had the right to raid Taylor's apartment because she was part of some drug trafficking...

Looks like most of these guys are gonna get off the hook which is total bs but expected.


The new report is that her ex boyfriend was a known drug dealer in the area and that all his financial records (bank statements) and cell phone bill address were her address. So I don't want to drag her threw the weeds because she may or may not been involved at all with him in terms of drug trafficking like her ex boyfriend. But that is the original reason when they chose that apartment to go in because all his records were listed at her address.

And ballistics come back and said her current boyfriend is the one that shot first out of self defense. People may not like it but its going be very difficult to get a conviction in that sense because they were just following orders of a "no knock warrant" and were responding to shots fired at them. **** situation all around.
BAF Spurs:

ROSTER
1. Frank Ntilikina- $170/2 years
2. Michael Porter Jr.- $61/5 years
3. Terence Davis- $2/4 years
4. Chris Boucher- $1/3 years

9 lottery picks in the 2020 draft
BallSacBounce
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,617
And1: 2,377
Joined: Dec 14, 2011

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#109 » by BallSacBounce » Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:19 pm

Zenzibar wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
Here’s a comment from the guy who recorded it.

Read on Twitter


I think all that is fair. He may not have been aggressive towards the Police. But the police were told on the police audio that Jacob Blake was not suppose to be at that house (I assume a restraining order). And he has an active warrant for a sexual assault. So the police just can't let him go. I guess in the process of arresting him for that active warrant he started resisting arrest (as we see in the other angle of the video). The police tried to taser and tackle him (they simply need to be better at de-escalations). But at that point walking away from a officer pointing a gun at you and going into your car...at that point anything can happen.

Even if he didn't have a gun, you can't just let him drive away.

But my issue with the officers is letting it get to that point. If there are multiple officers there you need to restrain the man and if you can't well then they need to find better ways to restrain someone (I don't know specifically what that would be but I'm open to any and all possibilities) without shooting there weapon and I firmly believe that.


Then the police force need to have a way to spike out the tires of a car or somehow disable it. Secondly, by the looks of it, the cops are not trained in using angles to determine a "suspects" intent. Thirdly, is this can be controversial but I;ll throw it out there.

Why not use a tranquilizer gun, with a strong enough dose to immobilize the biggest man alive. If it can immobilize a full grown rhino, it can certainly paralyze a 250 lb man. Problem solved. Why does it always have to be lethal force in an un-lethal situation (running away from, shooting in the back or hand-cuffed)?

A drug dose can be just as lethal as anything else. Especially if there are already drugs in their system. Especially if you are setting it at maximum from the beginning. Don't want the police administering drugs thank you very much. But hey you tried to find a solution.
BallSacBounce
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,617
And1: 2,377
Joined: Dec 14, 2011

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#110 » by BallSacBounce » Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:23 pm

mpharris36 wrote:
Stannis wrote:Apparently the police are now saying they had the right to raid Taylor's apartment because she was part of some drug trafficking...

Looks like most of these guys are gonna get off the hook which is total bs but expected.


The new report is that her ex boyfriend was a known drug dealer in the area and that all his financial records (bank statements) and cell phone bill address were her address. So I don't want to drag her threw the weeds because she may or may not been involved at all with him in terms of drug trafficking like her ex boyfriend. But that is the original reason when they chose that apartment to go in because all his records were listed at her address.

And ballistics come back and said her current boyfriend is the one that shot first out of self defense. People may not like it but its going be very difficult to get a conviction in that sense because they were just following orders of a "no knock warrant" and were responding to shots fired at them. **** situation all around.

No knock warrants are ****. Arrest them when they come out.
User avatar
mpharris36
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 70,509
And1: 43,454
Joined: Nov 03, 2010
     

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#111 » by mpharris36 » Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:26 pm

BallSacBounce wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
Stannis wrote:Apparently the police are now saying they had the right to raid Taylor's apartment because she was part of some drug trafficking...

Looks like most of these guys are gonna get off the hook which is total bs but expected.


The new report is that her ex boyfriend was a known drug dealer in the area and that all his financial records (bank statements) and cell phone bill address were her address. So I don't want to drag her threw the weeds because she may or may not been involved at all with him in terms of drug trafficking like her ex boyfriend. But that is the original reason when they chose that apartment to go in because all his records were listed at her address.

