The Philadelphia shooting and reaction from Trump and Biden

[lawgator1]

1) I have seen the video and read the witness accounts, including background issues for Walter Wallace. My initial impression is that the officers were justified in firing. Wallace came at them with a knife, they backed up and he refused orders to drop the knife and instead came at them with it. While he was I'd estimate 15 to 20 feet away, and while they could probably back up further, that is not realistic. You can't just retreat forever, and it would take just 1-2 seconds for him to close that distance.

2) Wallace evidently had mental illness. But, you cannot ask the cops to deal with THAT. They are dealing with a person threatening them with a knife in that moment. If you want to criticize the system or society in the big picture for handling mental illness generally or specifically in the case of Wallace, that's fine. But the officers do not have the luxury of allowing themselves to be attack because he's not right in the head.

3) I have listened to the responses from both Biden and Trump. I think that the threshold reaction from both is correct in that both have said a) its a tragedy it happened; and b) looting and rioting is wrong. Its interesting that Biden went on to say that peaceful protesting is fine, but not any violence, whereas Trump did not speak to that at all and instead just criticized states or cities with Dem governance. I get why he does that, but its really not effective because its not that Dems promote or don't want to see an end to rioting and looting; it has to do with resources and not wanting to make a bad situation worse. Its easy for Trump to just say "we ought to get in their and knock some heads together and get control." But I think most people recognize that such a reaction, done poorly, can make the situation that much worse.

4) When looking into this I saw a posted article or claim of quote that Biden said in such cases the cops should just shoot them in the leg. I see that from a townhall, and the police advocates have criticized him for that. I agree with the police representatives and join the criticism of Biden for those comments. Police are trained to resort to deadly force when faced with a threat of death or great bodily harm. There is no time for gradations of response within that structure. If someone is threatening to kill you and has the apparent means to do it in that moment, your response has to be to kill them, not to try Kung Fu moves or tasers, shoot them in the leg, etc. Hopefully Biden listens to the experts on that down the line.

 

[Y9 Vol]

Well, we were waiting with baited breathe for your analysis...we can all sleep better tonight. Thanks LG.

 

[865er]

Well, we were waiting with baited breathe for your analysis...we can all sleep better tonight. Thanks LG.

Honestly wasn't a bad take from his response.

 

[utvolpj]

Its interesting that Biden went on to say that peaceful protesting is fine,

No, it's idiotic

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

1) I have seen the video and read the witness accounts, including background issues for Walter Wallace. My initial impression is that the officers were justified in firing. Wallace came at them with a knife, they backed up and he refused orders to drop the knife and instead came at them with it. While he was I'd estimate 15 to 20 feet away, and while they could probably back up further, that is not realistic. You can't just retreat forever, and it would take just 1-2 seconds for him to close that distance.

2) Wallace evidently had mental illness. But, you cannot ask the cops to deal with THAT. They are dealing with a person threatening them with a knife in that moment. If you want to criticize the system or society in the big picture for handling mental illness generally or specifically in the case of Wallace, that's fine. But the officers do not have the luxury of allowing themselves to be attack because he's not right in the head.

3) I have listened to the responses from both Biden and Trump. I think that the threshold reaction from both is correct in that both have said a) its a tragedy it happened; and b) looting and rioting is wrong. Its interesting that Biden went on to say that peaceful protesting is fine, but not any violence, whereas Trump did not speak to that at all and instead just criticized states or cities with Dem governance. I get why he does that, but its really not effective because its not that Dems promote or don't want to see an end to rioting and looting; it has to do with resources and not wanting to make a bad situation worse. Its easy for Trump to just say "we ought to get in their and knock some heads together and get control." But I think most people recognize that such a reaction, done poorly, can make the situation that much worse.

4) When looking into this I saw a posted article or claim of quote that Biden said in such cases the cops should just shoot them in the leg. I see that from a townhall, and the police advocates have criticized him for that. I agree with the police representatives and join the criticism of Biden for those comments. Police are trained to resort to deadly force when faced with a threat of death or great bodily harm. There is no time for gradations of response within that structure. If someone is threatening to kill you and has the apparent means to do it in that moment, your response has to be to kill them, not to try Kung Fu moves or tasers, shoot them in the leg, etc. Hopefully Biden listens to the experts on that down the line.

Why can't we get more of this type of balanced and reasoned postings from you?

 

[Y9 Vol]

Honestly wasn't a bad take from his response.

