Police shooting black man in the back ... again (Kenosha, WI)

#427
#427
lawgator1 said:
I love the "they could have tackled him" argument. Its right up there with tasing. Or "shoot him in the leg."

The tactical decisions can be criticized forever. In hindsight knowing what happened, you can always theorize some alternative outcome had some other course of action been taken.

That has nothing to do with the constitutionality of use of force. That is entirely dependent in this case on whether they reasonably perceived a threat from him when they fired.

And, to boot, when you theorize about what the police could have done differently, don't forget to theorize about what he could have done differently. He could have not walked away and instead cooperated. He could have not reached into the door of the car.

And then, since we are dealing with alternative universes, let's say they tackle him. And then there is a claim they injured him that way. There is uproar over that. Shades of George Floyd on the ground.

In the case of all of this, you have to think in terms of what was known, at the moment of decision. Not what is known later. From another vantage point. And with no information from the video about what happened prior to then.
Click to expand...

OK - lets do that.

What was KNOWN at the moment the shots were fired? The only thing that was known was he was getting in his car. Anything about a weapon or otherwise at that moment is speculation. My issue is "whether they reasonably perceived a threat" from him. I'm sure they did perceive a threat. Was that a "reasonable" perception? I don't think it was reasonable enough to shoot him in the back 7 times.

Now, admittedly, I'm not a lawyer or a cop, so what do I know. However, I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that at the end of the day an unarmed man being shot 7 times in the back means something went awry from both sides. There is culpability from both sides and both have some accountability here.
 
#429
#429
I really doubt he was behaving in a non threatening way. I've not seen the full video of the encounter. If anyone knows where it is if it exist please post link. This incomplete footage can be dangerous. I find it interesting that all the police on scene drew their weapons
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel and Rickyvol77
#432
#432
rjd970 said:
OK - lets do that.

What was KNOWN at the moment the shots were fired? The only thing that was known was he was getting in his car. Anything about a weapon or otherwise at that moment is speculation. My issue is "whether they reasonably perceived a threat" from him. I'm sure they did perceive a threat. Was that a "reasonable" perception? I don't think it was reasonable enough to shoot him in the back 7 times.

Now, admittedly, I'm not a lawyer or a cop, so what do I know. However, I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that at the end of the day an unarmed man being shot 7 times in the back means something went awry from both sides. There is culpability from both sides and both have some accountability here.
Click to expand...

The guy filming the incident said the cops told him mulitple times to "drop the knife" before he walked around the car. So at minimum, he was at least perceived as having a weapon at some point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and Y9 Vol
#433
#433
rjd970 said:
OK - lets do that.

What was KNOWN at the moment the shots were fired? The only thing that was known was he was getting in his car. Anything about a weapon or otherwise at that moment is speculation. My issue is "whether they reasonably perceived a threat" from him. I'm sure they did perceive a threat. Was that a "reasonable" perception? I don't think it was reasonable enough to shoot him in the back 7 times.

Now, admittedly, I'm not a lawyer or a cop, so what do I know. However, I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that at the end of the day an unarmed man being shot 7 times in the back means something went awry from both sides. There is culpability from both sides and both have some accountability here.
Click to expand...


You admit you don't know what they perceived, but then you say that their actions were unreasonable.

tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel and Y9 Vol
#434
#434
lukeneyland said:
I really doubt he was behaving in a non threatening way. I've not seen the full video of the encounter. If anyone knows where it is if it exist please post link. This incomplete footage can be dangerous. I find it interesting that all the police on scene drew their weapons
Click to expand...

I learned my lesson jumping to conclusions without all the fact with that kid and the Indian . I had to apologize for saying stupid things before the facts were in . I’m betting we are going to see that happen here . People jumping straddle of the situation without waiting for facts .
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel, lukeneyland and jp1
#435
#435
lukeneyland said:
I really doubt he was behaving in a non threatening way. I've not seen the full video of the encounter. If anyone knows where it is if it exist please post link. This incomplete footage can be dangerous. I find it interesting that all the police on scene drew their weapons
Click to expand...


And at the same time. He did or said something to cause that.
 
#438
#438
rjd970 said:
OK - lets do that.

What was KNOWN at the moment the shots were fired? The only thing that was known was he was getting in his car. Anything about a weapon or otherwise at that moment is speculation. My issue is "whether they reasonably perceived a threat" from him. I'm sure they did perceive a threat. Was that a "reasonable" perception? I don't think it was reasonable enough to shoot him in the back 7 times.

Now, admittedly, I'm not a lawyer or a cop, so what do I know. However, I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that at the end of the day an unarmed man being shot 7 times in the back means something went awry from both sides. There is culpability from both sides and both have some accountability here.
Click to expand...

A policeman pulls over a subject which has a known criminal past, possibly violent. The subject obviously knows the policeman are armed and have the authority to use deadly force. Yet with this knowledge the subject refuses to comply, walks away, and reaches into his car. So at this point the policeman has a decision to make. Should I use the deadly force provided? Should I try to tackle the subject? Should I hope he is reaching for a cell phone? How long does the policeman have to make this decision? Minutes? Seconds? Split seconds? To insure you go home to your family, what decision would the people on here make in those critical moments?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel, hmhawk, Rickyvol77 and 1 other person
#439
#439
PointGuard said:
Yeah nobody cares blacks keep getting shot in the back if it was “your” king just going back to Rodney King circa late 1980’s what would you do?
Click to expand...
Has rioting, looting and burning down businesses / neighborhoods ever produced positive results?

Early 90’s. Rodney King arrest was in 1991. Rodney King riots were in 1992.

A lot of people care. A lot of people can’t identify with the violence and destruction of property that has happened since George Floyd’s death.

I don’t know what I’d do, but rioting & looting isn’t on my bucket list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel, MemphisVol77 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#440
#440
rjd970 said:
If he wouldn't have resisted, if the officers had just handcuffed him on the ground, if...if...if....is my point. At the end of all those if's, one is in the hospital and the others aren't. I don't give one holy F about his criminal history because it literally has nothing to do with that specific moment he decided to resist and the officer decided to let him walk to his car to shoot him.

That is what we are talking about here and you bringing it up and saying he deserved it and making quips about him being paralyzed speaks volumes. It's low rent just like the multiple officers on site that couldn't handle this one guy without shooting him 7 times in the back.
Click to expand...
and you obviously have never tried to handle a domestic fight between 3 people at the same time with a large crowd of participants in background also fighting and arguing while "controlling the scene". Nitpick all you want, but the felon caused all of this, and the felon's actions led to what happened to him... as always
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10nacvols, davethevol and W.TN.Orange Blood
#441
#441
rjd970 said:
OK - lets do that.

What was KNOWN at the moment the shots were fired? The only thing that was known was he was getting in his car. Anything about a weapon or otherwise at that moment is speculation. My issue is "whether they reasonably perceived a threat" from him. I'm sure they did perceive a threat. Was that a "reasonable" perception? I don't think it was reasonable enough to shoot him in the back 7 times.

Now, admittedly, I'm not a lawyer or a cop, so what do I know. However, I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that at the end of the day an unarmed man being shot 7 times in the back means something went awry from both sides. There is culpability from both sides and both have some accountability here.
Click to expand...
We can argue that they could have handled it differently before he got to the car but once he reached inside.... he is a really big threat.... cops are suppose to keep shooting like they did
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top