And ballistics come back and said her current boyfriend is the one that shot first out of self defense. People may not like it but its going be very difficult to get a conviction in that sense because they were just following orders of a "no knock warrant" and were responding to shots fired at them. **** situation all around.

No knock warrants are ****. Arrest them when they come out.


I think the argument can be made that the reason there is a no knock warrant is to hopefully go in before someone could potentially get there firearm to fire back. Because if you living a life of crime and drug trafficking chances are you own firearms. So you don't want to be in a situation where you just go in the house and say come out when you want. What if they don't want to come out? The last thing you want to do is have a shoot out.

But in this case there was a shootout anyway. So I do understand your POV.
BAF Spurs:

ROSTER
1. Frank Ntilikina- $170/2 years
2. Michael Porter Jr.- $61/5 years
3. Terence Davis- $2/4 years
4. Chris Boucher- $1/3 years

9 lottery picks in the 2020 draft
BallSacBounce
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,617
And1: 2,377
Joined: Dec 14, 2011

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#112 » by BallSacBounce » Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:36 pm

I like this idea.

https://newatlas.com/good-thinking/tether-shooting-bolawrap/

Tether-shooting BolaWrap offers police a new non-lethal method of subduing suspects

When a suspect is fleeing from an officer, advancing on them, or otherwise exhibiting dangerous behaviour, that officer aims the BolaWrap at the person's arms or legs – they're assisted in that process by an integrated green laser.

Once they subsequently press the trigger, the cartridge ejects its tether at a speed of 513 feet per second (156 m/s). That tether then travels through the air up to a claimed distance of 25 feet (7.6 m), ultimately wrapping itself around the target's body one to three times. This trips them up or temporarily keeps them from raising their arms, allowing officers to move in without harming them.


It's probably better to pick a method and hard core promote it as an answer than just protest and hope police departments do the right thing.

If several officers have them most likely one of them will get the job done.
nedleeds
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,616
And1: 3,926
Joined: Dec 25, 2016
 

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#113 » by nedleeds » Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:55 pm

BallSacBounce wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
Stannis wrote:Apparently the police are now saying they had the right to raid Taylor's apartment because she was part of some drug trafficking...

Looks like most of these guys are gonna get off the hook which is total bs but expected.


The new report is that her ex boyfriend was a known drug dealer in the area and that all his financial records (bank statements) and cell phone bill address were her address. So I don't want to drag her threw the weeds because she may or may not been involved at all with him in terms of drug trafficking like her ex boyfriend. But that is the original reason when they chose that apartment to go in because all his records were listed at her address.

And ballistics come back and said her current boyfriend is the one that shot first out of self defense. People may not like it but its going be very difficult to get a conviction in that sense because they were just following orders of a "no knock warrant" and were responding to shots fired at them. **** situation all around.

No knock warrants are ****. Arrest them when they come out.


No knock warrants should have consequences for the DAs and judges who sign them if they turn out to be based on crappy intel. Like getting the wrong address means somebody might be killed. Jail time all the way up the chain if you haven't done your pre-work to put the suspect on site at the time, no knock warrants in cases where there are children should be completely banned.

The utter absurdity and failure that is the war on drugs is at the root of a ton of these. Start with de-funding the DEA and the ATF and move from there. $14 BILLION to the **** DEA. De-funding local cops is the worst idea ever and people polled who live in these areas agree. A no knock warrant to seize some weed or smack that results in anyone dying is just unforgivable. None of this impacts the flow of drugs to users.
Zenzibar
Starter
Posts: 2,063
And1: 1,527
Joined: Jan 10, 2019
         

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#114 » by Zenzibar » Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:30 pm

BallSacBounce wrote:
Zenzibar wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
I think all that is fair. He may not have been aggressive towards the Police. But the police were told on the police audio that Jacob Blake was not suppose to be at that house (I assume a restraining order). And he has an active warrant for a sexual assault. So the police just can't let him go. I guess in the process of arresting him for that active warrant he started resisting arrest (as we see in the other angle of the video). The police tried to taser and tackle him (they simply need to be better at de-escalations). But at that point walking away from a officer pointing a gun at you and going into your car...at that point anything can happen.

Even if he didn't have a gun, you can't just let him drive away.

But my issue with the officers is letting it get to that point. If there are multiple officers there you need to restrain the man and if you can't well then they need to find better ways to restrain someone (I don't know specifically what that would be but I'm open to any and all possibilities) without shooting there weapon and I firmly believe that.