Stay around a while on VN and you will understand my response better.

 

[Grand Vol]

1) I have seen the video and read the witness accounts, including background issues for Walter Wallace. My initial impression is that the officers were justified in firing. Wallace came at them with a knife, they backed up and he refused orders to drop the knife and instead came at them with it. While he was I'd estimate 15 to 20 feet away, and while they could probably back up further, that is not realistic. You can't just retreat forever, and it would take just 1-2 seconds for him to close that distance.

2) Wallace evidently had mental illness. But, you cannot ask the cops to deal with THAT. They are dealing with a person threatening them with a knife in that moment. If you want to criticize the system or society in the big picture for handling mental illness generally or specifically in the case of Wallace, that's fine. But the officers do not have the luxury of allowing themselves to be attack because he's not right in the head.

3) I have listened to the responses from both Biden and Trump. I think that the threshold reaction from both is correct in that both have said a) its a tragedy it happened; and b) looting and rioting is wrong. Its interesting that Biden went on to say that peaceful protesting is fine, but not any violence, whereas Trump did not speak to that at all and instead just criticized states or cities with Dem governance. I get why he does that, but its really not effective because its not that Dems promote or don't want to see an end to rioting and looting; it has to do with resources and not wanting to make a bad situation worse. Its easy for Trump to just say "we ought to get in their and knock some heads together and get control." But I think most people recognize that such a reaction, done poorly, can make the situation that much worse.

4) When looking into this I saw a posted article or claim of quote that Biden said in such cases the cops should just shoot them in the leg. I see that from a townhall, and the police advocates have criticized him for that. I agree with the police representatives and join the criticism of Biden for those comments. Police are trained to resort to deadly force when faced with a threat of death or great bodily harm. There is no time for gradations of response within that structure. If someone is threatening to kill you and has the apparent means to do it in that moment, your response has to be to kill them, not to try Kung Fu moves or tasers, shoot them in the leg, etc. Hopefully Biden listens to the experts on that down the line.

1) He was only 10 feet away when they fired according to reports. And as you noted, he had serious background issues including forced entry and putting a gun to a woman's head. Truly a model citizen.

2) Mental issues to the side, your friends on the left clamoring for mental health professionals to respond to such things are way off. No doctor or social worker will go into that situation knowing an armed violent man with a criminal background is about to snap. The cops will go in by default.

3) Well, Trump has a point. The vast majority of problems have been in Democrat run cities and States. The real question you should be asking is why they don't want help from the Feds? Furthermore, maybe the Philadelphia DA could concentrate more on keeping his streets safe than talking **** to the President about poll watchers. He's not multitasking very well.

4) Yes, Biden went Simple Jack on that just like he does with everything. I know who you work for and I applaud that kind of work for you. But you need to face facts you're going to get screwed if Biden wins.

Every cop in the nation will be more nervous than a chicken at a butcher convention if Biden/Harris get elected. It will be open season on anyone with a badge.

 

[allvol123]

That this is even a topic, is retarded.

 

[jaybird_1981]

4) When looking into this I saw a posted article or claim of quote that Biden said in such cases the cops should just shoot them in the leg. I see that from a townhall, and the police advocates have criticized him for that. I agree with the police representatives and join the criticism of Biden for those comments. Police are trained to resort to deadly force when faced with a threat of death or great bodily harm. There is no time for gradations of response within that structure. If someone is threatening to kill you and has the apparent means to do it in that moment, your response has to be to kill them, not to try Kung Fu moves or tasers, shoot them in the leg, etc. Hopefully Biden listens to the experts on that down the line.

You think Biden advocates shooting people in the leg out of ignorance? I think he knows how dumb it is and says it anyways to pander. So if you think if he gets elected he will back down off of stupid stuff like that you are wrong.

 

[superdave1984]

Shoot in the leg, perp goes down, medical (or the police) comes to administer aid, perp stabs them. Yeah that's better.
Drop your weapon or get dead.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Dude's family has the responsibility to get this dude some professional help and keep him from doing this....
If he was a family member of mine he would not be out running around threatening people outdoors.
If he was this far gone mentally he'd have a special room in house w/padded walls to stay in 24/7.

 

[lawgator1]

2) Mental issues to the side, your friends on the left clamoring for mental health professionals to respond to such things are way off. No doctor or social worker will go into that situation knowing an armed violent man with a criminal background is about to snap. The cops will go in by default.

I agree with you. It is not practical.

