Police State USA

[tommyIRISH23]

Miller,
We see a lot of generalizations by posters that I may or may not agree with, especially with the level and intensity that has fanned them.

I stand by mine then and now and examples of deadly use of force both in the last few months and prior. As far as the Kenosha cop,
- there was no evidence of a weapon being brandished
- resisting arrest was not apparent though Blake may have disobeyed an order
- whether Blake possessed a knife that was a danger to law enforcement is questionable
- clearly the cops were over their head in employing de-escalation techniques
- I have yet to see evidence of the felony warrant and the alleged crime
- in addition to de-escalation, non-deadly force such as takedowns or even waiting with a gun drawn on Blake with repeated orders and use of force when a weapon appeared would seem to proper technique and save a life
- seven f***ing rounds in the back with a police handgun? That was meant to kill.
- ballistics - we'll have to wait on what type of ammunition was used and if it's a hollow point meant to inflict maximum damage to organs, I think it's quite amazing Blake survived. I really doubted that he would.
- to put it simply, it looks like his abdominal cavity was exploded. The family attorney says that in addition to severing his spinal cord, bullets damaged his stomach, kidney and liver, and trauma surgeons had to remove nearly his entire colon and small intestine. The extent of any vascular or penetration into the pulmonary cavity damage may not have been a major concern after any initial repairs. The liver especially is very vascular and further bleeding may need to be addressed. As for the loss of virtually his entire digestive system he may get his nutrition IV for the rest of his life if he has nothing to absorb it with.
- the seven rounds possibly of hollow points must have been at such a close range that cluster was on the abdomen. Farther away, lung and cardiac trauma would have added to life-threatening damage.

All in all, the cop did not intend just to disable a possible threat but in his judgement he needed to kill.

If you want to know, all that went through my mind at the time as well as having a video that roared through the Internet on top of all the episodes we have seen. Amazing what trauma surgeons can do. .

I just typed a long response but my stupid phone logged me out and I lost it.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-53909766

This addresses most your points- police were called by his gf, he was combative (taser), refused to be arrested, had a weapon (reliability unknown if he had it on him but there’s more evidence suggesting he did than didn’t), was tasered, and had multiple warrants for sex assault/ domestic issues. De-escalation techniques failed because he refused to cooperate and was combative. Believe it or not, sometimes they just don’t work.

 

[irishff1014]

The Wisconsin Law Enforcement Standards Board Policies and Procedures Manual details all the training every officer needs to complete annually to be certified. A seven year veteran who decided to put seven rounds at close range into a suspect should be very familiar with them and the Dept's policy on the appropriate use of deadly force.

In addition to Wisconsin's DOJ heading their investigation, the U.S. DOJ has launched a civil rights investigation led by the FBI in cooperation with the Wisconsin Division of Criminal Investigation and other state authorities. Prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the DOJ's Civil Rights Division will also oversee the investigation, at the request of the Kenosha County DA Michael Graveley.

Should Blake not need further surgeries, avoid complications like sepsis or internal bleeding and his kidneys function normally, after witness testimony including other officers, descriptions of internal damage, trauma surgeons detailing their findings and need to remove both small and large intestine, the trial will proceed with a paralyzed Blake who will be on IV nutrition for the rest of his life, being wheeled into the courtroom.

If he would have listened this doesn’t happen. But par for the course when you have a long criminal his that just doesn’t happen by accident.

 

[Henges24]

The correct answer here is that the guy should NOT have been shot at all. 7 times? Come on. What a disgrace.

However, when are people going to learn that not obeying orders / running / driving away / going into your own vehicle / resisting just isn't a good idea? If you are truly innocent why do any of the above?

Let's use common sense here.

 

[drayer54]

The right wingers over at the... :checks notes: New York Times just laid out the self-defense case for Kyle Rittenhouse.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

Also worth noting that Facebook has blocked #FreeKyle, a hashtag used to raise support for Kyle and spread his case. I don’t recall them protecting us from such cases arsonists and violent looters being funded online not long ago.

 

[IrishLax]

The right wingers over at the... :checks notes: New York Times just laid out the self-defense case for Kyle Rittenhouse.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

Also worth noting that Facebook has blocked #FreeKyle, a hashtag used to raise support for Kyle and spread his case. I don’t recall them protecting us from such cases arsonists and violent looters being funded online not long ago.

