Can we discuss the boycott in this forum?

[Manocad]

How is shooting an unarmed man in the back 7 times from a foot away a legitimate shooting? Apparently they tried to taze him. If they were doing that and were a foot away why not just tackle the guy instead of trying to kill him? The officer had a handful of the guy's shirt and decided it was less trouble to shoot rather then holster his gun and tackle the guy.


It's on video... https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/08/24/james-causey-kenosha-police-shooting-video-has-public-talking/5625007002/

I'll give you one video clip why and say no more.

https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/322444252180383

That's what can happen when a person reaches into their vehicle. The police cannot assume that everyone is reaching for bottled water or a Snickers bar after they've ignored requests to be compliant.

The biggest difference between those two videos (of which I'm trying to investigate original source since PragerU is iffy at best) the Kenosha officers already had guns drawn at the ready and literally just lets him walk to the car instead, and all 3 just follows him to the driver's side of the car instead of continually trying to de-escalate, this is where the tackling should come in? Then the one officer at point blank unloads as soon as he sits in his car which has Philando Castile vibes to it.

There's a lot of questions that are being raised here. From the video, it looks like nothing was truly done to continue de-escalation besides drawing guns.

That's not to say police are bad, I get it that it's hard work being a police officer in these situations, but when you watch that video, it just doesn't seem right.

The only reason I’m responding is because you insinuated that the source of the video I posted potentially discredits the video. Don’t do that—not in the case of a video like I posted; you can’t fake an entire video. If you want to do that then you have to discredit any video based on the fact that anyone could question the credibility of the source rather than the credibility of the video itself.

[DBC10]

I'll give you one video clip why and say no more.

https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/322444252180383

That's what can happen when a person reaches into their vehicle. The police cannot assume that everyone is reaching for bottled water or a Snickers bar after they've ignored requests to be compliant.

The biggest difference between those two videos (of which I'm trying to investigate original source since PragerU is iffy at best) the Kenosha officers already had guns drawn at the ready and literally just lets him walk to the car instead, and all 3 just follows him to the driver's side of the car instead of continually trying to de-escalate, this is where the tackling should come in? Then the one officer at point blank unloads as soon as he sits in his car which has Philando Castile vibes to it.

There's a lot of questions that are being raised here. From the video, it looks like nothing was truly done to continue de-escalation besides drawing guns.

That's not to say police are bad, I get it that it's hard work being a police officer in these situations, but when you watch that video, it just doesn't seem right.

The only reason I’m responding is because you insinuated that the source of the video I posted potentially discredits the video. Don’t do that—not in the case of a video like I posted; you can’t fake an entire video. If you want to do that then you have to discredit any video based on the fact that anyone could question the credibility of the source rather than the credibility of the video itself.

You can disregard the PragerU comments, but largely my comments regarding the other video stands, that no matter what angle you look at it, the Kenosha video is largely a different scenario. It just does not look like any normal police behavior that went on in that eyewitness phone footage in Kenosha and honestly, it's tragic. It doesn't seem right that Jacob Blake was let loose like that in close proximity and then shot 7 times in the back

[MotownMadness]

How is shooting an unarmed man in the back 7 times from a foot away a legitimate shooting? Apparently they tried to taze him. If they were doing that and were a foot away why not just tackle the guy instead of trying to kill him? The officer had a handful of the guy's shirt and decided it was less trouble to shoot rather then holster his gun and tackle the guy.


It's on video... https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/08/24/james-causey-kenosha-police-shooting-video-has-public-talking/5625007002/

I'll give you one video clip why and say no more.

https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/322444252180383

That's what can happen when a person reaches into their vehicle. The police cannot assume that everyone is reaching for bottled water or a Snickers bar after they've ignored requests to be compliant.

100% this mindset that you can shoot and kill someone because they don't listen to you and they reach into their pocket or their car or behind their back needs to change. Not everyone is able to carefully and calmly obey every command an officer gives them. I can't shoot someone because we're arguing and they reach into a bag and I think it might be a gun and the police shouldn't get that ability either.

Fearing for your life because you THINK someone might have a weapon and they aren't obeying your commands CANNOT continue to be a reason to kill people.

I mean apparently he was wrestling with the police resisting arrest and admits himself he had a knife and a knife was found on the floorboard where he was reaching once he was shot.

7 shots is excessive and unfortunate but this wasn't just a outstanding citizen minding his buisness. He has a warrant and was resisting every way possible and put himself in a bad position right up til the end.

I just dont see the racist part of this or how this should result in more chaos, death and rioting over some false narrative of shooting a unarmed black man.

[Manocad]

The biggest difference between those two videos (of which I'm trying to investigate original source since PragerU is iffy at best) the Kenosha officers already had guns drawn at the ready and literally just lets him walk to the car instead, and all 3 just follows him to the driver's side of the car instead of continually trying to de-escalate, this is where the tackling should come in? Then the one officer at point blank unloads as soon as he sits in his car which has Philando Castile vibes to it.

There's a lot of questions that are being raised here. From the video, it looks like nothing was truly done to continue de-escalation besides drawing guns.