3) Well, Trump has a point. The vast majority of problems have been in Democrat run cities and States. The real question you should be asking is why they don't want help from the Feds? Furthermore, maybe the Philadelphia DA could concentrate more on keeping his streets safe than talking **** to the President about poll watchers. He's not multitasking very well.

Confuses cause and effect. The poorer communities, particularly minority communities tend to be in large cities, which vote Dem more so than rural areas. That does not mean that Dem control is what causes these problems, which is the narrative of the right. It just means that Dem control and these problems tend to occur in the same place because of the nature of the socio-economics and demographics within them.

4) Yes, Biden went Simple Jack on that just like he does with everything. I know who you work for and I applaud that kind of work for you. But you need to face facts you're going to get screwed if Biden wins.

Every cop in the nation will be more nervous than a chicken at a butcher convention if Biden/Harris get elected. It will be open season on anyone with a badge.

I really don't think much would change other than tone. The qualified immunity debate in the courts is independent of this election and has been going on for awhile.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

It’s simple. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. 100% justified.

 

[Grand Vol]

I agree with you. It is not practical.

Confuses cause and effect. The poorer communities, particularly minority communities tend to be in large cities, which vote Dem more so than rural areas. That does not mean that Dem control is what causes these problems, which is the narrative of the right. It just means that Dem control and these problems tend to occur in the same place because of the nature of the socio-economics and demographics within them.

I really don't think much would change other than tone. The qualified immunity debate in the courts is independent of this election and has been going on for awhile.

I do think it's a practical option in many cases, just not this one in particular.

Here's my issue with what you're saying...

It doesn't matter who they voted for. The Democrat leaders are the ones allowing their communities to get ripped up. They aren't asking for help, they are openly opposing the President when he offers help and they "stand with" rioters quite frequently. Because Orange Man Bad.

Put stupid politics to the side and restore order.

Now, qualified immunity only applies in civil cases. I've seen more and more criminal cases in recent months that makes the civil courts have to wait. And if the officer in question is found guilty, the department (in turn whatever municipality they are in) pretty much admits guilt in the matter.

With the pandering going on to these groups like BLM, I can see more officers being charged or criminally investigated as a minimum. That's going to affect the quality of recruits and overall numbers. The left has helped make law enforcement a purely radioactive career path.

The genie is out of the bottle. These "protests" that quickly turn violent are not going to go away just because Trump is or isn't in office.

They will get worse...

 

[lawgator1]

I do think it's a practical option in many cases, just not this one in particular.

Here's my issue with what you're saying...

It doesn't matter who they voted for. The Democrat leaders are the ones allowing their communities to get ripped up. They aren't asking for help, they are openly opposing the President when he offers help and they "stand with" rioters quite frequently. Because Orange Man Bad.

Put stupid politics to the side and restore order.

Now, qualified immunity only applies in civil cases. I've seen more and more criminal cases in recent months that makes the civil courts have to wait. And if the officer in question is found guilty, the department (in turn whatever municipality they are in) pretty much admits guilt in the matter.

With the pandering going on to these groups like BLM, I can see more officers being charged or criminally investigated as a minimum. That's going to affect the quality of recruits and overall numbers. The left has helped make law enforcement a purely radioactive career path.

The genie is out of the bottle. These "protests" that quickly turn violent are not going to go away just because Trump is or isn't in office.

They will get worse...

The response is that you are forcing those City leaders to choose between what is typically 2-3 nights of violence, with some damage but usually not so severe as to be truly problematic, versus calling in troops or a different kind of law enforcement to confront them, which carries with it a significant risk that the situation escalates.

I don't think you can blame them if they choose to let the fire burn out on its own rather quickly, versus pouring gasoline on it.

Now, if you can find an example where a Dem city leader decided to opt against federal involvement solely to deprive Trump of the chance to say "I told you so" on the campaign trail then I'd be the first, if i lived in that City, to vote against the decision maker who did that.

 

[37L1]

The response is that you are forcing those City leaders to choose between what is typically 2-3 nights of violence, with some damage but usually not so severe as to be truly problematic, versus calling in troops or a different kind of law enforcement to confront them, which carries with it a significant risk that the situation escalates.

I don't think you can blame them if they choose to let the fire burn out on its own rather quickly, versus pouring gasoline on it.

Now, if you can find an example where a Dem city leader decided to opt against federal involvement solely to deprive Trump of the chance to say "I told you so" on the campaign trail then I'd be the first, if i lived in that City, to vote against the decision maker who did that.