At no point in that do they say the words "self defense." They simply lay out images, video, and facts... and you are choosing to interpret them as "self defense."

He's already charged and will have his day in court, but methinks an illegally armed individual out past curfew with the explicit intention of confronting protesters is going to have a tough time. There have been people that have shot someone for a lot more than "lunging" and unsuccessfully claimed self defense.

 

[tussin]

He's already charged and will have his day in court, but methinks an illegally armed individual out past curfew with the explicit intention of confronting protesters is going to have a tough time. There have been people that have shot someone for a lot more than "lunging" and unsuccessfully claimed self defense.

Perhaps, but odds are low that the charges of first-degree premeditated murder will stick based on the videos.

It’s another overcharge IMO.

 

[IrishLax]

Perhaps, but odds are low that the charges of first-degree premeditated murder will stick based on the videos.

It’s another overcharge IMO.

It's certainly going to be difficult or impossible to prove premeditation.

I just hope that no one thinks that John Q citizen out in public... say, walking down the street or otherwise minding their own business... has carte blanche to pull out a gun and shoot another citizen for moving aggressively towards them. Hell, you can get punched in the face and that doesn't give you carte blanche to pull out a gun and shoot the other person.

I don't know Wisconsin law, but at least in Virginia one of the key tenets is that it has to be "proportional" with this given as an example:

Therefore, for instance, if someone spit on another person, the victim is not justified in taking out a knife and attempting to to repel the aggressor in this manner.

It goes without saying that "lunging" at someone is not proportional to shooting them in the head.

 

[Ndaccountant]

At no point in that do they say the words "self defense." They simply lay out images, video, and facts... and you are choosing to interpret them as "self defense."

He's already charged and will have his day in court, but methinks an illegally armed individual out past curfew with the explicit intention of confronting protesters is going to have a tough time. There have been people that have shot someone for a lot more than "lunging" and unsuccessfully claimed self defense.

More facts are needed of course, especially what preempted the first guy chasing him and launching what appears to be a Molotov cocktail and appearing to corner him. At this point, would the normal person be fearful of great bodily harm?

The after the fact, he is being chased by a mob. Regardless of why they are chasing him, he is actively running away and only fires after falling to the ground and having people attempting to hit him in the head with a skateboard. In that specific moment, knowing you are by yourself and there is dozens of people coming after you, would the normal person be in fear of great bodily harm? Would someone be fearful if they looked up and another man was lounging at them with a handgun in their right hand? There was another guy that was very close to the guy that got his arm nearly blown off who stops and raises his hands. The kid didn't shoot him and I think that will weigh as well.

It's an incredibly unfortunate event on how this played out. The kid should not have been there to begin with and there should have been a stronger LE presence and that is a failure on multiple levels. I think the weapon charges will stick. But when people strip out the emotion of "which side you are on" and look at this for what it is, I have a feeling that the first degree charges will not stick.

 

[Wild Bill]

Much worse was this --
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The mob wants to destroy America.<br><br>We need PATRIOTS who will defend her.</p>— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepMattGaetz/status/1298654901606780928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Hard to not draw a direct line between this kind of rhetoric and a "Blue Lives Matter" activist grabbing a rifle and taking to the streets where he ends up shooting people who are part of the "mob."

More facts are needed of course, especially what preempted the first guy chasing him and launching what appears to be a Molotov cocktail and appearing to corner him. At this point, would the normal person be fearful of great bodily harm?

The after the fact, he is being chased by a mob. Regardless of why they are chasing him, he is actively running away and only fires after falling to the ground and having people attempting to hit him in the head with a skateboard. In that specific moment, knowing you are by yourself and there is dozens of people coming after you, would the normal person be in fear of great bodily harm? Would someone be fearful if they looked up and another man was lounging at them with a handgun in their right hand? There was another guy that was very close to the guy that got his arm nearly blown off who stops and raises his hands. The kid didn't shoot him and I think that will weigh as well.

It's an incredibly unfortunate event on how this played out. The kid should not have been there to begin with and their should have been a stronger LE presence and that is a failure on multiple levels. I think the weapon charges will stick. But when people strip out the emotion of "which side you are on" and look at this for what it is, I have a feeling that the first degree charges will not stick.

It'll really just depend on how much money his family has for attorney fees and his willingness to fight the charges rather than plea. He'll walk if he can pay.