Then the police force need to have a way to spike out the tires of a car or somehow disable it. Secondly, by the looks of it, the cops are not trained in using angles to determine a "suspects" intent. Thirdly, is this can be controversial but I;ll throw it out there.

Why not use a tranquilizer gun, with a strong enough dose to immobilize the biggest man alive. If it can immobilize a full grown rhino, it can certainly paralyze a 250 lb man. Problem solved. Why does it always have to be lethal force in an un-lethal situation (running away from, shooting in the back or hand-cuffed)?

A drug dose can be just as lethal as anything else. Especially if there are already drugs in their system. Especially if you are setting it at maximum from the beginning. Don't want the police administering drugs thank you very much. But hey you tried to find a solution.


Thanks Bro. Appreciate it.
Non-lethal apprehension while protecting law enforcement from harm also, you know.
Pointgod
General Manager
Posts: 9,979
And1: 9,697
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#115 » by Pointgod » Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:18 pm

mpharris36 wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
It should be easy enough to fact check because thank the lord the guy is alive. If the AG lied in the report (that Blake specifically acknowledge he himself had a knife) we have much bigger issues and he needs to be fired ASAP. Those interviews are on the record I would hope and Blake's attorney I assume would have been on hand if they were questioning him.

I am curious to hear from his girlfriend who called the cops on him. But again there is so much unknown which is why for the life of me that every single cop on active duty and every police force has to require there officers to wear and have on a body cam at all times. Why is that so hard? It not only protects the citizens it also protects the officers to if they feel they acted in the right. Its such a simple thing and I would hope that would have long term positive effects where these videos would get reviewed by a 3rd party and if action was required there would be evidence to support and not only fire but arrest the cops committing the acts of violence.


Here’s a comment from the guy who recorded it
Read on Twitter


I think all that is fair. He may not have been aggressive towards the Police. But the police were told on the police audio that Jacob Blake was not suppose to be at that house (I assume a restraining order). And he has an active warrant for a sexual assault. So the police just can't let him go. I guess in the process of arresting him for that active warrant he started resisting arrest (as we see in the other angle of the video). The police tried to taser and tackle him (they simply need to be better at de-escalations). But at that point walking away from a officer pointing a gun at you and going into your car...at that point anything can happen.

Even if he didn't have a gun, you can't just let him drive away.

But my issue with the officers is letting it get to that point. If there are multiple officers there you need to restrain the man and if you can't well then they need to find better ways to restrain someone (I don't know specifically what that would be but I'm open to any and all possibilities) without shooting there weapon and I firmly believe that.


I’m not claiming that you’re doing this but here’s the biggest problem. There’s a fundamental misunderstanding to paint it as a binary choice. I haven’t seen anyone saying that the Jacob Blake should have been arrested but it’s about the escalation to use of deadly force. And that’s what the conversation should focus on. But conversation gets sidetracked because people dont like speaking to the fact that when it comes to black people use of force is often encouraged and justified by certain segments of the population.
User avatar
mpharris36
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 70,509
And1: 43,454
Joined: Nov 03, 2010
     

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#116 » by mpharris36 » Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:32 pm

Pointgod wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
Here’s a comment from the guy who recorded it
Read on Twitter


I think all that is fair. He may not have been aggressive towards the Police. But the police were told on the police audio that Jacob Blake was not suppose to be at that house (I assume a restraining order). And he has an active warrant for a sexual assault. So the police just can't let him go. I guess in the process of arresting him for that active warrant he started resisting arrest (as we see in the other angle of the video). The police tried to taser and tackle him (they simply need to be better at de-escalations). But at that point walking away from a officer pointing a gun at you and going into your car...at that point anything can happen.

Even if he didn't have a gun, you can't just let him drive away.

But my issue with the officers is letting it get to that point. If there are multiple officers there you need to restrain the man and if you can't well then they need to find better ways to restrain someone (I don't know specifically what that would be but I'm open to any and all possibilities) without shooting there weapon and I firmly believe that.


I’m not claiming that you’re doing this but here’s the biggest problem. There’s a fundamental misunderstanding to paint it as a binary choice. I haven’t seen anyone saying that the Jacob Blake should have been arrested but it’s about the escalation to use of deadly force. And that’s what the conversation should focus on. But conversation gets sidetracked because people dont like speaking to the fact that when it comes to black people use of force is often encouraged and justified by certain segments of the population.