Portland and Seattle say "Hello!"

 

[Grand Vol]

The response is that you are forcing those City leaders to choose between what is typically 2-3 nights of violence, with some damage but usually not so severe as to be truly problematic, versus calling in troops or a different kind of law enforcement to confront them, which carries with it a significant risk that the situation escalates.

I don't think you can blame them if they choose to let the fire burn out on its own rather quickly, versus pouring gasoline on it.

Now, if you can find an example where a Dem city leader decided to opt against federal involvement solely to deprive Trump of the chance to say "I told you so" on the campaign trail then I'd be the first, if i lived in that City, to vote against the decision maker who did that.

Bruh...

How long did that **** go on in Portland? (I think it's ongoing)

Seattle lost control of a portion of their city for almost a month while the Governor and Mayor told Trump "no, stay out."

Philadelphia is going on round 2.

LA decided to loot because of the Dodgers.

NY decided to "support" Philly in their looting.

What's the common denominator here? I'll answer it for you to deprive you off a chance for a snarky comment...

It was allowed to go on to begin with. And who ends up footing the bill on reconstruction when Pelosi puts in relief funds for the very same Democratic cities they allowed to burn? Who's insurance rates skyrocket each and every time a business is looted?

You don't put the glass off milk out for the mouse that stole your cookie.

 

[lawgator1]

Portland and Seattle say "Hello!"

Bruh...

How long did that **** go on in Portland? (I think it's ongoing)


Seattle lost control of a portion of their city for almost a month while the Governor and Mayor told Trump "no, stay out."

Philadelphia is going on round 2.

LA decided to loot because of the Dodgers.

NY decided to "support" Philly in their looting.

What's the common denominator here? I'll answer it for you to deprive you off a chance for a snarky comment...

It was allowed to go on to begin with. And who ends up footing the bill on reconstruction when Pelosi puts in relief funds for the very same Democratic cities they allowed to burn? Who's insurance rates skyrocket each and every time a business is looted?

You don't put the glass off milk out for the mouse that stole your cookie.

Do you support the right of the citizens to peacefully protest?

 

[37L1]

Do you support the right of the citizens to peacefully protest?

Does "peacefully" include rocks, bottles, bags of crap, fires, fireworks aimed at law enforcement, lasers aimed at eyes, vandalism, prevention of business owners from access and operation, road blocks, etc.?

 

[Y9 Vol]

Do you support the right of the citizens to peacefully protest?

Yeah...THAT is what is happening in the cities mentioned.

 

[Grand Vol]

Do you support the right of the citizens to peacefully protest?

I absolutely and wholeheartedly support the freedom to assemble and address grievances against your government.

Peacefully...

I've seen plenty of BLM rallies where the protests were non-violent and got their point across. I support those, fought to defend people's right to do so and even support some of the points they bring about police reform.

But when those rallies are used as a vehicle to burn, loot and pillage. Or when people are bullying others into storing them. Or targeting others because they believe different, I draw the line. The position is not so absolute we cannot compromise.

 

[lawgator1]

Does "peacefully" include rocks, bottles, bags of crap, fires, fireworks aimed at law enforcement, lasers aimed at eyes, vandalism, prevention of business owners from access and operation, road blocks, etc.?

Yeah...THAT is what is happening in the cities mentioned.

You are both dodging the question and simply saying you oppose violence, a point on which we all agree.

 

[lawgator1]

I absolutely and wholeheartedly support the freedom to assemble and address grievances against your government.

Peacefully...

I've seen plenty of BLM rallies where the protests were non-violent and got their point across. I support those, fought to defend people's right to do so and even support some of the points they bring about police reform.

But when those rallies are used as a vehicle to burn, loot and pillage. Or when people are bullying others into storing them. Or targeting others because they believe different, I draw the line. The position is not so absolute we cannot compromise.

I agree.

 

[RikidyBones]

Do you support the right of the citizens to peacefully protest?

Deflection. Seattle and Portland have had violence and riots before Trump and after Trump threatened to send in forces and had it after. Both are proof that it's not 2-3 days without federal troops. Jacksonville had a night or two and allowed the cops to make arrests on violent actors. Actual peaceful protests occurred after with no violence.

 

[RikidyBones]

Do you support the right of the citizens to peacefully protest?

You accuse them of dodging the question while you deflect and shift the argument from the core problem?