 

[Ndaccountant]

It'll really just depend on how much money his family has for attorney fees and his willingness to fight the charges rather than plea. He'll walk if he can pay.

I think Lin Wood has already volunteered to take up the case.

 

[IrishLax]

It'll really just depend on how much money his family has for attorney fees and his willingness to fight the charges rather than plea. He'll walk if he can pay.

I would bet all of the money I have that he does some time for something. I really, really doubt he walks.

 

[IrishLax]

More facts are needed of course, especially what preempted the first guy chasing him and launching what appears to be a Molotov cocktail and appearing to corner him. At this point, would the normal person be fearful of great bodily harm?

The after the fact, he is being chased by a mob. Regardless of why they are chasing him, he is actively running away and only fires after falling to the ground and having people attempting to hit him in the head with a skateboard. In that specific moment, knowing you are by yourself and there is dozens of people coming after you, would the normal person be in fear of great bodily harm? Would someone be fearful if they looked up and another man was lounging at them with a handgun in their right hand? There was another guy that was very close to the guy that got his arm nearly blown off who stops and raises his hands. The kid didn't shoot him and I think that will weigh as well.

It's an incredibly unfortunate event on how this played out. The kid should not have been there to begin with and there should have been a stronger LE presence and that is a failure on multiple levels. I think the weapon charges will stick. But when people strip out the emotion of "which side you are on" and look at this for what it is, I have a feeling that the first degree charges will not stick.

The case will be interesting to follow a year from now (or whenever it takes place). I thought George Zimmerman would walk in the Trayvon Martin case because the evidence was clear that Trayvon Martin was beating the shit out of him when he shot him.

At the time he shot people, he had been threatened but what real harm had he suffered? I think that will matter. I also think it comes down to the fact that he inserted himself in this situation... after curfew, while illegally armed... which is different than if someone had come to his house or near his property or the equivalent. Even though others are the "aggressor" I would bet he gets something because there are sure to be a handful of jurors that absolutely refuse to let him walk, so the best he can hope for is a hung jury. Murder 1? Unlikely IMO. But likely some other charges and I don't see how the weapons charge doesn't stick (and probably for maximum penalty if he skates on other charges).

 

[tussin]

I would bet all of the money I have that he does some time for something. I really, really doubt he walks.

If they overcharge him for first-degree, isn’t there actually a high probability that he walks? Isn’t that the same reason why many think Derek Chauvin will ultimately walk as well?

EDIT: Didn’t realize there were weapons charges as well. He will definitely get nailed for those.

 

[Ndaccountant]

The case will be interesting to follow a year from now (or whenever it takes place). I thought George Zimmerman would walk in the Trayvon Martin case because the evidence was clear that Trayvon Martin was beating the shit out of him when he shot him.

At the time he shot people, he had been threatened but what real harm had he suffered? I think that will matter. I also think it comes down to the fact that he inserted himself in this situation... after curfew, while illegally armed... which is different than if someone had come to his house or near his property or the equivalent. Even though others are the "aggressor" I would bet he gets something because there are sure to be a handful of jurors that absolutely refuse to let him walk, so the best he can hope for is a hung jury. Murder 1? Unlikely IMO. But likely some other charges and I don't see how the weapons charge doesn't stick (and probably for maximum penalty if he skates on other charges).

Agree. I think two of the three charges are going to be really difficult to convict. The first one where the guy gets shot in the head is the real wild card IMO. There really isn't much to go on at the moment other than the final 5 seconds.

As it relates to the bolded comment, couldn't you argue the same for at least two of the three victims (third one TBD)? Didn't they insert themselves into this, after curfew and one of them was armed. The difference is that in the specific moment, it was also one vs the mob (though he brought it upon himself). I think, in a paradoxical way, both the kid and at least two of the victims were trying to be vigilantes. It just never should have come to this.

 

[Wild Bill]

I would bet all of the money I have that he does some time for something. I really, really doubt he walks.

The gun charge is a misdemeanor, right? Thought I read that but maybe they added to it.

Even though others are the "aggressor" I would bet he gets something because there are sure to be a handful of jurors that absolutely refuse to let him walk, so the best he can hope for is a hung jury. Murder 1? Unlikely IMO. But likely some other charges and I don't see how the weapons charge doesn't stick (and probably for maximum penalty if he skates on other charges).

I agree with the jury but you'll probably get activist type jurors on both sides in a place like Kenosha. A good attorney should be able to get a jury he needs in that area, and a hung jury will likely mean the state drops charges.