While I do respect and understand a lot of these points. I think where some people have difficulty understanding is because I assume you don't have any active warrants just like myself. But I think that does play a part in terms of resisting arrest. If it was a simple domestic dispute and nothing got physical my thought is the cops wouldn't have been called to the residence and they would have just ironed out the problem.

His girlfriend (I don't know he exact relation to him) but she obviously was concerned enough to call the police and the the police showed up. I don't think I or most other people are encouraging force. What I am saying if you have done nothing wrong and comply then you shouldn't have issues. Now if you have issues and run into one of those awful cops then hopefully you have that stuff on camera and you can sue the sh*t out of the police office for everything they have and I would be right there with you supporting.

The misunderstanding is not justifying force its understanding there are differences of people that continue to break the law. Do you know many criminals that just walk to police precincts and just turn themselves in for doing criminal activity. A lot of time escalation happens because they don't want to be arrested a lot of times for prior incidents. I think a great example was the Brooks case. Brooks and the police officer couldn't have been more civil to each other. But the minute the cops said we had to arrest you with he wanted no part of that. The cops simply just can't let you go home for being intoxicated driving a vehicle. It doesn't work that way. I'm not excusing what happened after those events. I'm just pointing out how can something go from being that civil to having a wwe brawl on the ground?

So while I 100% agree that prior incidents don't mean that a certain interaction should turn lethal. I am saying that if you know you are being arrested and the likehood is you will get significant jail time you probably will react a different way then someone who doesn't have a checkered past. So now you are putting the onus on the police officers to make judgement calls and with me having a family I would never put them in a position to make a judgement call on there safety because I wouldn't put them in that position in the first place.

But as far as it being justified we can discuss that all day and hopefully find better ways to detain and de-escalate situations. I am 100% all for that and open to any potential solutions that keep the situation from not getting lethal.
BAF Spurs:

ROSTER
1. Frank Ntilikina- $170/2 years
2. Michael Porter Jr.- $61/5 years
3. Terence Davis- $2/4 years
4. Chris Boucher- $1/3 years

9 lottery picks in the 2020 draft
Pointgod
General Manager
Posts: 9,979
And1: 9,697
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#117 » by Pointgod » Thu Aug 27, 2020 5:14 pm

mpharris36 wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
I think all that is fair. He may not have been aggressive towards the Police. But the police were told on the police audio that Jacob Blake was not suppose to be at that house (I assume a restraining order). And he has an active warrant for a sexual assault. So the police just can't let him go. I guess in the process of arresting him for that active warrant he started resisting arrest (as we see in the other angle of the video). The police tried to taser and tackle him (they simply need to be better at de-escalations). But at that point walking away from a officer pointing a gun at you and going into your car...at that point anything can happen.

Even if he didn't have a gun, you can't just let him drive away.

But my issue with the officers is letting it get to that point. If there are multiple officers there you need to restrain the man and if you can't well then they need to find better ways to restrain someone (I don't know specifically what that would be but I'm open to any and all possibilities) without shooting there weapon and I firmly believe that.


I’m not claiming that you’re doing this but here’s the biggest problem. There’s a fundamental misunderstanding to paint it as a binary choice. I haven’t seen anyone saying that the Jacob Blake should have been arrested but it’s about the escalation to use of deadly force. And that’s what the conversation should focus on. But conversation gets sidetracked because people dont like speaking to the fact that when it comes to black people use of force is often encouraged and justified by certain segments of the population.


While I do respect and understand a lot of these points. I think where some people have difficulty understanding is because I assume you don't have any active warrants just like myself. But I think that does play a part in terms of resisting arrest. If it was a simple domestic dispute and nothing got physical my thought is the cops wouldn't have been called to the residence and they would have just ironed out the problem.

His girlfriend (I don't know he exact relation to him) but she obviously was concerned enough to call the police and the the police showed up. I don't think I or most other people are encouraging force. What I am saying if you have done nothing wrong and comply then you shouldn't have issues. Now if you have issues and run into one of those awful cops then hopefully you have that stuff on camera and you can sue the sh*t out of the police office for everything they have and I would be right there with you supporting.