That's not to say police are bad, I get it that it's hard work being a police officer in these situations, but when you watch that video, it just doesn't seem right.

The only reason I’m responding is because you insinuated that the source of the video I posted potentially discredits the video. Don’t do that—not in the case of a video like I posted; you can’t fake an entire video. If you want to do that then you have to discredit any video based on the fact that anyone could question the credibility of the source rather than the credibility of the video itself.

You can disregard the PragerU comments, but largely my comments regarding the other video stands, that no matter what angle you look at it, the Kenosha video is largely a different scenario. It just does not look like any normal police behavior that went on in that eyewitness phone footage in Kenosha and honestly, it's tragic. It doesn't seem right that Jacob Blake was let loose like that in close proximity and then shot 7 times in the back

No, it's not different. Someone who was under arrest reached into a car in both videos. If your problem is that 7 shots were fired then you don't think any shots should have been fired which is fine, but it's not backed by logic. Police are trained to fire center mass until the threat is down, not fire one shot then wait to see what happens. And there's a good reason for that; the first shot could go straight through a methed-up perp's torso without hitting anything. Police training didn't evolve in a vacuum; there are good reasons why they're trained to act the way they do once drawing their weapon is deemed necessary. Whether you think it's necessary based on your emotional response to the outcome should be backed by a better argument than "it doesn't seem right."

[Manocad]

How is shooting an unarmed man in the back 7 times from a foot away a legitimate shooting? Apparently they tried to taze him. If they were doing that and were a foot away why not just tackle the guy instead of trying to kill him? The officer had a handful of the guy's shirt and decided it was less trouble to shoot rather then holster his gun and tackle the guy.


It's on video... https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/08/24/james-causey-kenosha-police-shooting-video-has-public-talking/5625007002/

I'll give you one video clip why and say no more.

https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/322444252180383

That's what can happen when a person reaches into their vehicle. The police cannot assume that everyone is reaching for bottled water or a Snickers bar after they've ignored requests to be compliant.

100% this mindset that you can shoot and kill someone because they don't listen to you and they reach into their pocket or their car or behind their back needs to change. Not everyone is able to carefully and calmly obey every command an officer gives them. I can't shoot someone because we're arguing and they reach into a bag and I think it might be a gun and the police shouldn't get that ability either.

Fearing for your life because you THINK someone might have a weapon and they aren't obeying your commands CANNOT continue to be a reason to kill people.

You can't equate what a private citizen can or cannot do with the duty of a police officer. Not to mention that you gave no basis for why "not everyone is able to carefully and calmly obey every command a police officer gives them." Why not? They're incapable of being careful? They're incapable of being calm? What does that mean?

Tell you what--go to the family of every slain police officer who's dead because they weren't expecting to be killed and say, "Oh well, that's the breaks. It would have been worse if they had assumed the worst and shot first." Because here's a very simple and inarguable truth--a police officer doesn't KNOW if they're in a life-threatening situation UNTIL THEY'RE DYING. Where do you draw the line? Yeah, he had a gun but it might not have been loaded. He might have just hit me in the arm. He might have missed. Are you willing to defend yourself if you hamstring police so much that no one will take the job?

[bstein14]

The idea that a police officer can shoot anyone anytime they feel their life is at risk just can't continue being this big get out of jail free card for police. Even if someone HAS A GUN it doesn't mean they are going to use it to shoot the police some people lawfully carry guns and when someone knocks on their door in the middle of the night some people, especially in bad neighborhoods, might take their gun to the door with them to make sure they can protect themselves.

[Manocad]

A mentally disabled homless black man got 46 bullets from the local Saginaw police... who were called in after he reportedly stole a cup of coffee. He did have a kitchen knife and was in a parking lot far away from anyone and everyone and a line up police officers shredded him up. Some people are mental disabilities. Some people snap and lose their mind, some people are off their meds, some people are drunk or high non of those things should be a death sentence because they aren't obeying every command a police officer gives them.

The idea that a police officer can shoot anyone anytime they feel their life is at risk just can't continue being this big get out of jail free card for police. Even if someone HAS A GUN it doesn't mean they are going to use it to shoot the police some people lawfully carry guns and when someone knocks on their door in the middle of the night some people, especially in bad neighborhoods, might take their gun to the door with them to make sure they can protect themselves.

Watch on YouTube

They literally just drop this guy and don't let his girlfriend go to him, and they don't even try to stop the bleeding they just want to leave the scene as it is so you can see he had a gun. Its **** insane to shoot someone like that and then not even try to help him.

Anecdotal incidents aren’t reasons to change procedure. By that logic every cop who makes a traffic stop is justified by firing first because plenty of officers got their heads blown off the minute a driver opened the window and blasted away.

I’ll ask the question again...would you be willing to be a police officer given how you’d expect them to react?

[ElectricMayhem]

Not to mention Kenosha PD is pretty backwards? The county sheriff is clearly not ready for this

Read on Twitter

Good lord, that's not someone I want to have any power whatsoever.

Just as bad as his ideas is that he says "lecks" instead of "let's". He should get thrown in jail with no recreational time for the rest of his life just for that.