 

[Legacy]

I just typed a long response but my stupid phone logged me out and I lost it.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-53909766

This addresses most your points- police were called by his gf, he was combative (taser), refused to be arrested, had a weapon (reliability unknown if he had it on him but there’s more evidence suggesting he did than didn’t), was tasered, and had multiple warrants for sex assault/ domestic issues. De-escalation techniques failed because he refused to cooperate and was combative. Believe it or not, sometimes they just don’t work.

Thanks, tommy. It does answer a lot of the questions. So they went there on a call that a boyfriend was not supposed to be there not that they were coming to arrest him on a felony warrant. More will emerge so we'll eventually have a full picture explaining why guns were drawn.

We agree this should have been handled differently and without the use of deadly force. Why not even just let him go if it comes to that? They know where he lives. Emptying seven rounds at such close range in the back. Knowing what that does to internal organs makes you ask why it has to come to that - and now especially.

A couple of tragic stories in Albuquerque that speak to two sides of a many-sided police-citizen interactions:

Two policemen, Michael King and Richard Smith, were sent out to pick up John Hyde for a mental hold. Hyde had already killed three other persons that day, unbeknownst to them or to those who put out the hold. When they arrived at his door, Hyde shot King in the head and killed Smith as he was trying to assist King. Some background on that:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18127174/ns/dateline_nbc/t/deadly-case-mr-hyde/#.X0iardNKgbl

Michael King was known to a family member, who worked with him at one of the high schools where he also was a school guard part-time to his police job. Said he was a very nice person, a proud father and a family man, and great with the kids. At the emotional press conference announcing the deaths of the APD officers was another, Sgt. Carol Oleksak, who after a year of rehab from being shot in the face, was returning to work. Hyde has never been tried being found incompetent and seventeen years later is still not competent enough.

The other tragedy is James Boyd's death at the hands of the APD, which was in ways similar to Blake's. Some differences. Long and the short of it was Boyd was a homeless man living in the open space foothills whom nearby homeowners called the police to take somewhere else. Crisis intervention made some progress but were pulled off by the sergeant after hours long standoff.

Still Boyd agreed to come down and got his backpack. For some reason tasers were then used though and were not effective, beanbags were used, dogs were unleashed and Boyd pulled a knife. Police had remained ten yards or so away. The two officers put four rounds from a rifle into him and Boyd died of massive trauma despite extensive surgery.
More info:
The Shooting of James Boyd

The same community that was shocked by Hyde's murders of two policemen were also shocked when the police body cam video of Boyd's shooting was released. In the Boyd case, the DA charged the two police officers with second degree murder, which end in a deadlock. A mistrial was declared and the decision was not to retry. Boyd's death was the final case that led to Albuquerque being put under a consent decree.

I expect Sheskey will be charged over Blake despite the background info as the cops were in Atlanta and Minneapolis and Albuquerque. There were alternatives and those were choices they made. Sheskey clearly thought he was justified in taking Blake's life. That will be hard to argue and justify to a community.

 

[drayer54]

I would bet all of the money I have that he does some time for something. I really, really doubt he walks.

I feel exactly the opposite. He has a clear self-defense case. Him having a long gun and being out late in the state of Wisconsin won’t matter. He was fleeing conflict and assaulted and in one instance threatened with a firearm. He also has good lawyers showing up to defend him.

Not a chance he gets convicted of any serious charges.

 

[Irish#1]

maybe we should hold police accountable first

Laws were enacted to set standards of conduct for the population. Let's hold people accountable first. When we do that, these situations will decrease and the need for police will decrease which means improper police actions will decrease. The police are there only because of the people who decide to ignore the law.

 

[Legacy]

I would bet all of the money I have that he does some time for something. I really, really doubt he walks.

I agree. He can't rely on a Stand Your Ground law. Even those states that do have seen juries convict in similar situations.

 

[Legacy]

The usual procedure when a dangerous and convicted felon is hospitalized is to handcuff him to a bedrail and station a guard outside the door. The paralyzed Blake is reportedly shackled on his leg to the bed, though the Gov says he was handcuffed. Maybe both. Better get that guard outside quickly so he won't escape. He could flee to Mexico.

 

[drayer54]

1- Rittenhouse won’t need a SYG defense, it would be a self-defense case. More and more video being released seems to support that it would be a solid case.