The misunderstanding is not justifying force its understanding there are differences of people that continue to break the law. Do you know many criminals that just walk to police precincts and just turn themselves in for doing criminal activity. A lot of time escalation happens because they don't want to be arrested a lot of times for prior incidents. I think a great example was the Brooks case. Brooks and the police officer couldn't have been more civil to each other. But the minute the cops said we had to arrest you with he wanted no part of that. The cops simply just can't let you go home for being intoxicated driving a vehicle. It doesn't work that way. I'm not excusing what happened after those events. I'm just pointing out how can something go from being that civil to having a wwe brawl on the ground?

So while I 100% agree that prior incidents don't mean that a certain interaction should turn lethal. I am saying that if you know you are being arrested and the likehood is you will get significant jail time you probably will react a different way then someone who doesn't have a checkered past. So now you are putting the onus on the police officers to make judgement calls and with me having a family I would never put them in a position to make a judgement call on there safety because I wouldn't put them in that position in the first place.

But as far as it being justified we can discuss that all day and hopefully find better ways to detain and de-escalate situations. I am 100% all for that and open to any potential solutions that keep the situation from not getting lethal.


I should clarify I miswrote that sentence. No one is saying that Blake shouldn’t have been arrested. He had an outstanding warrant, the police were called for a domestic dispute these facts. Even in the Rayshard Brooks case, no one is saying to let him drive home. Police have a lot of leeway with DUIs. They could have taken his car keys, impounded his vehicle. They had his address and I assume his license as well. Before things escalated to a certain extent was arresting him the only course of action? And is shooting a fleeing unarmed suspect the best course of action?

And police are paid and trained to make judgment calls. That’s their job. And knowing that people are going to evade arrest should be part of their training. That’s just the reality of the world. I can’t imagine living in a world where the only resolution to that is a gun. Look at other industrialized countries and their low rates of police deaths. It’s not like the people there are more compliant or have less mental problems or are less troubled. It’s an approach to policing issue found in the US.
User avatar
mpharris36
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 70,509
And1: 43,454
Joined: Nov 03, 2010
     

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#118 » by mpharris36 » Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:39 pm

Pointgod wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
I’m not claiming that you’re doing this but here’s the biggest problem. There’s a fundamental misunderstanding to paint it as a binary choice. I haven’t seen anyone saying that the Jacob Blake should have been arrested but it’s about the escalation to use of deadly force. And that’s what the conversation should focus on. But conversation gets sidetracked because people dont like speaking to the fact that when it comes to black people use of force is often encouraged and justified by certain segments of the population.


While I do respect and understand a lot of these points. I think where some people have difficulty understanding is because I assume you don't have any active warrants just like myself. But I think that does play a part in terms of resisting arrest. If it was a simple domestic dispute and nothing got physical my thought is the cops wouldn't have been called to the residence and they would have just ironed out the problem.

His girlfriend (I don't know he exact relation to him) but she obviously was concerned enough to call the police and the the police showed up. I don't think I or most other people are encouraging force. What I am saying if you have done nothing wrong and comply then you shouldn't have issues. Now if you have issues and run into one of those awful cops then hopefully you have that stuff on camera and you can sue the sh*t out of the police office for everything they have and I would be right there with you supporting.

The misunderstanding is not justifying force its understanding there are differences of people that continue to break the law. Do you know many criminals that just walk to police precincts and just turn themselves in for doing criminal activity. A lot of time escalation happens because they don't want to be arrested a lot of times for prior incidents. I think a great example was the Brooks case. Brooks and the police officer couldn't have been more civil to each other. But the minute the cops said we had to arrest you with he wanted no part of that. The cops simply just can't let you go home for being intoxicated driving a vehicle. It doesn't work that way. I'm not excusing what happened after those events. I'm just pointing out how can something go from being that civil to having a wwe brawl on the ground?

So while I 100% agree that prior incidents don't mean that a certain interaction should turn lethal. I am saying that if you know you are being arrested and the likehood is you will get significant jail time you probably will react a different way then someone who doesn't have a checkered past. So now you are putting the onus on the police officers to make judgement calls and with me having a family I would never put them in a position to make a judgement call on there safety because I wouldn't put them in that position in the first place.

But as far as it being justified we can discuss that all day and hopefully find better ways to detain and de-escalate situations. I am 100% all for that and open to any potential solutions that keep the situation from not getting lethal.