[Manocad]

Not to mention Kenosha PD is pretty backwards? The county sheriff is clearly not ready for this

Read on Twitter

Good lord, that's not someone I want to have any power whatsoever.

Just as bad as his ideas is that he says "lecks" instead of "let's". He should get thrown in jail with no recreational time for the rest of his life just for that.

No doubt. What if he said "Aks" instead of "Ask" as well?

[Snakebites]

This thread has predictably become not about the boycott.

I’ll let it ride for now. It’s gone if it starts devolving to personal insults.

Generally speaking I find the BLM cause to be valid and worthy of support and have no problem with whatever steps the players choose to take for that reason. Kudos to them for being aware that there are things that matter more than sports.

During these times I’ve frankly found that I don’t really have the time or the headspace to devote to sports even after they’ve returned, at least not like I used to. I’ll turn on a playoff game and kind of let it play in the background while my mind is occupied on other things. It’s just not near the top of my list with so much else going on in my life and in the world.

As for what this thread has turned into, I can’t weigh in on the issue at hand because I sadly haven’t had any time to look into the details of this particular shooting myself.

[SamFlow]

[quote

2. It is not the police officers job to risk their life. /quote]


Yes it is. Just like Breona Taylor. She didn't CHOOSE to put her life on the line. The COPS DID. Yet then they get scared and would rather kill a defenseless innocent woman.

The cops are paid to take that risk. The cops chose to take that risk. Filthy freaking cowards. Other countries are just fine without murdering people. Mr. Garnder was murdered over cigarettes.

Resisting... Comply or die? The people that think like that are the ones I think should get the death penalty.

Cops are held to a lower standard than a cop killer. So F them.

No good cops in louisville... know how I know. Mrs. Taylors murders have not been arrested yet. Not one good cop has stepped up to do his or her job. So F each and every single one of their bad cops. Along with those in New York. Head cop said don't worry about following the ban on knee to the neck. Our prosecutor will never charge you. Giving carteblanche for police brutality. Talk about a stained badge/shield. Zero cops good in that state. If there were, his killer would be in jail.

[Invictus88]

I'll give you one video clip why and say no more.

https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/322444252180383

That's what can happen when a person reaches into their vehicle. The police cannot assume that everyone is reaching for bottled water or a Snickers bar after they've ignored requests to be compliant.

100% this mindset that you can shoot and kill someone because they don't listen to you and they reach into their pocket or their car or behind their back needs to change. Not everyone is able to carefully and calmly obey every command an officer gives them. I can't shoot someone because we're arguing and they reach into a bag and I think it might be a gun and the police shouldn't get that ability either.

Fearing for your life because you THINK someone might have a weapon and they aren't obeying your commands CANNOT continue to be a reason to kill people.

You can't equate what a private citizen can or cannot do with the duty of a police officer. Not to mention that you gave no basis for why "not everyone is able to carefully and calmly obey every command a police officer gives them." Why not? They're incapable of being careful? They're incapable of being calm? What does that mean?

Tell you what--go to the family of every slain police officer who's dead because they weren't expecting to be killed and say, "Oh well, that's the breaks. It would have been worse if they had assumed the worst and shot first." Because here's a very simple and inarguable truth--a police officer doesn't KNOW if they're in a life-threatening situation UNTIL THEY'RE DYING. Where do you draw the line? Yeah, he had a gun but it might not have been loaded. He might have just hit me in the arm. He might have missed. Are you willing to defend yourself if you hamstring police so much that no one will take the job?

I think all of this is true; but this mentality translates too easily to accepting incidental killing of civilians while on the job.

In parallel to the above statement I say go tell the family of every slain civilian that is dead because they weren't expecting to be killed by a police officer and say "Oh well, that's the breaks; the cop was just protecting himself". This outcome is completely unacceptable as well.

The excuse of "Well, if it were that way then nobody would want that job" isn't justification for the collateral damage of civilian deaths. Something needs to change here.

Some alternative actions that could have been taken in the Jacob Blake case:

- Box in the vehicle with police cars if you are afraid of a flight risk (there were multiple calls for backup right? You know he has kids in the car and he has the keys. You can do this ahead of trying to apprehend him. Maybe he doesn't even go to the driver's side door at that point...)

- Tackle the guy if you feel that he will not be using lethal force against you (which was certainly the case up to the point at which he entered the driver's side doorframe). Yes, he did escape an attempt at this but there's multiple officers nearby. Is it not better for 5 cops to pile on a guy than shooting him after an attempt by one or two fails?

- Back away from the guy if you feel that lethal force *is* a possibility. By removing yourself as a potential shooting victim you are also removing the possibility of having to shoot someone else to save your own life. The officer had time to recognize that Blake was going to the driver's side door. Instead of following at that point he could have backed away.

The whole "hover a few feet away from a guy with guns drawn" is just asking for a shooting to occur. You're just waiting to kill someone at that point.

I do want to say something about this thread though. Good deal on being able to have a back and forth without the usual namecalling, etc. I might not agree with you guys and I'm definitely frustrated which might shine through in some of these comments; but I appreciate even when folks chime back in disagreement that we can have a thoughtful discussion.

Thanks for your continued patience.