2- It does seem dumb to cuff Blake, but video evidence suggests he doesn’t listen to law enforcement ordering him to stop, so....

 

[irishff1014]

The right wingers over at the... :checks notes: New York Times just laid out the self-defense case for Kyle Rittenhouse.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

Also worth noting that Facebook has blocked #FreeKyle, a hashtag used to raise support for Kyle and spread his case. I don’t recall them protecting us from such cases arsonists and violent looters being funded online not long ago.

This situation is bad. I haven’t really said anything on this til now. If he was standing next to his mother, father, grand parent, or any other family member protecting their business I would say he was 100% in the right. However when you travel from another 2 or 3 towns over and you have no ties to the business this is bad. I thought I read his mom drove him there and that’s bull crap as well.

The funny thing is that the guy that got shot in the are was also regular criminal that wasn’t permitted to have a firearm. So he still should have been locked up.

If you lose your life because you were rioting and tearing up other people property I have no sympathy for you.

 

[irishff1014]

The usual procedure when a dangerous and convicted felon is hospitalized is to handcuff him to a bedrail and station a guard outside the door. The paralyzed Blake is reportedly shackled on his leg to the bed, though the Gov says he was handcuffed. Maybe both. Better get that guard outside quickly so he won't escape. He could flee to Mexico.

I haven’t read enough the injury part but if he is only paralyzed due to swelling you don’t know when he could regain movement. Some people need physical therapy and some people need minimal or none at all.

 

[NorthDakota]

I agree. He can't rely on a Stand Your Ground law. Even those states that do have seen juries convict in similar situations.

Self- defense looks good for him here if im recalling criminal law correctly.

I'll make an avatar wager with anyone he doesn't do a day in prison for shooting any of the three.

 

[Luckylucci]

On the Rittenhouse situation that reads very bizarre. Apparently he was stationed at the car dealership with the other armed citizens. At some point, he leaves that area and then when he tries to go back, the cops stop him and don't let him back into the area. Which is why he's then out meandering the streets and where he ultimately gets in these confrontations. This is by no means an excuse just a really bizarre situation.

 

[Irish#1]

The kid didn't need to be there in the first place, let alone have a gun. Obey the law, use common sense and think before acting and the probability of something bad happening is pretty, pretty small. The majority of these incidents that cause outrage are because the person didn't do this.

 

[Bishop2b5]

We agree this should have been handled differently and without the use of deadly force. Why not even just let him go if it comes to that? They know where he lives. Emptying seven rounds at such close range in the back. Knowing what that does to internal organs makes you ask why it has to come to that - and now especially.

A couple of tragic stories in Albuquerque that speak to two sides of a many-sided police-citizen interactions:

Two policemen, Michael King and Richard Smith, were sent out to pick up John Hyde for a mental hold. Hyde had already killed three other persons that day, unbeknownst to them or to those who put out the hold. When they arrived at his door, Hyde shot King in the head and killed Smith as he was trying to assist King.

I've seen a couple of other people, especially in regards to the story about the guy at the Atlanta Wendy's who got shot, make this suggestion. Just let him go. You can get him later. Why??? Is he going to be less likely to be combative after he's gone home and had a nap? If he's fighting and resisting and brandishing a weapon, do you think he won't do the same tomorrow when the police try to pick him up. Where does anyone get the idea that a criminal should just be able to say, "Nah man, I don't wanna get locked up right now. I'm gonna resist and run" and the cops should just shrug and let him go? What bizarro universe is it where that's how it should be?

A couple of paragraphs later in your reply you gave the answer as to why they don't just let criminals go and pick them up later. Because going to their home to serve a warrant or interact with them is even MORE dangerous than just dealing with them at the moment. Why kick the can down the road a day or two into a situation that's very likely to be even more dangerous? I truly can't fathom the thinking behind "Why not just let him go and maybe get him later since you know where he lives?" That's so completely disassociated from reality.

Why is all the focus on police and how they're sometimes less than perfect in difficult and stressful situations when everything's happening in a flash? If the protesters and some of the good people on this board really wanted to reduce the number of police shootings, they could try getting the general public to take some flippin' responsibility for their own behavior or how they teach their kids to behave. Imagine how stupid and ridiculous the following sounds to many of us. "Well, I was dealing down on the corner and that crazy ho of mine called the cops on me 'cause I'd hit her a couple of times. Oh yeah, the cashier at the store probably called 'em too after I whipped his ass and robbed his store. Then those damned cops came around hassling me about it and I wasn't gonna let them push me around and tell me what to do, so I kicked and punched them and tried to grab one of those pigs' gun and shoot him. Then they violated my rights and shot me. It was all their fault." Hands up, don't shoot and let's burn this mother down, right?