I should clarify I miswrote that sentence. No one is saying that Blake shouldn’t have been arrested. He had an outstanding warrant, the police were called for a domestic dispute these facts. Even in the Rayshard Brooks case, no one is saying to let him drive home. Police have a lot of leeway with DUIs. They could have taken his car keys, impounded his vehicle. They had his address and I assume his license as well. Before things escalated to a certain extent was arresting him the only course of action? And is shooting a fleeing unarmed suspect the best course of action?

And police are paid and trained to make judgment calls. That’s their job. And knowing that people are going to evade arrest should be part of their training. That’s just the reality of the world. I can’t imagine living in a world where the only resolution to that is a gun. Look at other industrialized countries and their low rates of police deaths. It’s not like the people there are more compliant or have less mental problems or are less troubled. It’s an approach to policing issue found in the US.


couple things I would respectively challenge would be:

I really have a strong stance towards DUI's. This isn't a situation where if you don't feel like being arrested the cops can just drive you home and you are good. You might say I am cold hearted for that but I have had an uncle killed in broad daylight from a drunk driver from the previous night before. So this idea you can just drive them home and hope they sleep it off doesn't really sit with me.

Also the idea that they could say I know you don't feel like getting arrested today but we will drive you home and maybe you feel like getting arrested tomorrow? I don't think the plan was to shoot a fleeing suspect. And we need to be careful about calling him "unarmed" he fought the police took a taser and shot back at them. I wouldn't call that unarmed. Whats to say he doesn't connect with that taser the cop goes into that shock and the suspect either takes his real gun or operates a vehicle intoxicated and could harm other people?

Regarding the police are paid and trained to make judgement calls. Absolutely agree there. But we need to be honest...they are human. Lets be honest and this is no way to disparage the profession. When you went to school do you remember who went into those profession. It sure wasn't the valedictorian of the class. It's not a profession that the most intelligent people get into because why would you do that if you had the opportunity to do something more safe that pays significantly more? That in lies the problem. You said we should trust there judgement...I say I trust my judgement more and my intelligence level so I would never put a cop in a situation to make a judgement call because I don't know who they are and the type of day they had.

At the end of the day I'm trying to get home to my family...point blank. 100% need to be reform. The situations about Moe Harkless and people like Dominic Smith on the Mets who are intelligent people that have had negative run in with the cops that haven't ended lethal. Those situations need to be brought to light those people need to share there stories and work in the community and with the police so these don't turn negative to non athletes. I think Doug Glanville was very articulate on ESPN the other day. He says he actually works with police offices in the community on there board of governors on how to help de-escalate situations and educate the officers and the community and be that person to help close the gap. That is actionable work!
BAF Spurs:

ROSTER
1. Frank Ntilikina- $170/2 years
2. Michael Porter Jr.- $61/5 years
3. Terence Davis- $2/4 years
4. Chris Boucher- $1/3 years

9 lottery picks in the 2020 draft
Zenzibar
Starter
Posts: 2,063
And1: 1,527
Joined: Jan 10, 2019
         

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#119 » by Zenzibar » Thu Aug 27, 2020 7:08 pm

BallSacBounce wrote:I like this idea.

https://newatlas.com/good-thinking/tether-shooting-bolawrap/

Tether-shooting BolaWrap offers police a new non-lethal method of subduing suspects

When a suspect is fleeing from an officer, advancing on them, or otherwise exhibiting dangerous behaviour, that officer aims the BolaWrap at the person's arms or legs – they're assisted in that process by an integrated green laser.

Once they subsequently press the trigger, the cartridge ejects its tether at a speed of 513 feet per second (156 m/s). That tether then travels through the air up to a claimed distance of 25 feet (7.6 m), ultimately wrapping itself around the target's body one to three times. This trips them up or temporarily keeps them from raising their arms, allowing officers to move in without harming them.


It's probably better to pick a method and hard core promote it as an answer than just protest and hope police departments do the right thing.

If several officers have them most likely one of them will get the job done.


Just brought a few shares. Thanks!
User avatar
Fat Kat
RealGM
Posts: 27,234
And1: 17,795
Joined: Apr 19, 2004
     

Re: George Floyd (and aftermath): Part 2 

Post#120 » by Fat Kat » Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:03 pm

Image
All comments made by Fat Kat are given as opinion, which may or may not be derived from facts, and not made to personally attack anyone on Realgm. All rights reserved.®

Return to New York Knicks