Here's an idea that would eliminate the vast majority of people getting shot by the police: STOP committing crimes and stop fighting the cops and resisting arrest. That's it. It's that simple. Really. Don't put yourself in a situation where you're likely to be on the bad end of a civilian/cop interaction. If you are, cooperate. If you think you haven't done anything and the police are citing you or trying to arrest you unlawfully, do what the rest of us do: cooperate and then get a lawyer and let him or her deal with it. Stop dealing drugs. Stop stealing. Stop assaulting people. Stop raping women. Stop breaking into people's homes and businesses. Stop stealing cars. Stop robbing folks. Stop being a $&*@!^*+$ knucklehead and act like a decent, civilized, productive member of society. Your chances of getting shot will go down about 99.9%.

 

[Legacy]

.

I've seen a couple of other people, especially in regards to the story about the guy at the Atlanta Wendy's who got shot, make this suggestion. Just let him go. You can get him later. Why??? Is he going to be less likely to be combative after he's gone home and had a nap? If he's fighting and resisting and brandishing a weapon, do you think he won't do the same tomorrow when the police try to pick him up. Where does anyone get the idea that a criminal should just be able to say, "Nah man, I don't wanna get locked up right now. I'm gonna resist and run" and the cops should just shrug and let him go? What bizarro universe is it where that's how it should be?

You certainly mix a lot together and are hyperbolizing. First, was he ever convicted of something? Let's not mix up felon and felony warrant. Second, you probably understand that in the vast majority of cases Blake is dead - massive trauma, massive destruction of organs. Third and lastly, the cop's intent was to kill. If Blake is brandishing a gun, turned and facing the cop, fine. One disabling shot in the back. Arguable.

A couple of paragraphs later in your reply you gave the answer as to why they don't just let criminals go and pick them up later. Because going to their home to serve a warrant or interact with them is even MORE dangerous than just dealing with them at the moment. Why kick the can down the road a day or two into a situation that's very likely to be even more dangerous? I truly can't fathom the thinking behind "Why not just let him go and maybe get him later since you know where he lives?" That's so completely disassociated from reality.

Let him go is the last resort. Shoot the tires out. Back away and with the door open, see if he turns with a weapon. The reality is that everyone has a camera. Who's calling the police anymore in some communities if they can't trust them not to kill at their discretion?
Community policing advancements just got set back years. Reality is what we get - and not just local reaction. This is blip on national consciousness if they make it impossible for him to go anywhere and talk him out or pick him up down the road.

Why is all the focus on police and how they're sometimes less than perfect in difficult and stressful situations when everything's happening in a flash? If the protesters and some of the good people on this board really wanted to reduce the number of police shootings, they could try getting the general public to take some flippin' responsibility for their own behavior or how they teach their kids to behave. Imagine how stupid and ridiculous the following sounds to many of us. "Well, I was dealing down on the corner and that crazy ho of mine called the cops on me 'cause I'd hit her a couple of times. Oh yeah, the cashier at the store probably called 'em too after I whipped his ass and robbed his store. Then those damned cops came around hassling me about it and I wasn't gonna let them push me around and tell me what to do, so I kicked and punched them and tried to grab one of those pigs' gun and shoot him. Then they violated my rights and shot me. It was all their fault." Hands up, don't shoot and let's burn this mother down, right?

The national outrage at incidents all over the country and police being fired and charged is "less than perfect". Regardless of your opinion of me, I respect you too much to comment on the rest. We disagree, but I'd rather not comment further on this.

Here's an idea that would eliminate the vast majority of people getting shot by the police: STOP committing crimes and stop fighting the cops and resisting arrest. That's it. It's that simple. Really. Don't put yourself in a situation where you're likely to be on the bad end of a civilian/cop interaction. If you are, cooperate. If you think you haven't done anything and the police are citing you or trying to arrest you unlawfully, do what the rest of us do: cooperate and then get a lawyer and let him or her deal with it. Stop dealing drugs. Stop stealing. Stop assaulting people. Stop raping women. Stop breaking into people's homes and businesses. Stop stealing cars. Stop robbing folks. Stop being a $&*@!^*+$ knucklehead and act like a decent, civilized, productive member of society. Your chances of getting shot will go down about 99.9%.

Have I ever advocated any of this? This does sound to me a little like Trump's rant if the Democrats are elected. Infidels at the gate stuff. Arm yourselves to resist.

 

[Bishop2b5]

You certainly mix a lot together and are hyperbolizing. First, was he ever convicted of something? Let's not mix up felon and felony warrant. Second, you probably understand that in the vast majority of cases Blake is dead - massive trauma, massive destruction of organs. Third and lastly, the cop's intent was to kill. If Blake is brandishing a gun, turned and facing the cop, fine. One disabling shot in the back. Arguable.

You asked why they didn't just let him go since they knew where he lived. I answered that. It's a ridiculous idea and one that leads to even more dangerous situations. It's tragic that he got shot, but it wouldn't have happened if he'd cooperated and obeyed the officers' legal commands. Nothing good comes of resisting arrest and threatening the cops. Put some responsibility where it lies, on Blake.

Let him go is the last resort. Shoot the tires out. Back away and with the door open, see if he turns with a weapon. The reality is that everyone has a camera. Who's calling the police anymore in some communities if they can't trust them not to kill at their discretion?
Community policing advancements just got set back years. Reality is what we get - and not just local reaction. This is blip on national consciousness if they make it impossible for him to go anywhere and talk him out or pick him up down the road.

This isn't a video game or a Hollywood movie, Legacy. This is the real world. By the time he turns with a gun and opens fire, guess what? You and your partner and maybe a couple of innocent bystanders are dead. You can't shoot the gun out of his hand. He won't always miss with his first 10 shots and you be able to take him out with single shot. THIS ISN"T HOLLYWOOD. It's the real world. The cops try to deescalate these situations before it gets to that. If you refuse to cooperate and put your weapons down and stop threatening, you're likely going to get shot. Do you know why? It's not because the cops are on a power trip or just want to shoot someone or love killing black folks. It's because experience has shown that in those situations where the person won't put down their weapons and obey the officer's commands and the cops don't shoot him, he almost always kills someone. Maybe the cops, maybe his wife he's angry at, maybe the person he's holding hostage, but someone. All your shoot out his tires and wait and see if he really grabs a gun and will use it BS gets innocent people killed.

The national outrage at incidents all over the country and police being fired and charged is "less than perfect". Regardless of your opinion of me, I respect you too much to comment on the rest. We disagree, but I'd rather not comment further on this.

I wish the national outrage would also focus some on the knuckleheads committing the crimes and resisting arrest. My opinion of you is fine. I respect you and believe your intentions are good. I also believe that they're rather disassociated from reality. You're completely focused on one side of the equation and have no clue how difficult it is, yet you expect perfection from the police and give a free pass to the violent criminals who are causing the situations. You should spend a few nights on a police ride along in a high crime area or go through some gun training and see just how difficult it is to determine if someone has a gun or not, and what happens if you hesitate or underestimate the threat.

Have I ever advocated any of this? This does sound to me a little like Trump's rant if the Democrats are elected. Infidels at the gate stuff. Arm yourselves to resist.

No you haven't advocated it, but as I mentioned above, you've totally focused on the police part of the problem and not the source: the criminals. Is your goal to bash the police or is it to reduce police shootings? If it's the latter, you'd have enormously greater results by reducing the criminal behavior that brings police into contact with them and teaching them to stop escalating the situation by resisting arrest and fighting with the cops. Guess what? I don't see the cops dragging little old ladies out of Bible Study and shooting them. I don't see them killing vets down at the VFW too often. I can't remember the last time I heard about them going into a factory and just picking out some hard working black guy to shoot. Funny how 99% of the folks they shoot are engaged in some sort of criminal activity and usually resist arrest and fight the cops.

 

[Legacy]

Bishop,

Yesterday I posted two tragic stories that happened in Albuquerque. Heart-wrenching both. The John Hyde one shows the dangers many cops face daily. James Boyd's death seemed to leave everyone asking "What could have been done differently?"

Ever hear of the CAHOOTS program? Many cities are adopting this with funding going to them instead of the police. They work in collaboration with the police. Albuquerque and many other situations are instituting it.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...omelessness-drug-use-and-mental-health-issues